Social Responsibility Journal: Article Information

Social Responsibility Journal
Assessing corporate social and financial performance in China

Denise Luethge Helen Guohong Han
Article information:
To cite this document:
Denise Luethge Helen Guohong Han, (2012),"Assessing corporate social and financial performance in China", Social Responsibility
Journal, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 389 - 403
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471111211247965
Downloaded on: 17 May 2016, At: 22:25 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 89 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 935 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Universiti Malaysia Sabah At 22:25 17 May 2016 (PT)
(2011),"Corporate social responsibility, firm value and financial performance in Brazil", Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 295-309
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471111111141549
(2011),"Corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance in China: an empirical research from Chinese firms", Corporate
Governance: The international journal of business in society, Vol. 11 Iss 4 pp. 361-370 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720701111159217
(2005),"Corporate social responsibility and financial performance", Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society,
Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 129-138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720700510604760
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:313615 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Assessing corporate social and financial

performance in China
Denise Luethge and Helen Guohong Han
Denise Luethge is
Professor and Chair of the
the Department of
Management, Northern
Kentucky University,
Highland Heights,
Kentucky, USA. Helen
Guohong Han is an
Assistant Professor in
Management in the
Department of
Management, Youngstown
State University,
Youngstown, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to examine corporate social responsibility disclosure (CSD) in China.
Design/methodology/approach The paper examines the extent to which firm size and financial
performance impacts social disclosure by examining published financial information and social
disclosure information in annual reports.
Findings Results indicate a positive relationship between firm size and disclosure but no relationship
between firm profitability and disclosure.
Research limitations/implications Only 2008 annual reports with a relatively small sample size are
used. Longitudinal studies in the future may be warranted.
Practical implications CSD has become widespread in the west but is only now taking hold in the
east. As many global firms expand operations in China, this paper will add to research in the area
addressing CSD in that country.
Originality/value Most studies have examined CSD in the west. This study makes a contribution to the
corporate social responsibility literature by investigating an emerging market in China.
Keywords Corporate social disclosure, Firm size, Financial performance, China, Disclosure
Paper type Research paper
urning on the television or radio, chances are that we will hear the words going
green. Indeed, green management has become so popular that it is not only a
pressing media item, but has also become an important academic construct. In the
management literature, it is considered part of corporate social responsibility (in short, CSR,
Klein and Dawar, 2004). According to McWilliams and Siegel (2001), corporate social
responsibility is defined as actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the
interests of the firm and that which is required by law (p. 117).
There are many companies, such as the Body Shop, Marks & Spenser, Starbucks and
Whirlpool, that truly impact their employees lives, the communities in which they operate
and the world at large with a variety of CSR activities ranging from civic involvement to
environmental stewardship to corporate philanthropy. These companies see CSR as much
more than a cost in the business environment, but as a strategic tool in which they can boost
performance, attract the best employees and motivate and inspire the leaders of both today
and tomorrow (Guarnieri and Kao, 2008).
The authors would like to thank

the Editor and two anonymous
reviewers for their comments on
an earlier version of this paper.
DOI 10.1108/17471111211247965
Much has been written over the past two decades about corporate reporting of
environmental and social aspects of firm performance. Although it is commonly accepted
that the main goal of an organization is to make a profit, there has been much discussion
over the past several decades of the broader responsibilities of corporations beyond their
stockholders to all of their stakeholders. These responsibilities go further than financial
performance to look at the moral obligations of social and environmental performance in
what has been termed the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1999; ODonovan, 2002; Shocker
and Sethi, 1973). As a result, many firms are reporting their actions with regard to corporate
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2012, pp. 389-403, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL
PAGE 389
responsibility in a variety of documents, including promotional materials, sustainability

documents and annual reports (Unerman, 2000) in what has come to be known as corporate
social disclosure (CSD). Corporate social disclosure (CSD) can be defined as the provision
of financial and non-financial information relating to an organizations interaction with its
physical and social environment, as stated in corporate annual reports or separate social
reports (Guthrie and Mathews, 1985).
In recent years China has emerged as one of the worlds largest and most interconnected
economies. This rapid ascent in prominence has been matched by an increase in the
interest regarding research (Barney and Zhang, 2009). Most empirical corporate social
disclosure (CSD) studies have focused on activities and practices in the west, particularly in
the US, the UK, New Zealand and Australia (Hackston and Milne, 1996). Unfortunately, very
few studies have examined CSD practices in China. To address this oversight, this study
examines the corporate reporting of Chinese firms with regard to their environmental
activities. Corporate environmental reporting is a means by which firms can voluntarily
provide information to their stakeholders on their environmental activities and performance.
This type of reporting has become widespread as firms come under pressure to look at not
only their financial performance but also their financial, social and environmental
performance (Elkington, 1999; ODonovan, 2002). CSR disclosure is only beginning to
receive attention in China, although recent media focus seems to be increasing (Tang and Li,
2009).
According to McWilliams and Siegel (2001), In existing studies of the relationship between
CSR and financial performance [. . .] the results have been very mixed (McWilliams and
Siegel, 2001, p. 117). Similar concerns also have been expressed about the perplexing
relationship between company size and corporate social responsibility (Hackston and Milne,
1996). Additionally, most of the existing research has focused on the direction in which
socially responsible corporate behavior affects financial performance, not the other way
around. Margolis and Walsh (2003) reviewed this literature from 1972-2002 and found that as
little as 15 percent of the studies (22 studies) have used socially responsible corporate
behavior as the dependent variable.
Hence, in our study, we address two research questions: Will bigger Chinese companies be
more likely to engage in corporate social disclosure? Will corporate financial performance of
Chinese companies positively affect corporate social disclosure?
Literature review and theoretical framework

Stakeholder theories: four broad categories
Garriga and Mele (2004), in their review of the CSR literature, classify CSR theories into four
broad categories: instrumental, political, integrative and ethical (pp. 52-53). A premise of
virtually all CSR theories is that corporations, in their efforts to prosper, can/should take into
account not only the needs of shareholders (i.e. shareholder wealth), but also the needs of a
wide variety of stakeholders, thus having a multi-stakeholder perspective (Ruf et al., 2001).
Freeman (1984) defines these stakeholders as any group or individual who can affect, or is
affected by, the achievement of a corporations purpose (p. 25). A number of authors have
indicated that this perspective, although laudable and desirable in China, is perhaps more of
a vision than a reality (Ip, 2008; Jensen, 2006). We will summarize Garriga and Meles (2004)
explanation of each of the theoretical groups, then note how each of these theories might
need adaptation based upon the different cultural context of the Chinese business
environment.
Firstly, instrumental stakeholder theory poses that managers will see the intrinsic worth of
multiple stakeholder interests, and as a result, will pursue strategies that are in line with those
interests (Donaldson, 1999; Freeman, 1984, 1999; Jones and Wicks, 1999). These theories
go beyond a simple concern for profit and focus on the interests of all stakeholders (such as
community activities, environmental responsibility and philanthropy), in the long run leading
to the maximization of shareholder wealth and/or the development of competitive advantage
(Garriga and Mele, 2004; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Mitchell et al., 1997; Ogden and
PAGE 390 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 8 NO. 3 2012
Watson, 1999; Petrik and Quinn, 2001; Porter and Kramer, 2002). Thus, these theories state
that the primary reason for the social or philanthropic activities noted above is to add to
shareholder wealth. In other words, doing the right thing is doing the smart thing because
good deeds are eventually rewarded in financial terms. Jones (1995) notes that firms
engaging in trusting, cooperative relationships and avoiding opportunism should be more
successful that firms that do not. In the case of China, maximizing shareholder wealth is an
important concern to both Chinese firms and to businesses that invest in China in order to
ensure their long-term success. However, the linkage between doing the right thing for all
stakeholders and maximizing shareholder wealth does not necessarily exist to the same
extent as it does outside of China. For example, rapid economic growth has taken a heavy
toll on environmental pollution (Ip, 2008), and as a result, those stakeholders in the region
who consume water or breathe the air are disadvantaged relative to shareholders. Jensen
(2006) notes that in many cases China does not have a multi-stakeholder perspective, and
the consideration of multiple viewpoints may be missing.
Secondly, political theories of corporate social responsibility focus on the power and politics of
business and their connection to society. These theories encompass the idea that
corporations have social power and must use that power responsibly or they will eventually
lose their power (Davis, 1960, 1967), thus resulting in a type of social contract (Donaldson and
Dunfee, 1994), and that these contracts transcend differences in religion, politics and
philosophies (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1999). In addition, those studies examining the
corporation as a citizen often fall into this thought arena, whereby the corporation has certain
responsibilities to the society, particularly the local community, in which it operates. In the
Chinese context, corporate citizenship and the corresponding responsibilities to the local
citizenry do not have the same meaning as in the West, where most of the corporate
citizenship studies have been conducted. In China, Jensen (2006) notes that CSR generally is
perceived by the government as falling under the ideological and political purview of
administrative departments. This perception within China makes sense as Chinese socialism
is associated with the concept of serving all of the people (Jensen, 2006), although a western
perspective might counter with the idea that a socialist agenda and free society are at odds.
That said, there is a double edged sword to increasing CSR to international standards. While
making China less of a target for scandal, it would certainly increase production costs,
possibly decreasing future foreign direct investment and economic growth.
Thirdly, integrative theories describe how business is dependent upon society for its growth,
and even its very existence (Garriga and Mele, 2004). It is society that gives legitimacy and
status to business, thus, corporate management should take societal needs into account.
These theories examine the social responsiveness of business to important issues in society,
the integration of business objectives with those of all stakeholders in the organization and the
more complete definition of corporate social performance (Emshoff and Freeman, 1978;
Sturdivant, 1979; Wartick and Rude, 1986; Wood, 1991). In the Chinese context, the society
that gives legitimacy to business is regulated by the Party-State. As such, the government is a
legitimate party in this relationship, and it takes upon itself responsibility for CSR, which is
sporadically regulated at best (Ip, 2008; Jensen, 2006). Given that the context in China is very
different from what has been examined in the west, institutional theory might better explain
CSR in an international context, as it looks at CSR within the national, cultural and institutional
contexts and examines interdependencies among all the stakeholders as well as addressing
the international spread of CSR concepts (Guler et al., 2002; Matten and Moon, 2008).
Unfortunately, the basic institutional assumptions underlying this theory do not necessarily
hold in the Chinese context, particularly the assumption of a functioning market in which
corporations have the discretion over their responses to market, social or political drivers,
and the assumption of functioning governmental and legal institutions that guarantee,
define and administer the market and act on behalf of society to address instances of market
failure (Matten and Moon, 2008, p. 406). That said, Matten and Moon (2008) articulate very
well the cross-national problems that exist when they state Given that different societies
have developed different systems of markets, reflecting their institutions, their customary
ethics, and their social relations, it would therefore follow that we might expect some
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2012 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 391
differences in the ways in which corporations express and pursue their social responsibilities
among different societies (p. 407). It is precisely this view that we believe exemplifies CSR
issues in China. Given that the functioning of the market economy is emerging, CSR is
emerging as well.
The fourth group of theories described by Garriga and Mele (2004) involve ethical issues
between society and business, with a view that moral reflection on the part of business is not
only necessary but also socially desirable (Windsor, 2006). One such theory is normative
stakeholder theory, which refers to what managers ought to do in terms of viewing
stakeholder interests as having intrinsic worth, though what ought to be done to a large
extent depends upon ones perception. Jones and Wicks (1999) note that both instrumental
and normative theorists tend to believe that these views require a number of shared values,
such as compatibility of morality and capitalism, concern for others, rejection of ethical
egoism and legitimacy of the intrinsic worth of all stakeholder claims (Jones and Wicks,
1999, p. 221). Also included in this group would be studies examining human rights and
sustainable development, two areas that have been criticized for a number of years in China.
A final area of study involves the issue of business working for the common good. Chinese
officials would say that this last area is highly consistent with Chinese policy, as they view
contribution to the common good as part and parcel of the Socialist Spiritual Civilization
(Jensen, 2006). Although many of the aforementioned values are laudable and appropriate
in purely capitalistic environments, morality and ethics are dependent upon the perspective
of the business culture, which is very different in China than in most capitalistic countries
(Casmir, 1997,; Matten and Moon, 2008).
The western view of CSR, with its focus on economic and political freedom, a long history of
rule of law for business, and a multi-stakeholder perspective, is at a different level of
development and has a different orientation in China (Ewing and Windisch, 2007; Gerson,
2007). In addition, the expectation that China should institute the same types of CSR
programs as in the West may be unrealistic as the cultural context is very different (Baughn
et al., 2007). China is much more of a relationship based rather than rule based society, and
as such, the cultural practice of guanxi, where firms are more beholding to individuals than
entities as they exchange favors in order to circumvent rules, can result in little incentive to
behave responsibly (Lattemann et al., 2009; Su et al., 2007). Li et al. (2004) note that as an
economy develops and the market evolves, this type of governance becomes highly
inefficient and costly. They also note that governments in these relationship-based cultures
tend to focus less on social issues and citizens have little say in those issues, leading firms to
face little pressure to act responsibly (Lattemann et al., 2009; Sen, 1999). It seems likely that
CSR will continue to evolve in China, particularly as foreign direct investment continues to
increase and those firms face increasing pressure from shareholders to be responsible
companies in both international and domestic operations (Chapple and Moon, 2005;
Jensen, 2006). At this point in time, however, it is unlikely that we will find the same level of
CSR activities in China as we see in the west.
Theory behind corporate social disclosure
The above stakeholder theories note that although companies aim to maximize profit, they
also have a moral duty to act as a socially responsible entity (Bortree, 2009; Frederick, 2006;
Worth, 2007), however, the actions that firms undertake (CSR) are distinguished from the
corporate social disclosures (CSD) that firms make with regard to these actions. This social
contract between firms and society at large is an essential part of the theories that attempt to
explain corporate social responsibility (ODonovan, 2002). Stakeholder theory suggests that
in order for firms to continue their existence, they must receive the approval and continued
support of its stakeholders, and as a result, firms will adjust their activities to maintain that
support (Clarkson, 1995; de Villiers and van Staden, 2006; Gray et al., 1995a; Mitchell et al.,
1997; ODonovan, 2002). Further, managers seek to control the information that is made
available to stakeholders, in some cases providing a great deal of information to make the
firm look highly responsible (Nakajima, 2001), but in other cases disclosing less information
(Patten, 1992; Roberts, 1992). The former case could be viewed as a form of impression
management, where firms try to influence the perceptions of others (Bansal and Clelland,
2004), while the latter case is an avoidance tactic to steer clear of entering into a public
debate on this issue or, as noted below, as a result of legitimizing objectives (de Villiers and
van Staden, 2006; ODonovan, 2002).
Another explanation for the extent of CSR reporting is based on legitimacy theory, which
states that firms will act in whatever manner they believe is required in order to protect their
corporate image as a legitimate entity (Deegan, 2002; Deegan et al., 2002; de Villiers and
van Staden, 2006; Milne and Patten, 2002; ODonovan, 2002). Bansal and Clelland (2004)
and Bortree (2009) go a step further to describe environmental legitimacy as the belief or
perception that the corporate environmental performance of a firm is suitable or desirable
and conforms to the expectations of stakeholders. Bansal and Clelland (2004) note that this
type of voluntary disclosure can help firms deflect criticism and signal their commitment to
environmental issues and concerns. These types of disclosures, again a form of impression
management, actually may cause the firm to gain respect, regardless of whether or not their
environmental legitimacy is high or low (Bansal and Clelland, 2004).
The resource-based view of the firm, on the other hand, would posit that firms seek to
enhance their reputation by undertaking activities that enhance their intangible resources,
such as reputation (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1996; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990), thus enhancing
competitive advantage. Applied to environmental strategy, developing and securing social
legitimacy may be linked with developing a competitive advantage (Hart, 1995), and that
societal demands for environmental responsibility lead to firms developing unique resources
to enhance the social legitimacy associated with a policy of sustainability (Hart, 1995; Russo
and Fouts, 1997).
Studies on CSR generally focus on several factors, with the most common being human
resources, environment, products, energy and the community (de Villiers and van Staden,
2006; Gray et al., 1995a, b; Gray, 2001; Guthrie and Parker, 1989; Hackston and Milne,
1996). Our focus is primarily on environmental and energy disclosures, and hence, our study
will examine only these particular aspects of CSR in china. We believe it is particularly
relevant given the focus on environmental pollution and energy consumptions issues that
have been discussed both in the popular press and in the CSR literature (Ip, 2008). In
addition, social accounting activities tend to focus on information for the purpose of
reputation building by self-reports on firm trustworthiness, thus yielding a soft form of
accountability (Owen and Swift, 2001). Unerman (2000) notes that focusing exclusively on
annual reports as the primary of social reporting disclosure may yield an incomplete picture
of a firms social and environmentally responsible activities. Certainly firms use other types of
media vehicles to document sustainability activities, such as environmental reports,
brochures, and white papers (Laufer, 2006; Thompson and Zakaria, 2004; Willis, 2003).
However, Gray et al. (1995a) believe that for purposes of comparability, data on
environmental activities should be as consistent as possible.
The link between company size and corporate social disclosure (CSD)
McWilliams and Siegel (2001) argue that large companies usually have more resources, are
likely to have many more activities, and consequently, are more likely to provide CSR
information. Company size has been shown to be associated with CSD in several empirical
studies (see, for example, Belkaoui and Karpik, 1989; Patten, 1991, 1992). This makes
intuitive sense because larger companies are more likely to have larger operations,
undertaking more transactions, and hence, have more reporting. In addition, it may be more
important for larger firms to report these activities as they are more likely to have larger
numbers of shareholders, and communication via annual reports is an efficient method of
reaching these individuals. However, not all research has supported the relationship
between CSD and size. Roberts (1992), in a US study, found no relationship between CSD
and the size of the organization. Ng (1985) also found no relationship between size and CSD.
In addition to company size, the type of industry has also been posited as a factor which may
impact CSD. Companies operating in extractive industries, particularly after an incident in
that industry, often go out of their way to disclose information touting their environmental
concern and socially responsible practices (Hackston and Milne, 1996). Patten (1991) and
Roberts (1992) both found a positive association between CSD and high profile industries,
though mixed results have occurred when looking at particular industry classifications and
disclosure.
Corporate social performance always needs direction from managers in terms of the
initiation or cancellation of voluntary social and environmental policies, and this usually is
highly associated with whether the company has excess funds available to allocate
(McGuire et al., 1988). A positive relationship has been proposed between profitability and
CSD, in part because more profitable firms have additional funds to support more extensive
social responsibility programs than less profitable firms, but also because it may reflect
adaptive and insightful management that is responding to social needs (Bansal and
Clelland, 2004; Heinze, 1976; Ullman, 1985; Waddock and Graves, 1997). Moreover,
Orlitzky et al. (2003) undertook a meta-analysis of 52 studies and found the significant
correlation between corporate financial and social performance.
Thus, we pose the following two hypotheses:

H1.
The bigger size of the company, the greater likelihood that the company will
engage in corporate social disclosure (CSD).
H2.
Companys financial performance will be positively related to the amount of

corporate social disclosure (CSD).
Methodology
We employed a multi-method approach in the current study. Data concerning organizational
financial performance and corporate social disclosure were gathered from the 2008
English-language annual reports of Chinese companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock
Exchange. Typically firms report environmental activities through an annual report or with
sustainability reporting in a separate stand-alone environmental document. Deegan et al.
(2002) note that the annual report is likely the preferred source of corporate information for a
number of different stakeholder groups. In addition, annual reports give some consistency
over time, and for comparability purposes, annual reports have been used in a number of
environmental reporting studies (Deegan et al., 2002; Deegan and Gordon, 2006; de Villiers
and van Staden, 2006; Gray et al., 1995b; Hackston and Milne, 1996; Hanson and White,
2003; Milne and Adler, 1999; Tang and Li, 2009; Thompson and Zakaria, 2004; Vuontisjarvi,
2006). Since corporate social responsibility disclosure is relatively new in China (Tang and
Li, 2009), we chose to look only at annual reports since they are typically the primary vehicle
for firm communication with external constituents (Deegan et al., 2002; Deegan and Gordon,
2006). As many companies do not include any words that match with CSD, the current study
had a final sample of 62 companies.
Dependent variable
Corporate social disclosure (CSD). In our study, we examine the content of the annual report
to infer meaning about what aspects of environmental disclosures Chinese firms report.
When coding CSD in annual reports, words are often used as a measure because it is quite
easy to scan a document for a particular word, and as such, large volumes of pages can be
scanned quite readily (Gray et al., 1995b). Quantifying sentences rather than words allows
for interpretation of the disclosure information, and unlike page or percentage of page
counts, the number of sentences is not impacted by font or page size. Gray et al. (1995b)
also note that sentence analysis is more appropriate when the purpose of the analysis is to
infer meaning. Lending further credence to the use of sentences as the appropriate unit of
analysis, Milne and Adler (1999) also find that inexperienced coders produce equally
reliable results to experienced coders when examining sentence based coding instruments.
Finally, Milne and Adler (1999) note that using counts of sentences gives similar results when
examining volumes in terms of page proportions (Unerman, 2000). As a result, we choose to
use sentences as the unit of analysis, adapting our checklist from Hackston and Milnes
(1996) environment and energy items (see Appendix A for the 16 environment items and 1
energy item).
The coding process begins by reading through the Chairmans Statement of each annual
report and searching for corporate social disclosures regarding the environment. These
statements are used rather than the entire report because they summarize the activities
firm leadership deems important over the course of the year. Additionally, these
statements are relatively consistent, making comparability of reports more appropriate.
Once these disclosures are identified, they are further broken into a subset of either:
environmental pollution, aesthetics, and other. Under these three subsets, there are a total
of 19 categories under which the disclosures are coded. Each reference to one of these
categories is noted and tallied for each chairmans statement. Lastly, the tallies for each
category referenced are summed to determine the total corporate social disclosures for
each chairmans statement.
Independent variables
Corporate financial performance. Organizational performance is derived from annual
reports and operationalized as the return on equity (ROE) and return on assets (ROA) of the
companies being assessed. ROE is calculated as net income/shareholders equity. ROA is
calculated as net income/total assets.
Size. We dummy-code organizational size. The companies sizes are classified according to
their total market capitalization. We dummy-code company size with large meaning total
market capitalization is more than 10 billion HK$; Medium meaning total market
capitalization is more than 2 billion HK$ but less than 10 billion HK$ and small meaning
total market capitalization is less than 2 billion HK$.
Control variables
Industry type. Industries are dummy-coded as being of three types: transportation and
power industry (28 companies), chemical and materials industry (23 companies), and other
(11 companies).
State ownership. Hong Kong regulators define ownership as controlling interest. Suppose
multiple government agencies hold 67 percent of corporation X, corporation X holds 51
percent of corporation Y, and corporation Y happens to in our sample. We say the state has
51 percent of interest in corporation Y.
Results
Descriptive statistics and impact of company size on CSD
Means, standard deviations, and zero-order Pearson correlations of all variables in this study
are presented in Table I. We used SPSS 16.0 version to conduct multiple linear regressions.
Based on linear regression, company size is found to have a significant and positive effect
on corporate disclosure (b 0.42, p , 0.05, Table II). Thus, H1 receives support. It appears
that the bigger the company, the more likely it is to engage in corporate disclosure.
Table I Means, standard deviations and correlations
1. Transportation power industry

2. Chemical materials industry
3. Large-sized company
4. Medium-sized company
5. Return on equity (ROE)
6. Return on asset (ROA)
7. State ownership
8. Environmental coding
Mean
SD
0.45
0.37
0.45
0.23
0.08
0.06
0.46
4.33
0.50
0.49
0.50
0.42
0.21
0.09
0.24
4.02
20.70**
0.22
0.13
0.05
0.33*
0.38*
20.05
20.09
20.02
20.03
20.18
20.21
0.14
20.49**
0.32*
0.22
0.34**
0.37**
20.35**
20.03
0.28*
20.21
0.28*
20.14
0.04
0.15
0.02
0.04
Notes: n 181; alpha reliabilities are given in parentheses; *p , 0.05 (2-tailed); **p , 0.01, 2-tailed
Table II Regression of company size and environmental coding

Dependent variable environmental coding
Control variables
Transportation power industry
Chemical materials industry
State ownership
Large size company
Medium size company
R2
Adjusted R 2
F
20.02
0.15
20.07
0.42**
0.02
0.17
0.10
2.28*
Notes: n62; Standardized beta coefficients are reported; *p , 0.10; **p , 0.05; ***p , 0.01
The relationship between financial performance and corporate disclosure
In this study, we use two financial indicators (return on equity and return on assets) to reflect
the companys financial performance. Based on linear regressions, in Table III, we fail to find
the predicted significant correlations between ROE and corporate disclosure (b 20.11,
p 0.41, Table III). In Table IV, ROA is not significantly correlated with corporate disclosure
(b 2 0.04, p 0.77, Table IV). Thus, H2 fails to receive support. In addition, we do not find
any significant relationship between any industry types with corporate social disclosure or
with financial indicators, which means that there are no differences based on industry type.
Table III Regression of return on equity (ROE) and environmental coding
Control variables
State ownership
Large size company
Medium size company
20.01
0.15
20.10
0.46**
0.004
ROE
R2
Adjusted R 2
F
20.11
0.18
0.10
2.01*
Table IV Regression of return on asset (ROA) and environmental coding

Control variables
State ownership
Large size company
Medium size company
20.003
0.15
20.07
0.42**
0.02
ROA
R2
Adjusted R 2
F
20.04
0.17
0.08
1.89*
Findings and discussion

There has been a great deal of research investigating CSR and CSD over the past several
decades. A number of theories have been proposed as explanations for CSR activities
ranging from instrumental theories examining benefits to shareholders that accrue when all
stakeholders benefit to political theories describing social contracts that result from the
politics and power given to firms in a society. In addition, integrative theories note the
legitimacy provided to firms by society and pose that firms act with heighted social
responsibility, while ethical theories examine the moral and ethical components of firm
activities. Most of the research on which these theories are based, however, comes from the
West, with few studies examining CSR or CSD in China.
We have examined the above theories and posed some concerns for the application of
those theories to the Chinese context, although some authors have noted that firms have
a moral duty to act in ethically, socially and environmentally responsible ways (Bortree,
2009; Frederick, 2006; Worth, 2007), regulation, particularly in western countries, has
served to increase disclosure (Gill, 2008; Joseph, 2002; Kahn, 2003). In China, Li (2005)
notes that disclosure is inadequate in part due to lack of regulation. As China increases
its position as a global player in world markets, its social responsibility and social
disclosure will become more closely scrutinized by the media and other stakeholders
(Tang and Li, 2009).
In this exploratory study, we examine the types of corporate social disclosure undertaken as
noted in the Chairmans statements in the annual reports of 62 Chinese companies. We also
find that large firms have significantly more disclosures than small and medium size
companies. This result is consistent with what has been found in the west in the past
(Belkaoui and Karpik, 1989; Patten, 1991, 1992). It seems logical that large firms would
undertake more corporate activities than smaller firms and hence should have more to
disclose. However, another explanation might be that larger firms, particularly large
state-owned monopolies, may have more activities with multinational firms whose
stakeholders are sensitive to the social and environmental activities of their suppliers. In
addition, increased media scrutiny on China due to the 2008 Olympics may have caused
large firms, who are more likely to be visible to the press, to disclose environmental
statements prior to the games. Small and medium firms, flying under the radar of the media
scrutiny, may not feel the need to disclose as much information. It seems likely that large
firms may increase their socially responsible activities as CSR becomes more
institutionalized within the country (Campbell, 2007).
A number of studies have found a significant relationship between profitability and
disclosure (Bansal and Clelland, 2004; Orlitzky et al., 2003). Our results show no such
relationship, which is consistent with the results of Cowen et al. (1987), Hackston and Milne
(1996), Ng (1985), Patten (1991) and Roberts (1992), yet different from those of Bansal and
Clelland (2004) and Orlitzky et al. (2003). Given that profitability is likely perceived in a
different way in a non-market economy, perhaps this result should not be surprising.
Disclosure could well be undertaken for political purposes rather than as a factor that
impacts reputation and eventually bottom line performance.
This study is not without limitations. Owing to the fact that many companies do not have
any words/sentences that match with our corporate social disclosure items, our final
company size is relatively small, which affects the final results to some extent. Also, we
only examine the annual reports in 2008 which can be another limitation. Longitudinal
study is definitely appropriate for the future. In addition, it would be interesting to
investigate whether firms with more activities with the west are more likely to undertake
CSD regardless of their size or whether type of industry has any relationship with
disclosure. These activities could vary widely, such as those involving foreign suppliers,
Western end markets, cross-border strategic alliances or other types of activities where
the Chinese firm has a significant relationship with a foreign firm. Finally, the availability of
the data has affected the representativeness of the data. This undoubtedly will impact the
generalizability of our findings to other countries and cultures. We hope that future studies
can access a larger sample size in multiple countries in order to examine similar research
questions.
In spite of the aforementioned limitations, this study makes a contribution to the corporate
social responsibility literature by investigating an emerging market in China. In addition, we
confirm the positive relationship between company size and corporate social disclosure in
the Chinese market. Moreover, most important of all, responding to McWilliams and Siegels
(1999) call for more empirical tests examining firms other than those based in the west, our
paper makes a great stride in addressing the global CSR issues.
References
Bansal, P. and Clelland, I. (2004), Talking trash: legitimacy, impression management, and the
unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47
No. 1, pp. 93-103.
Barney, J. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Barney, J.B. and Zhang, S. (2009), The future of Chinese management research: a theory of Chinese
management versus a Chinese theory of management, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 15-28.
Baughn, C., Bodie, N. and McIntosh, J. (2007), Corporate social and environmental responsibility in
Asian countries and other geographical regions, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 189-205.
Belkaoui, A. and Karpik, P.G. (1989), Determinants of the corporate decision to disclose social
information, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 36-51.
Bortree, D.S. (2009), The impact of green initiatives on environmental legitimacy and admiration of the
organization, Public Relations Review, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 133-5.
Campbell, J.L. (2007), Why should corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional
theory of corporate social responsibility, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 946-67.
Casmir, F.L. (1997), Ethics in Intercultural and International Communication, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Chapple, W. and Moon, J. (2005), Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: a seven-country study
of CSR web site reporting, Business and Society, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 415-41.
Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995), A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-118.
Cowen, S.S., Ferreri, L. and Parker, L.D. (1987), The impact of corporate characteristics on social
responsibility disclosure: a typology and frequency-based analysis, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 111-22.
Davis, K. (1960), Can business afford to ignore corporate social responsibilities?, California
Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 70-6.
Davis, K. (1967), Understanding the social responsibility puzzle, Business Horizons, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 45-51.
de Villiers, C. and van Staden, C.J. (2006), Can less environmental disclosure have a legitimizing
effect? Evidence from Africa, Organizations and Society, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 763-81.
Deegan, C. (2002), The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosures a theoretical
foundation, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 282-311.
Deegan, C. and Gordon, B. (2006), A study of the environmental disclosure practices of Australian
corporations, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 187-99.
Deegan, C., Rankin, M. and Tobin, J. (2002), An examination of the corporate social and environmental
disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997: a test of legitimacy theory, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 312-43.
Donaldson, T. (1999), Making stakeholder theory whole, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 237-41.
Donaldson, T. and Dunfee, T.W. (1994), Towards a unified conception of business ethics: integrative
social contracts theory, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 252-84.
Donaldson, T. and Dunfee, T.W. (1999), Ties That Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Elkington, J. (1999), Triple bottom-line reporting: looking for balance, Australian CPA, Vol. 69 No. 2,
pp. 18-21.
Emshoff, J.R. and Freeman, R.E. (1978), Stakeholder management, working paper, Wharton Applied
Research Center, Philadelphia, PA, July.
Ewing, M. and Windisch, L. (2007), Contemporary corporate social responsibility in China: an extension
of Confucian philosophy?, Discussion Paper no. 44, Monash University, Melbourne.
Frederick, W.C. (2006), Company be Good! The Story of Corporate Social Responsibility, Dogear
Publishing, Indianapolis, IN.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), The politics of stakeholder theory: some future directions, Business Ethics
Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 409-22.
Freeman, R.E. (1999), Divergent stakeholder theory, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 233-6.
Garriga, E. and Mele, D. (2004), Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53 Nos 1/2, pp. 51-71.
Gerson, B. (2007), CSR best practices, China Business Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 20-5.
Gill, A. (2008), Corporate governance as social responsibility: a research agenda, Berkeley Journal of
International Law, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 452-78.
Grant, R.M. (1996), Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17, Winter, pp. 109-22.
Gray, R. (2001), Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: what (if anything) have we
learnt?, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 9-15.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995a), Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review of
the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 47-77.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995b), Constructing a research database of social and
environmental reporting by UK companies, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 78-101.
Guarnieri, R. and Kao, T. (2008), Leadership and CSR a perfect match: how top companies for
leaders utilize CSR as a competitive advantage, People and Strategy, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 34-41.
Guler, I., Guillen, M. and MacPherson, J.M. (2002), Global competition, institutions and the diffusion of
organizational practices: the international spread of the ISO 9000 quality certificates, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp. 207-32.
Guthrie, J. and Mathews, M.R. (1985), Corporate social accounting in Australasia, in Preston, L.E.
(Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 251-77.
Guthrie, J. and Parker, L.D. (1989), Corporate social reporting: a rebuttal of legitimacy theory,
Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 19 No. 76, pp. 143-52.
Hackston, D. and Milne, M.J. (1996), Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures and
New Zealand companies, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 77-108.
Hanson, D. and White, R. (2003), Rhetorics of environmental routinisation in one Australian companys
annual reports, Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 447-93.
Hart, S.L. (1995), A natural resource-based view of the firm, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 986-1014.
Heinze, D.C. (1976), Financial correlates of a social involvement measure, Akron Business and
Economic Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 48-51.
Ip, P.K. (2008), The challenge of developing a business ethics in China, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 211-24.
Jensen, M.H. (2006), Serve the people! Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in China, Discussion
Papers no. 6, Asia Research Centre, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, available at: http://
chinaworld.cbs.dk/cdp/cdp.asp (accessed 11 October 2010).
Jones, T.M. (1995), Instrumental stakeholder theory: a synthesis of ethics and economics, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 404-37.
Jones, T.M. and Wicks, A.C. (1999), Convergent stakeholder theory, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 206-21.
Joseph, E. (2002), Promoting corporate social responsibility: is market-based regulation sufficient?,
New Economy, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 96-101.
Kahn, J. (2003), A taste of success, Fortune, Vol. 148 No. 4, p. 50.
Klein, J. and Dawar, N. (2004), Corporate social responsibility and consumers attributions and brand
evaluations in a product-harm crisis, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 203-17.
Lattemann, C., Fetscherin, M., Alon, I., Li, S. and Schneider, A. (2009), CSR communication intensity in
Chinese and Indian multinational companies, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 426-43.
Laufer, W.S. (2006), Social accounting and corporate greenwashing, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 253-61.
Li, S., Park, S.H. and Li, S. (2004), The great leap forward: the transition from relation-based
governance to rule-based governance, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 63-78.
Li, Z. (2005), Lack of corporate social responsibility behind recent China accidents, available at: www.
worldwatch.org/node/3859 (accessed 14 January 2009).
McGuire, J.B., Sundgren, A. and Schneeweis, T. (1988), Corporate social responsibility and firm
financial performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 854-72.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (1999), Issues in the use of event study methodology: a critical analysis of
corporate social responsibility studies, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 340-65.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001), Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 117-27.
Margolis, J.D. and Walsh, J.P. (2003), People and Profits? The Search for a Link between a Companys
Social and Financial Performance, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2008), Implicit and explicit CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative
understanding of corporate social responsibility, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 404-24.
Milne, M.J. and Adler, R.W. (1999), Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures
content analysis, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 20, pp. 237-56.
Milne, M.J. and Patten, D. (2002), Securing organizational legitimacy: an experimental decision case
examining the impact of environmental disclosures, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 372-405.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997), Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and
salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22
No. 4, pp. 853-86.
Nakajima, N. (2001), Green advertising and green public relations as integration propaganda, Bulletin
of Science, Technology and Society, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 334-48.
Ng, L.W. (1985), Social responsibility disclosures of selected New Zealand companies for 1981, 1982
and 1983, occasional paper no. 54, Massey University, Palmerston North.
ODonovan, G. (2002), Environmental disclosures in the annual report: extending the applicability and
predictive power of legitimacy theory, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 344-71.
Ogden, S. and Watson, R. (1999), Corporate performance and stakeholder management: balancing
shareholder and customer interests in the UK privatized water industry, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 526-38.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L. and Rynes, S.L. (2003), Corporate social and financial performance:
a meta-analysis, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 403-41.
Owen, D. and Swift, T. (2001), Social accounting, reporting and auditing: beyond the rhetoric?,
Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 4-8.
Patten, D.M. (1991), Exposure, legitimacy and social disclosure, Journal of Accounting and Public
Policy, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 297-308.
Patten, D.M. (1992), Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: a note
on legitimacy theory, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 471-5.
Petrik, J. and Quinn, J. (2001), The challenge of leadership accountability for integrity capacity as a
strategic asset, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 34 Nos 3/4, pp. 331-43.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2002), The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 12, pp. 120-33.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 79-91.
Roberts, R.W. (1992), Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: an application of
stakeholder theory, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 595-612.
Ruf, B.M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R.M., Janney, J.J. and Paul, K. (2001), An empirical investigation of
the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance:
a stakeholder theory perspective, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 143-56.
Russo, M.V. and Fouts, P.A. (1997), A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental
performance and profitability, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 534-9.
Sen, A. (1999), Development as Freedom, Anchor Books, New York, NY.
Shocker, A.D. and Sethi, P.S. (1973), An approach to incorporating societal preference in developing
corporate action strategies, California Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 97-105.
Sturdivant, F.D. (1979), Executive and activist: test of stakeholder management, California
Management Review, Vol. 22, pp. 53-9.
Su, C., Mitchell, R. and Sirgy, M.J. (2007), Enabling guanxi management in China: a hierarchical
stakeholder model of effective guanxi, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 301-19.
Tang, L. and Li, H. (2009), Corporate social responsibility communication of Chinese and global
corporations in China, Public Relations Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 199-212.
Thompson, P. and Zakaria, Z. (2004), Corporate social responsibility reporting in Malaysia: progress
and prospects, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 13, Spring, pp. 125-36.
Ullman, A.H. (1985), Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationships among social
performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 540-57.
Unerman, J. (2000), Methodological Issues: reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting
content analysis, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 667-80.
Vuontisjarvi, T. (2006), Corporate social reporting in the European context and human resource
disclosures: an analysis of Finnish companies, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 331-54.
Waddock, S.A. and Graves, S.B. (1997), The corporate social performance-financial performance
link, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 303-19.
Wartick, S.L. and Rude, R.E. (1986), Issues management: corporate fad or corporate function?,
California Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 124-32.
Willis, A. (2003), The role of the Global Reporting Initiatives Sustainability Reporting Guidelines in the
social screening of investments, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 233-7.
Windsor, D. (2006), Corporate social responsibility: three key approaches, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 93-114.
Wood, D.J. (1991), Corporate social performance revisited, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 691-718.
Worth, J. (2007), Corporate responsibility, New Internationalist, December, pp. 4-7.
Appendix 1. Checklist of categories of environmental disclosure

Environment
1. Environmental pollution:
B
Pollution control in the conduct of the business operations; capital operating and
research and development expenditures for pollution abatement.
Statements indicating that the companys operations are non-polluting or that they are
in compliance with pollution laws and regulations.
Statements indicating that pollution from operations has been or will be reduced.
Prevention or repair of damage to the environment recycling from processing or nature

resources, e.g. land reclamation or reforestation.
Conservation of nature resources, e.g. recycling glass, metals, oil, water and paper.
Using recycled materials.
Efficiently using materials resources in the manufacturing process.
Supporting anti-litter campaigns.
Receiving an award relating to the companys environmental programs or policies.
Preventing waste.
2. Aesthetics:
B
Designing facilities harmonious with the environment.
Contributions in terms of cash or art/sculptures to beautify the environment.
Restoring historical buildings/structures.
3. Other:
B
Undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the companys impact on the

environment.
Wildlife conservation.
Protection of the environment, e.g. pert control.
Energy
We adapted the items from Hackston and Milne (1996) on energy and formed one energy
dimension. As a result, this criterion examines the disclosures pertaining to improving
energy efficiency, increasing energy savings, waste reduction, tapping alternate energy
sources, reduction in energy consumption and rewards and recognition for being able to
achieve energy conservation goals.
About the authors

Denise Luethge (PhD Indiana University) is Professor and Chair of the Department of
Management at Northern Kentucky University as well as a Research Associate in the
Institute for Technology, Enterprise and Competitiveness at Doshisha Business School,
Doshisha University in Kyoto, Japan. Dr Luethges research is in the area of knowledge
leadership and knowledge dissemination in multinational organizations, cross-border
organizational issues in the automotive industry and gender differences in knowledge
dissemination. Dr Luethge has over 30 publications in a variety of international journals as

well as numerous conference papers and presentations. Denise Luethge is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: luethged1@nku.edu
Helen Guohong Han (PhD, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) is currently an

Assistant Professor in Management in the College of Business Administration at the
Youngstown State University. Her research interests are leadership, diversity, team
development, and employee attitudes. She has published articles in the Academy of
Management Best Conference Papers in 2006, Journal of Organizational Behavior (2009)
and International Journal of Conflict Management (2010).
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:

1. Bixia Xu School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada Tao Zeng School of Business and
Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada . 2016. Profitability, state ownership, tax reporting and corporate
social responsibility: evidence from Chinese listed firms. Social Responsibility Journal 12:1, 23-31. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
2. Carlos Noronha Faculty of Business Administration, University of Macau, Macau, China Tiffany Cheng Han Leung School
of Professional Education and Executive Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, College of Professional &
Continuing Education, Kowloon, Hong Kong On Ieng Lei Faculty of Business Administration, University of Macau, Macau,
China. . 2015. Corporate social responsibility disclosure in Chinese railway companies. Sustainability Accounting, Management
and Policy Journal 6:4, 446-474. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Mara del Mar Miras-Rodrguez, Amalia Carrasco-Gallego, Bernab Escobar-Prez. 2015. Are Socially Responsible Behaviors
Paid Off Equally? A Cross-cultural Analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 22:4, 237-256.
[CrossRef]
4. Chunguang Bai School of Management Science and Engineering, Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, Dalian,
China Joseph Sarkis School of Business, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA Yijie Dou Center for Industrial
and Business Organization, Dongbei University of Finance & Economics, Dalian, China . 2015. Corporate sustainability
development in China: review and analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems 115:1, 5-40. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Social Responsibility Journal: Article Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Responsibility Journal: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Responsibility Journal

Assessing corporate social and financial performance in China

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Downloaded by Universiti Malaysia Sabah At 22:25 17 May 2016 (PT)

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Assessing corporate social and financial

Downloaded by Universiti Malaysia Sabah At 22:25 17 May 2016 (PT)

Denise Luethge and Helen Guohong Han

The authors would like to thank