Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
The research work investigated the effects of social responsibility accounting (SRA) on the
performance of firms in Rivers State of Nigeria. Three research questions and hypothesis were
1
raised. Chi-square test was adopted for the study with the use of statistical package for social
sciences (SPSS) in analyzing the data. The research was conducted using a primary data gotten
from well-structured questionnaire. The findings on the profitability of the companies shows that
social responsibility accounting can improve on the profitability of companies by increasing the
companys return on equity (ROE), earnings per share (EPS), return on capital employed
(ROCE) and also its return on investment (ROI). Corporate social responsibility accounting can
also lead to the maximization of shareholders wealth by positively affecting the long term
stability of the company. Social responsibility accounting is a tool for share price maximization
and it also improves the companys return of capital. It is concluded that, it can improve the
goodwill of company by providing conducive working environment for job satisfaction and job
security. It plays a major role in youth development which in turn reduces menace in the society,
social responsibility accounting contributes to infrastructural development with the provision of
health care facilities, water, quality education and social security; it also enhances the
relationship between company and their host communities. The researcher recommended that
firms should liaise with community authorities to identify areas or opportunity available to them
to better the lives of the people through the provision of social amenities. Firms should intensify
efforts to educate the public on their primary responsibility, various commitment to other
stakeholders and operational/financial limitations, further studies should be conducted to
establish the value in monetary terms as to how much CSRs contributes to the organizations
profitability and to the degree at which CSR programmes have impacted on the society and its
corresponding value generation for the company.
INTRODUCTION
Social responsibility accounting started in developed countries as a result of pressures from
environmental and human rights groups, and has been known by various terms such as; social
and environmental accounting, corporate social reporting, corporate social responsibility
reporting, non-financial reporting; however, it is more common to refer to it as Social
Responsibility Accounting (SRA). It is defined as a branch of accounting that aims to define the
results of an institution or organization and its financial position from a social perspective since
companies are relevant and affect societies as a whole (Suleiman & Younis, 2013). Although
social responsibility accounting and reporting arent compulsory for businesses because there is no
law at present covering it, but companies do on their own volition report on social issues. Many
scientists argue that there is positive relationship between social responsibility reporting and companys
financial performance: KPMG survey (2011). Despite the extensive empirical studies of corporate
2
social responsibility information impact to companys reputation and financial performance, different
attitudes show the lack of consensus on the impact of corporate responsibility reporting on companys
value and financial performance. In Nigeria, many organisations in one way or the other have show
some levels of interest in their host communities but have not given the needed financial
reporting touch to these expenses which could impacted on their performance. Most of the
disclosures are done via the directors report or notes to the accounts but they are not explicitly
disclosed or made to be part of the financial statement. That is why it is necessarily important to
examine the effect of social responsibility accounting on the performance of selected companies
in Rivers State, Nigeria (Onyekwelu & Uche, 2014).
To check the extent to which social responsibility accounting improves the goodwill of
companies
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
From the research questions, the following null hypotheses were drawn and tested in the study
H01:
companies
H02:
shareholders wealth
H03:
LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical review
Triple Bottom Line
The term TBL was coined by Elkington in 1994 and refers to fundamental aspects that
contributes to the success of a company; social, environmental and economic; To enable
success companies need to focus on other factors besides solely economic (Emelie & Lilja,
2012). This TBL is also called Triple P (people, planet, profit) and reporting within annual
reports and financial statements. Also noted is the variety in the extent and nature of the
reporting, particularly across industry sectors and between countries (Labelle et al., 2006). These
differences have been shown, however, to be unrelated to profitability, but associated with entity size
and the regulatory environment (Stanwick and Stanwick, 2006).
Conceptual Framework
The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
In the literature on CSR different authors described it in different ways. There is no universal
definition of CSR, organizations have framed different definitions and there are several
perceptions of the term according to the context locally and among the countries. According to
Egels (2005), the area defined by advocates of CSR increasingly covers a wide range of issues
such as plant closures, employee relations, human rights, corporate ethics, community relations
and the environment. According to Ruggie (2002), CSR is a strategy for demonstrating good
faith, social legitimacy, and a commitment that goes beyond the financial bottom line.
5
In the opposite, Frederick (1994) explained a move from Corporate Social Responsibility to
Corporate Social Responsiveness defined as the capacity of a corporation to respond to
social pressures. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development, in its
publication "Corporate Social Responsibility: making good business sense" by Holme and
Watts (2002) provided different perceptions of what CSR should mean from a number of different
societies. For example, "CSR is about capacity building for sustainable livelihoods. It respects
cultural differences and finds the business opportunities in building the skills of employees, the
community and the government.
The concept of social responsibility has very high important components of ethics that are
the guidelines going to improve the quality of life of the people in organizations and, at the
same time, provides an industrial competitive advantage for the firm and needs to be
developed as a corporate strategy of the firm focusing in the issues of social, environmental
and economics. According to Frooman (1997), the definition of what would exemplify CSR is
the following: An action by a firm, which the firm chooses to take, that substantially affects
an identifiable social stakeholders welfare. A socially responsible corporation should take
a step forward and adopt policies and business practices that go beyond the minimum legal
requirements and contribute to the welfare of its key stakeholders. CSR is viewed, then, as a
comprehensive set of policies, practices, and programs that are integrated into business
operations, supply chains, and decision-making processes throughout the company and usually
include issues related to business ethics, community investment, environmental concerns,
governance, human rights, the marketplace as well as the workplace.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a concept whereby companies integrate social
and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their
stakeholders on a voluntary basis (European Commission, 2001). Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) is a means of discussing the extent of obligations a business has to its
immediate society; a way of proposing policy ideas on how those obligations can be met; as
well as a tool by which the benefits to a business for meeting those obligations can be
identified (CSR Guide). CSR is also referred to as corporate or business responsibility,
corporate or business citizenship, community relations, social responsibility. It involves
6
the way organizations make business decisions, the products and services they offer, their
efforts to achieve an open and honest culture, the way they manage the social, environmental
and economic impacts of business activities and their relationships with their employees,
customers and other key stakeholders having interest in the Business and its operations.
As Warhust (2001) points out, the three major elements of CSR are product use which focuses
on contribution of industrial products which help in well-being and quality of life of the society,
business practice which focuses on good corporate governance and gives high impetus for the
environmental well-being and equity, and finally distribution of profits equitably across
different societies, in particular the host community.
Corporations maximize the benefits and minimize the cost for their self and for future and
present generations. From being social responsible, an important expected benefit is ADD
value for the corporation that is represented in corporate reputations and creating value
7
thinking in present and future generation, corporations have identity, conscience-they are
responsible citizens-, their values and principles are alienated with international principles to
maximize corporate wealth. CSR is a value asset for the firms. This social responsible citizen is
perceived by various stakeholders and they react to the perceived reputation of a corporation
and social issues in general (Dane, 2004). Reactions could be viewed in terms of benefits of
cost for the wealth of the corporation: Moreover, in the market, Corporate Social Responsible
behavior has positive consequences, for instance in terms of reputation, good will, to behave
responsible is an important asset for the corporation. Also these market positives
consequences/rewards are reflected in employees and customer fidelity. According to
Mainelli, corporate rewards/positives consequences can be seeing from two perspectives:
carrots for success and freedom from sticks. Freedom from sticks includes not being subjects
to NGO attacks, not having government impositions, not being boycotted from regions of
market or not losing key employees with different ethical values and Carrots for success might
include good public relation, brand enhancement, access to contract with CSR requirements,
positive relation with NGOs or attracting higher-quality staff at lower rate (Mainelli ,2004).
Also, in commercial organizations it has been distracted that CSR increase in shareholder
value (Mainelli, 2004).
Environment Stakeholders
The environmental stakeholders are under moral and legal obligations to protect and
enhance the natural environment. They can do this by combating destructive environmental
projects; promoting environmental sustainability of natural resources, good environmental
policy/practice; striving for environmental justice and awareness. The environmental
stakeholders include the government and its regulatory Agencies, the non-governmental
organization (NGOs), Faith Based Organization (FBO), Civil Society Organization (CSO),
Community Base Organization (CBO), NESREA green corps, Industrialists and the general
public. In essence, everyone is a stakeholder in the environment. The government has a major
role to play in providing national regulatory framework for integrating development and
conservation.
Empirical Review
8
According to Suleiman & Younis (2013), previous studies on the relationship between Corporate
Social Responsibilities and organizational performance or on any other did not provide
conclusive evidence; other revealed that there is significant relationship between CSR and
organizational performance while other has contrary view. Becchetti (2007) study titled
Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholders Value: An Event Study Analysis. After an
increase in financial scandals and repetitive losses suffered by investors. This study attempted to
compare affected companies listed in capital markets between the years 1995 2004, to those
that had adopted a more comprehensive social responsibility approach. The study has concluded
that there exists a direct relationship between a companys higher absolute revenues and its
adoption of social responsibility and vice versa. Barnea & Rubin (2005); study titled Corporate
social responsibility as a conflict between owners. This study investigated the relationship
between a companys own assessment of social responsibility and its ownership and capital
structure. The study involved 3000 major United States companies. Their results demonstrated a
negative correlation between ownership and social responsibility of a company, as social
responsibility is a point of contention between various owners. Zulkifi & Imran (2006); study
titled Realizing corporate social responsibility. A view of the accounting profession in
Malaysia. The study aimed to explore the level of awareness and knowledge accountants have
of the social responsibilities of companies; the study sample included 14 professional
accountants and obtained their views regarding the level of awareness and understanding of
social responsibility. It reached several conclusions, namely that there exists an awareness and a
general realization on the part of professional accountants of the contents, principles and primary
functions of social responsibility, in addition to the positive trend towards affirming the social
responsibility of corporations. McGuire, Sundgren & Schneewies (1988) also argued that
companies who do not take into account CSR, may not survive since they may fail to innovate.
They conjectured that design may form the basis of constructing the link between innovation and
CSR.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
A quasi-experimental design also known as survey research method was used. According to
Baridam (2001) in a survey research, the various element of the design are not under the control
9
of the researcher. It involved gathering a sample data about a target population. From the sample,
a generalization is made about the population. The method was chosen so that the variables will
not be manipulated.
hypotheses. The chi-square test is used because, it is a statistical tool commonly used to compare
observed data with expected outcome according to a specific hypothesis and this work focuses
on determining the extent to which social responsibility accounting affects the performance of
companies in Rivers State, Nigeria.
The formula of Chi-Square (2) is
2 = { (oi - ei)2 } (ix)
ei
Where
o = observed frequency
e = expected frequency
The formula for the determination of expected frequency (fe) is:
fe = frfc (x)
N
Where
fe = expected frequency
fr = total row frequency
fc = total column frequency
N = total frequency
Asy = asymptotic significance
Rule for accepting or rejecting of the null hypotheses
If the asymptotic significance value is less than the level of significance this implies that the null
hypothesis is not accepted. Hence the level of significance is 0.01.
no
number distributed
110
100
number returned
105
95.5
11
4.5
number discarded
4.5
number analyzed
100
90.9
Table 4.1 shows the administration of questionnaire used in this study. It shows that 90.9 percent
of the questionnaires were completely filled and returned. This forms the sample size of this
survey. About 4.5 percent were not returned while another 4.5 percent were discarded due to
errors in answering the questionnaire. Thus, 90.9 percent were analyzed.
responsibility
SA A
accounting
significantly 33
UN
SD Total
40
12
10
100
responsibility
accounting
increases
the 22
50
18
100
increases
the 12
42
10
20
16
100
on 15
38
10
29
100
170
25
60
63
400
responsibility
accounting
responsibility
improves
the
return
82
To satisfy the quest of objective one, four questions were designed to elicit relevant information
from the respondents. These questions were listed out in Table 4.6 above. Their responses were
shown as categorized in a five likert scale. To determine the impact of social responsibility on
profitability of these banks descriptive analysis was used.
Descriptive Statistics
Average responses
Mean
Std. Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
100
3.3700
1.29025
1.00
5.00
Expected N
Residual
1.00
5.9
2.1
1.25
5.9
-3.9
1.50
5.9
.1
1.75
5.9
.1
2.00
5.9
-1.9
2.25
5.9
-4.9
2.50
5.9
-4.9
2.75
5.9
-4.9
3.00
5.9
1.1
3.25
5.9
-2.9
3.50
5.9
1.1
3.75
5.9
-4.9
4.00
20
5.9
14.1
4.25
11
5.9
5.1
4.50
5.9
1.1
4.75
5.9
-2.9
5.00
12
5.9
6.1
Total
100
68.300a
13
Df
16
Asymp. Sig.
.000
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 5.9.
Discussion:
From the Table 4.7, the mean value of total responses is 3.37 and the standard deviation is 1.290.
The minimum rate of the likert scale is 1 while the maximum rate is 5. The test statistics
indicated a chi square value of 68.3 with 16 degree of freedom. The asymp. Sig value is 0.000
which is less than 0.01 level of significant. This implies that there effect of social responsibility
accounting on profitability of these banks at 0.01 level.
This is further supported by the percentage of responses in the survey in Table 4.6. Thus from
the first question, 33 (33 percent) respondents strongly agreed that social responsibility
accounting significantly improves the return on equity of the banks. 40 (40 percent) respondents
ticked agree. Only 5 (5 percent) respondents were undecided. However, 12 (12 percent)
respondents said they disagreed that social responsibility accounting significantly improves the
return on equity of these bank. This was supported by 10 (10 percent) respondents who strongly
disagreed. The second question pooled a total number of 22 (22 percent) strongly agreed
respondents who affirmed that social responsibility accounting increases the companys earnings
per share (EPS). This was supported by 50 (50 percent) respondents who also agreed to that. 2 (2
percent) respondents were mute while 18 and 8 (18 and 8 percents) respondents disagreed and
strongly disagreed to it respectively. The responses from the third question indicated that a total
of 54 (54 percent) respondents supported the fact that social responsibility accounting increases
the companys returns on capital employed (ROCE). 36 (36 percent) respondents said no to that
fact while 10 percent respondents were undecided. The fourth question posited that 15 (15
percent) respondents strongly agreed that social responsibility improves the return on investment
(ROI) of the bank. This is supported by 38 (38 percent) respondents. Again 8 (8 percent)
respondents did not comment on that while 10 percent disagreed with 29 strongly disagreed
respondents. In conclusion drawn from this survey, a greater average percent of respondent
concurred that social responsibility accounting has a positive impact on profitability of the banks.
SA
UN
SD Total
20
32
100
40
11
100
40
13
20
100
25
34
10
29
100
Total
126
134
12
66
62
400
Research objective two, also uses four responses questions to examine the effect of social
responsibility on shareholders wealth maximization. The responses and frequencies of the
respondents were shown in Table 4.10 above. Their responses were also rated in a five likert
scale.
Average responses
Mean
Std. Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
100
3.4900
1.38349
1.00
5.00
Expected N
Residual
1.00
6.7
-2.7
1.25
6.7
-1.7
1.50
11
6.7
4.3
15
2.00
6.7
-4.7
2.25
6.7
.3
2.50
6.7
-2.7
2.75
6.7
-3.7
3.00
6.7
-4.7
3.25
6.7
-5.7
3.75
6.7
-4.7
4.00
18
6.7
11.3
4.25
6.7
-3.7
4.50
13
6.7
6.3
4.75
6.7
-3.7
5.00
22
6.7
15.3
Total
100
86.600a
Df
14
Asymp. Sig.
.000
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is
6.7.
Discussion:
From the Table 4.11, the mean value of total responses of objective two is 3.49 and the standard
deviation is 1.38. The minimum rate of the likert scale is 1 while the maximum rate is 5. The test
statistics indicated a chi square value of 86.6 with 14 degree of freedom. The asymp. Sig. value
is 0.000 which is less than 0.01 level of significant. This implies that social responsibility
accounting affects shareholders wealth maximization of these banks at 0.01 level.
Validating this result is the frequency of respondents according to the questions asked by the
researcher (See Table 4.10). Thus, from the first question in Table 4.10, the question corporate
social responsibility positively affects the long term stability of the bank was asked. 41 (41
percent) respondents strongly agreed that social responsibility accounting affects shareholders
16
wealth maximization of the banks. 20 (20 percent) respondents ticked agree. Only 3 (3
percent) respondents were undecided. However, 32 (32 percent) respondents said they disagreed
that social responsibility accounting affects shareholders wealth maximization of these banks.
This was supported by 4 (4 percent) respondents who strongly disagreed to that fact. The second
question had a total number of 38 (38 percent) strongly agreed respondents who affirmed that
corporate social responsibility accounting projects is an alternative for corporate wealth
maximization. This was supported by 40 (40 percent) respondents. 2 (2 percent) respondents
were mute while 11 and 9 (11 and 9 percents) respondents disagreed and strongly disagreed to it
respectively. The responses from the third question social responsibility accounting projects
improves share price maximization indicated that a total of 22 (22 percent) respondents strongly
agreed to the fact that social responsibility accounting projects improves share price
maximization. 13 and 20 (13 and 20 percent) respondents said no to that fact while 5 percent
respondents were undecided. The fourth question showed that 25 (25 percent) respondents
strongly agreed that Social responsibility improves return on capital of the bank. This is
supported by 34 (34 percent) respondents. Again 2 (2 percent) respondents did not comment on
that while 10 percent disagreed with 29 strongly disagreed respondents. In conclusion drawn
from this survey, a greater average percent of respondents concurred that social responsibility
affects shareholders wealth maximization.
SA
UN
SD Total
40
12
20
100
35
28
17
100
the society
Corporate
social
responsibility
contributes
to 27
18
30
20
100
20
10
20
100
113
28
88
64
400
social
relationship
responsibility
between
enhances
company and
their
the 44
host
communities.
Total
107
Objective three uses four responses questions to examine the extent to which social
responsibility account improves the goodwill of banks. The responses and frequencies of the
respondents were shown in Table 4.14 above. Their responses were also rated in a five likert
scale.
Table 4.15: Result of objective three
Descriptive Statistics
Ave
Mean
Std. Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
100
3.2775
1.38758
1.00
5.00
Expected N
Residual
1.00
6.7
.3
1.25
10
6.7
3.3
1.50
6.7
-3.7
2.00
6.7
.3
2.25
6.7
-3.7
2.50
6.7
-.7
2.75
6.7
-3.7
3.00
6.7
-.7
18
3.25
6.7
-1.7
3.75
6.7
-1.7
4.00
6.7
-5.7
4.25
17
6.7
10.3
4.50
6.7
-.7
4.75
6.7
-.7
5.00
15
6.7
8.3
Total
100
40.100a
Df
14
Asymp. Sig.
.000
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell
frequency is 6.7.
Discussion:
From the Table 4.15, the mean value of total responses of objective three is 3.278 and the
standard deviation is 1.387. The minimum rate of the likert scale is 1 while the maximum rate is
5. The test statistics indicated a chi square value of 40.1 with 14 degree of freedom. The asymp.
Sig. value is 0.000 which is less than 0.01 level of significant. This implies that social
responsibility accounting improves the goodwill of these banks at 0.01 level of significant.
Furthermore, this result was supported by the result of the frequency of respondents according to
the questions asked by the researcher (See Table 4.14). The first question in Table 4.14 showed
that of 21 (21 percent) respondents strongly agreed that corporate social responsibility provides
conducive work environment, job satisfaction and job security to employees. 40 (40 percent)
respondents also agreed to that fact. 12 (12 percent) respondents were undecided. However, 20
(20 percent) respondents said they disagreed that corporate social responsibility provides
conducive work environment, job satisfaction and job security to employees of these banks. This
was supported by 7 (7 percent) respondents who strongly disagreed to that fact. The second
19
question had a total number of 15 (15 percent) strongly agreed respondents who affirmed that
corporate social responsibility provides conducive work environment, job satisfaction and job
security to employees. This was supported by 35 (35 percent) respondents. 5 (5 percent)
respondents were mute while 28 and 17 (28 and 17 percents) respondents disagreed and strongly
disagreed to it respectively. The responses from the third question corporate social
responsibility contributes to infrastructural developments with the provision of health care
facilities, water, quality education and social security indicated that a total of 27 (27 percent)
respondents strongly agreed to the fact that corporate social responsibility contributes to
infrastructural developments with the provision of health care facilities, water, quality education
and social security. 30 and 20 (30 and 20 percent) respondents said no to that fact while 5
percent respondents were undecided. The fourth question showed that 44 (44 percent)
respondents strongly agreed to it. This is supported by 20 (20 percent) respondents. Again 6 (6
percent) respondents did not comment on that while 10 percent disagreed with 20 strongly
disagreed respondents.
Test of Hypotheses
These research hypotheses were tested using the result of chi square analysis of the research
objectives.
Hypothesis one:
H0: Social responsibility accounting has no significant effect on the profitability of banks.
This hypothesis was tested with the result of chi square analysis in Table 4.9. From the result, the
chi square value is 63.3 with 16 degrees of freedom. The Asymp. Sig. value is 0.000 which is
less than 0.01 level of significance. This indicated a significant effect of social responsibility
accounting on profitability of banks. We therefore reject the null hypothesis in favour of the
alternative and conclude that social responsibility accounting has a significant effect on the
profitability of banks.
Hypothesis two:
H0: Social responsibility accounting has no significant effect on the maximization of
shareholders wealth.
This hypothesis was also tested with the result of chi square analysis in Table 4.13. From the
result, the chi square value is 86.6 with 14 degrees of freedom. The Asymp. Sig. value is 0.000
20
which is less than 0.01 level of significance. This suggested a statistically significant effect of
social responsibility accounting on the maximization of shareholders wealth of banks. We
therefore reject the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative and conclude that Social
responsibility accounting has no significant effect on the maximization of shareholders wealth in
banks.
Hypothesis three:
H0: Social responsibility accounting has no significant effect on the goodwill of banks.
Hypothesis three was tested with the result of chi square analysis in Table 4.17. From the result,
the chi square value is 40 with 14 degrees of freedom. The Asymp. Sig. value is 0.000 which is
less than 0.01 level of significance. This indicated a significant effect of social responsibility
accounting on the goodwill of banks. We therefore reject the null hypothesis in favour of the
alternative and conclude that Social responsibility accounting has a significant effect on the
goodwill of banks.
21
research should be conducted to quantify how much or to what degree these CSR programmes
have impacted on the society and its corresponding value generation for the company.
Policy Suggestions.
Though, in Nigeria social responsibility is encouraged in achieving greater firms performance, but organizations
in the country have not really engaged in Corporate Social Responsibility (CRS) which have implications for the
survival of these firms. This paper therefore offers the following policy suggestions on how firms can improve on
their CSR to ensure greater and better performance. Policy framework should be design for corporate social
responsibilities in Nigeria by the government and ensure compliance by setting mechanisms and institutions for
the implementation of CSR. Companies in Nigeria particularly the profitable one should give greater priority to
CSR. This has the tendency to assist them to survive and maintain their profitability. Attention should be given to
social accounting and social costs by firms in Nigeria.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, C.A., and Frost, G.R. (2007), Managing Social and Environmental Performance: Do
Companies Have Adequate Information? Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 17, No. 3,
pp. 211.
Baridam, D.M (2001) Research Methods in Administrative Science, Sherbrooke Associates.
Barnea and Rubin (2005) ( Corporate Social Responsibility as a Conflict between Owners )
working paper march 2 /2005 USA
Becchett (2007) Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholders Value :An Event Study
Analysis, Working Paper USA
Chapple, W., and Moon, J. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Asia A SevenCountry Study of CSR Web Site Reporting, Business & Society, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp.
415441.
Dane, K. P. (2004). The relationship Between Perceptions of corporate citizenship and
Organizational Commitment. Business & society, Vol. 43 no. 3: pp 296-319, Sage
Publications
23
Egels, N. (2005). Sorting out the mess: A review of definitions of ethical issues in business.
Centre for Business in Society, Gothenburg Research Institute, GRI: rapport 2005: pp
4.60
Emelie, D. & Charlotte, L. (2012).Accounting
for
Climate
Change
Incorporating
Isaksson, R., & Steimle, U. (2009). What does GRI-reporting Tell Us about Corporate
Sustainability? The TQM Journal, 21(2), 168181.
KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG). (2011). KPMG International Survey of Corporate
Responsibility Reporting 2011 [Report]. KPMG International Cooperative. Available
from http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporateresponsibility/Documents/2011-survey.pdf
Labelle, R., Schatt, A., and Sinclair-Desgagn, B. (2006), Corporate Sustainability Reporting,
In Allouche, J. (Ed.), Corporate Social Responsibility Volume 1: Concepts,
Accountability and Reporting, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Mainelli, M. (2004). Ethical Volatility: How CSR Rating and Return Might be changing the
world of risk, Balance Sheet. Emerald group Publishing Limited, Vol. 12, Number 1,
January,2004.
Mcquire, J.B.,Sundgren, A. and Schneewies, T. (1988). Corporate Social Responsibility and
Firm Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal, Dec 3 1/4, pp 854-862.
24
Orlitzky, Marc, Frank,L.. Schmidt, Sara, L. R. (2003). Corporate social and Financial
Performance a Meta-analysis.Organization Studies 24 (3): pp 403441. London: SAGE
Publication
Ruggie, J.G. (2002). The theory and Practice of Learning Networks: Corporate Social
Responsibility and the Global Compact. Journal of Corporate Citizenship. Greenleaf
Publishing. pp 27-36.
Sherman, R. W. (2009). The Global Reporting Initiative: What Value is Added? International
Business & Economics Research Journal, 8(5).
Stanwick, P.A., and Stanwick, S.D. (2006), Environment and Sustainability Disclosures: A
Global Perspective on Financial Performance, In Allouche, J. (Ed.), Corporate Social
Responsibility Volume 2: Performances and Stakeholders, Palgrave Macmillan, New
York.
Suleiman A., S. & Younis S.,(2013). The Importance of Implementing Social Responsibility
Accounting (SRA) in Public Shareholding Companies in Jordan and Its Impact on Their
Sustainability, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 4 No. 6.
Zulkifli and Amran(2006). (Realizing Corporate Social Responsibility A View the Accounting
Profession in Malaysia , A view from the Accounting Profession Journal of corporate
Citizenship 101,114.
25