A Comparison of Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in the United States, Germany and Australia

  • Stephen Chen
  • Petra Bouvain
Part of the The Academy of International Business book series (AIB)


Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting is not mandatory in most countries, but has been adopted by many large companies from around the world. The terms corporate social responsibility, global citizenship and sustainability can now be found in the corporate reports and websites of large and small corporations from around the world. However, considerable variation exists among firms worldwide. While some companies (e.g. Henkel, BHP, Johnson and Johnson) have a long-standing tradition in reporting information and have created separate internet sites to show all facets of their corporate responsibility and sustainability, other companies provide only limited information, in many cases related to corporate giving and sponsorship, or in some cases no information at all.


Corporate Social Responsibility Corporate Governance International Business German Company Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, C. A. and Harte, G. F. (1998). ‘The changing portrayal of the employment of women in British banks’ and retail companies’ corporate annual reports’. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 23 (8): 781–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, C. A. and Kuasirikun, N. (2000). ‘A comparative analysis of corporate reporting on ethical issues by UK and German chemical and pharmaceutical companies’. European Accounting Review, 9 (1): 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aguilera, R. V. and Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004). ‘Codes of good governance worldwide: what is the trigger?’ Organization Studies, 25 (3): 415–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aguilera, R. V. and Jackson, G. (2003). ‘The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: dimensions and determinants’. Academy of Management Review, 28 (3): 447–85.Google Scholar
  5. Aguilera, R. V., Williams, C. A., Conley, J. M. and Rupp, D. E. (2006). ‘Corporate governance and social responsibility: a comparative analysis of the UK and the US’. Corporate Governance: an International Review, 14 (3): 147–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ASX (2000). Australian shareownership study (Sydney: Australian Stock Exchange).Google Scholar
  7. Bebbington, J. (2004). ‘Governance from the perspective of social/environmental accounting’. Social and Environmental Accounting Journal, 24 (2): 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burchell, S., Clubb, C. and Hopwood, A. G. (1985). ‘Accounting in its social context: towards a history of value added in the United Kingdom’. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10 (4): 381–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dacin, T., Ventresca, M. J. and Beal, B. D. (1999). ‘The embeddedness of organizations: dialogue amp; directions’. Journal ofManagement, 25 (3): 317–56.Google Scholar
  10. DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. W. (1983). ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’. American Sociological Review, 48 (2): 147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friedman, M. (1970). ‘The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits’. New York Times Magazine, 33 (13 September): 122–6.Google Scholar
  12. Granovetter, M. (1985). ‘Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness’. American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3): 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griffiths, A. and Zammuto, R. F. (2005). ‘Institutional governance systems and variations in national competitive advantage: an integrative framework’. Academy of Management Review, 30 (4): 823–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage ( Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Halme, M. and Huse, M. (1997). ‘The influence of corporate governance, industry and country factors on environmental reporting’. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13 (2): 137–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Humphrey, R. and Armstrong, L. (2003). 2002 Australian shareownership study ( Sydney: Australian Stock Exchange).Google Scholar
  17. Kolk, A., Walhain, S. and Van de Wateringen, S. (2001). ‘Environmental reporting by the Fortune Global 250: exploring the influence of nationality and sector’. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10: 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Langlois, C. C. and Schlegelmich, B. B. (1990). ‘Do corporate codes of ethics reflect national character? Evidence from Europe and the United States’. Journal of International Business Studies, 21 (4): 519–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lewis, L. and Unerman, J. (1999). ‘Ethical relativism: a reason for differences in corporate social reporting?’ Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10: 521–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Logsdon, J. M. and Wood, D. J. (2005). ‘Global business citizenship and voluntary codes of ethical conduct’. Journal of Business Ethics, 59: 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matten, D. and Crane, A. (2005). ‘Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical conceptualization’. Academy of Management Review, 30: 166–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meek, G. K., Roberts, C. B. and Gray, S. J. (1995). ‘Factors influencing voluntary annual report disclosure by US, UK and continental European multinational corporations’. Journal of International Business Studies, 26: 555–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S. and Freeman, K. (2002). ‘Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports using GRI2000, ISO14031 and other criteria’. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9: 215–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Niskala, M. and Pretes, M. (1995). ‘Environmental reporting in Finland: a note on the use of annual reports’. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 457–66.Google Scholar
  25. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parker, L. D. (2007). ‘Financial and external reporting research: the broadening corporate governance challenge’. Accounting and Business Research, 37 (1): 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roberts, R. W. (1992). ‘Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: an application of stakeholder theory’. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17: 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roe, M. J. (2003). Political determinants of corporate governance ( New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  29. Salter, S. B. and Niswander, F. (1995). ‘Cultural influence on the development of accounting systems internationally: a test of Gray’s 1988 theory’. Journal of International Business Studies, 16: 379–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, A. E. and Humphreys, M. S. (2006). ‘Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of natural language with Leximancer concept mapping’. Behavior Research Methods, 38 (2): 262–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. SPSS (2001). SPSS Advanced Models 11.0 ( Chicago: SPSS).Google Scholar
  32. Whitley, R. (1999). Divergent capitalisms: the social structuring and change of business systems ( Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  33. Wood, D. (1991). ‘Corporate social performance revisited’. Academy of Management Review, 16 (4): 691–718.Google Scholar
  34. Wooden, M. (2003). ‘Industrial relations reform in Australia: causes, consequences and prospects’. Australian Economic Review, 34 (3): 243–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yarowsky, D. (1995). ‘Unsupervised word-sense disambiguation rivalling supervised methods’. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-95), pp. 189–96 (Cambridge, MA). Available at: Scholar

Copyright information

© Stephen Chen and Petra Bouvain 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Chen
  • Petra Bouvain

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations