Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 84, Issue 4, pp 497–527 | Cite as

The Supply of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures Among U.S. Firms

  • Lori Holder-Webb
  • Jeffrey R. Cohen
  • Leda Nath
  • David Wood


Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a dramatically expanding area of activity for managers and academics. Consumer demand for responsibly produced and fair trade goods is swelling, resulting in increased demands for CSR activity and information. Assets under professional management and invested with a social responsibility focus have also grown dramatically over the last 10 years. Investors choosing social responsibility investment strategies require access to information not provided through traditional financial statements and analyses. At the same time, a group of mainstream institutional investors has encouraged a movement to incorporate environmental, social, and governance information into equity analysis, and multi-stakeholder groups have supported enhanced business reporting on these issues. The majority of research in this area has been performed on European and Australian firms. We expand on this literature by exploring the CSR disclosure practices of a size- and industry-stratified sample of 50 publicly traded U.S. firms, performing a content analysis on the complete identifiable public information portfolio provided by these firms during 2004. CSR activity was disclosed by most firms in the sample, and was included in nearly half of public disclosures made during that year by the sample firms. Areas of particular emphasis are community matters, health and safety, diversity and human resources (HR) matters, and environmental programs. The primary venues of disclosure are mass media releases such as corporate websites and press releases, followed closely by disclosures contained in mandatory filings. Consistent with prior research, we identify industry effects in terms of content, emphasis, and reporting format choices. Unlike prior research, we can offer only mixed evidence on the existence of a size effect. The disclosure frequency and emphasis is significantly different for the largest one-fifth of the firms, but no identifiable trends are present within the rest of the sample. There are, however, identifiable size effects with respect to reporting format choice. Use of websites is positively related to firm size, while the use of mandatory filings is negatively related to firm size. Finally, and also consistent with prior literature, we document a generally self-laudatory tone in the content of CSR disclosures for the sample firms.


corporate disclosure non-financial information corporate social responsibility reporting content analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Investor Education Foundation and the research assistance of Belinda Hoff and Cameron Pratt. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not the views of FINRA.


  1. Adams, C.: 2004, ‹The Ethical, Social, and Governmental Reporting-Performance Portrayal Gap’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 17(5), 731–757Google Scholar
  2. Adams C. A., G. Frost 2004. The Development of Corporate Web-Sites and Implications for Ethical, Social, and Environmental Reporting Through These Media. Edinburgh: Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland research reportGoogle Scholar
  3. Alnajjar, F.: 2000, ‹Determinants of Social Responsibility Disclosures of U.S. Fortune 500 Firms: An Application of Content Analysis’, in M. Freedman and B. Jaggi (eds.), Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management (JAI, New York), pp. 163–200Google Scholar
  4. Al-Tuwaijri, S. A., T. E. Christensen and K. E. Hughes, 2004, ‹The Relations Among Environmental Disclosure, Environmental Performance, and Economic Performance: A Simultaneous Equations Approach’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 29(5,6), 447–471Google Scholar
  5. Ambachtsheer, J.: 2005, SRI: What do Investment Managers Think? Mercer Investment Consulting Survey (March 21). Available at
  6. Anderson, A., P. Herring and A. Pawlicki: 2005, ‹EBR: The Next Step’, Journal of Accountancy 199(6), 71–75Google Scholar
  7. Balmer J. M. T., K. Fukukawa, E. R. Gray. 2007. The Nature and Management of Ethical Corporate Identity: A Commentary on Corporate Identity, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 76: 7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhattacharya G. K., R. A. Johnson 1977. Statistical Concepts and Methods. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
  9. Bird R., A. D. Hall, F. Momente, F. Reggiani 2007. What Corporate Social Responsibility Activities are Valued by the Market? Journal of Business Ethics 76: 189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown T. J., P. A. Dacin 1997. The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing 61(1): 68–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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): 80–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell D. 2003. Intra- and Intersectoral Effects in Environmental Disclosures: Evidence for Legitimacy Theory? Business Strategy and the Environment 12(6): 357–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell D., B. Craven, P. Shrives. 2003. Voluntary Social Reporting in Three FTSE Sectors: A Comment on Perception and Legitimacy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16(4): 558–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cetindamar D., K. Husoy 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Environmentally Responsible Behavior: The Case of the United Nations Global Compact. Journal of Business Ethics 76: 163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chua, W. F.: 2006, Extended Performance Reporting: A Review of Empirical Studies (The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, Sydney, New South Wales)Google Scholar
  16. Clark, G., T. Hebb and D. Wojcik: 2005, ‹Institutional Investors and the Language of Finance: The Global Metrics of Market Performance’, Working Paper, Oxford University School of Geography and the Environment, Oxford, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  17. Clarkson M. B. E. 1995. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. The Academy of Management Review 20(1): 92–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cole, C. J. and C. L. Jones: 2005, `Management Discussion and Analysis: A Review and Implications for Further Research', Journal of Accounting Literature 24, 135–174Google Scholar
  19. Coram, P. J., T. J. Mock and G. S. Monroe: 2007, ‹An Investigation into the Use of Nonfinancial Performance Indicators by Financial Analysts’, Working Paper, University of MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  20. Coram, P. J., G. S. Monroe and D. R. Woodliff: 2006, ‹The Effect of Voluntary Non-Financial Disclosures and Assurance on Company Valuation Judgments’, Working Paper, University of MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  21. Cormier D., I. M. Gordon. 2001. An Examination of Social and Environmental Reporting Strategies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 14(5): 587–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cormier D., M. Magnan 1999. Corporate Environmental Disclosure Strategies: Determinants, Costs and Benefits. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 4(14): 429–451Google Scholar
  23. Cowen S. S., Ferreri L. B., L. D. Parker 1987. The Impact of Corporate Characteristics on Responsibility Disclosure: A Typology and Frequency-Based Analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society 12(March): 111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dacin M. T. 1997. Isomorphism in Context: The Power and Prescription of Institutional Norms. Academy of Management Journal 40(1): 46–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Deegan C. 2002. Introduction: The Legitimising Effect of Social and Environmental Disclosures – A Theoretical Foundation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 15(3): 282–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Deegan C., B. Gordon. 1996a. A Study of the Environmental Disclosure Practices of Australian Corporations. Accounting and Business Research 26(3): 187–199Google Scholar
  27. Deegan C., M. Rankin. 1996. Do Australian Companies Report Environmental News Objectively? An Analysis of Environmental Disclosures by Firms Prosecuted Successfully by the Environmental Protection Authority. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 9(2): 50–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. DiMaggio P. J., W. W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dowell G., S. Hart, B. Yeung. 2000. Do Corporate Environmental Standards Create or Destroy Market Value? Management Science 46(8): 1059–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dowling J., J. Pfeffer 1975. Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational Behavior. Pacific Sociological Review 18: 122–136Google Scholar
  31. Elsbach K. D., R. I. Sutton. 1992. Acquiring Organizational Legitimacy Through Illegitimate Actions: A Marriage of Institutional and Impression Management Theories. Academy of Management Journal 35(4): 699–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frey L. R., C. H. Botan, G. L. Kreps. 2000. Investigating Communication: An Introduction to Research Methods. (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn & BaconGoogle Scholar
  33. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). 2006. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Amsterdam: Global Reporting InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  34. Gravely A. R. 1998. Your Guide to Survey Research Using the SAS System. Cary, NC: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
  35. Gray R., R. Kouhy, S. Lavers. 1995a. Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting: A Review of the Literature and a Longitudinal Study of UK Disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 8(2): 47–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gray R., R. Kouhy, S. Lavers. 1995b. Methodological Themes: Constructing a Research Database of Social and Environmental Reporting by UK Companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 8(2): 78–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Guthrie J., L. Parker. 1990. Corporate Social Disclosure Practice: A Comparative International Analysis. Advances in Public Interest Accounting 3: 159–176Google Scholar
  38. Hamilton S., H. Jo, M. Statman 1993. Doing Well While Doing Good? The Investment Performance of Socially Responsible Mutual Funds. Financial Analysts Journal 49(6): 62–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Handelman J. M., S. J. Arnold. 1999. The Role of Marketing Actions with a Social Dimension: Appeals to the Institutional Environment. Journal of Marketing 63(3): 33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hill J. 2001. Thinking About a more Sustainable Business – An Indicators Approach. Corporate Environmental Strategy 8(1): 30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Holder-Webb L. 2007. The Question of Disclosure: Providing a Tool for Evaluating Management’s Discussion and Analysis. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research 10: 183–223Google Scholar
  42. Holder-Webb L., J. Cohen 2007. The Association Between Disclosure, Distress, and Failure. Journal of Business Ethics 75: 301–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Holder-Webb, L., J. Cohen, L. Nath and D. Wood: 2007, ‹A Survey of Governance Disclosures Among␣U.S. Firms’, Journal of Business Ethics, doi  10.1007/s10551-007-9638-3
  44. Hooghiemstra R. 2000. Corporate Communication and Impression Management – New Perspectives Why Companies Engage in Corporate Social Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 27(1/2): 55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kinder P. D. 2005. New Fiduciary Duties in a Changing Social Environment. The Journal of Investing 14(3): 24–39Google Scholar
  46. Kolk A. 2003. Trends in Sustainability Reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment 12: 279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kolk A. 2005. Sustainability Reporting. VBA Journal 21(3): 34–42Google Scholar
  48. Kolstad I. 2007. Why Firms Should not Always Maximize Profits. Journal of Business Ethics 76: 137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. KPMG International. 2005. KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2005. Amsterdam: Drukkerij Reijnen OffsetGoogle Scholar
  50. Lev B. 2001. Intangibles: Management Measurement and Reporting. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D CGoogle Scholar
  51. Maignan I., D. A. Ralston. 2002. Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from Businesses’ Self-Presentations. Journal of International Business Studies 33(3): 497–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Meyer J. W., B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Milne M. J., R. W. Adler. 1999. Exploring the Reliability of Social and Environmental Disclosures Content Analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 12(2): 237–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Neuendorf, K. A.: 2002, The Content Analysis Guidebook (Sage Publications, Inc.)Google Scholar
  55. Neuman W. L. 2005. Social Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & BaconGoogle Scholar
  56. O’Donovan G. 2002. Environmental Disclosures in the Annual Report: Extending the Applicability and Predictive Power of Legitimacy Theory. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 15(3): 344–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Orlitzky M., F. L. Schmidt, S. L. Rynes. 2003. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Organization Studies 24(3): 403–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Patten D. M. 1991. Exposure, Legitimacy and Social Disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 10(Winter): 297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Patten D. M. 2002. Give or Take on the Internet: An Examination of the Disclosure Practices of Insurance Firm Web Innovators. Journal of Business Ethics 36(3): 247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pricewaterhousecoopers: 2002, ‹Non-Financial Measures are Highest-Rated Determinants of Total Shareholder Value, Pricewaterhousecoopers Finds’, Management Barometer (April 22)Google Scholar
  61. Roberts R. W. 1992. Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: An Application of Stakeholder Theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17(August): 595–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Robin D. P., R. E. Reidenbach. 1987. Social Responsibility, Ethics, and Marketing Strategy: Closing the Gap Between Concept and Application. Journal of Marketing 51(1): 44–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sen S., C. B. Bhattacharya. 2001. Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research 38(2): 225–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Simnett, R., A. Vanstraelen and W. F. Chua: 2006, ‹Assurance on General Purpose Non-Financial Reports: An International Comparison’, Working Paper, Universiteit AntwerpenGoogle Scholar
  65. Social Investment Forum: 2006, 2005 Report on Social Responsible Investing Trends in the United States: 10-Year Review (Social Investment Forum Industry Research Program, Washington, DC)Google Scholar
  66. UNEP FI: 2004, The Materiality of Environmental, Social, and Governance to Equity Pricing (The United Nations Environment Program Finance Initiative, Geneva, Switzerland)Google Scholar
  67. Waddock S. A., S. B. Graves. 1997a. The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link. Strategic Management Journal 18(4): 303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Waddock S. A., S. B. Graves. 1997b. Finding the Link Between Stakeholder Relations and Quality of Management. Journal of Investing 6(4): 20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Watts R., J. Zimmerman 1986. Positive Accounting Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  70. Weber, R. P.: 1988, Basic Content Analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Series No. 07-049, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA and LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lori Holder-Webb
    • 1
  • Jeffrey R. Cohen
    • 2
  • Leda Nath
    • 3
  • David Wood
    • 4
  1. 1.Simmons CollegeSchool of ManagementBostonU.S.A.
  2. 2.Carroll School of ManagementBoston CollegeChestnut HillU.S.A.
  3. 3.Department of SociologyUniversity of Wisconsin-WhitewaterWhitewaterU.S.A.
  4. 4.Institute for Responsible Investment at the Center for Corporate CitizenshipBoston CollegeChestnut HillU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations