The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2041-2568.htm

Developing
CSR disclosure in developing and and developed
developed countries: a countries

comparative study
Aparna Bhatia and Binny Makkar 1
University school of Financial Studies, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, India
Received 13 April 2019
Revised 4 July 2019
24 August 2019
Accepted 30 August 2019
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine and compare the nature and extent of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) reporting practices of companies in developing (BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa])
and developed (the USA and the UK) countries.
Design/methodology/approach – Content analysis is conducted on the annual reports and websites of
325 companies listed on stock exchanges of developing markets and of developed markets (Brazil – IBrX 100,
46 companies; Russia – Broad Market Index, 50 companies; India – BSE 100, 50 companies; China – SSE 180,
29 companies; South Africa – FTSE/JSE All Share index, 50 companies; the USA – NYSE 100, 50 companies;
the UK – FTSE 100, 50 companies). Descriptives are used to calculate company wise and item wise scores.
T-test analysis is applied to check for significant differences between mean scores of developing and
developed countries.
Findings – The findings of the study reflect that developed countries have higher CSR disclosure scores
than developing countries. Overall, mean CSR disclosure score of developed countries is 53.5%, followed by
that of the developing countries at 49.4%. Developed countries take lead in CSR disclosure for all the five
categories, namely, human resources, community, environment, customer and product and others. The results
of independent sample T-test suggest that mean disclosure score of developing nations is significantly
different from developed nations.
Practical implications – As suggested by the results, the gap in the CSR disclosure scores between
developing and developed group of countries is not an alarming one. However, developing countries should
practice CSR in spirit and not just in letter. Focus should not be on just filling the pages in black and white,
rather the essence of CSR should be attained for balanced development of the country. For instance, though
developing country like India has high score of CSR disclosure in contrast to each of the developed country
taken in the sample, yet the country is still battling with several issues such as poverty, over-population,
corruption, poor standard of working conditions for the employees and environmental conservation.
Sustenance should focus upon renewable sources of energy; efforts of employees should be acknowledged
offering flexible working hours; consumer trust should be built by communicating authentic and accurate
information about the product. As developing countries encounter several social and environmental problems,
companies must endeavor to build a healthy nation keeping in mind the welfare of all stakeholders by
practicing CSR.
Originality/value – This study overcomes the limitations of prior cross-country studies by taking a better
representative sample with greater number of countries belonging to identifiable group of “developing” and
“developed” nations and thus attempts to improve generalization and authenticity of results.
Keywords Developing economies, Corporate social responsibility, Content analysis,
Developed countries
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Journal of Global Responsibility

BRICS refers to group of five nations, namely, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Vol. 11 No. 1, 2020
pp. 1-26
Together these countries represent about 40 per cent of the world population and 20 per cent © Emerald Publishing Limited
2041-2568
of global GDP. This group of nations shares some common characteristics in terms of huge DOI 10.1108/JGR-04-2019-0043
JGR population, enormous economic growth and desire to capture global market (Chen and De
11,1 Lombaerde, 2014). BRICS countries are home to more than 3 billion people. Within the
BRICS, China is the largest country with 1.4 billion people, followed by India with nearly 1.1
billion inhabitants. Brazil is a country with a population of 200 million people while Russia
has it around 120 million people. South Africa is the smallest country with about 53 million
residents. Over the last decade, the contribution of BRICS to overall economic growth has
2 reached over 50 per cent, making them important players in the global economic
development (Azevedo et al., 2018). BRICS are playing a very important role in the global
economy. According to Pao and Tsai (2010), GDP growth of these countries will surpass G7
countries by 2050. All these nations are endowed with enormous resources, huge population
and increased factors of production that indicate significant expansion of economic growth
of the bloc (Radulescu et al., 2014). Brazil, Russia and South Africa have massive reserves of
mineral resources; China has availability of cheap labor; India is known for abundance of
agricultural produce. However, unfortunately, this increased economic growth in these
countries comes at an exorbitant cost of social and environmental damage. According to
World Resources Institute (2015) Brazil, Russia, India and China are amongst the top ten
emitters of greenhouse gases in 2012. China ranks at number 1 in the world, contributing
about 25 per cent of global emissions. Besides environment stigmas, each of these economies
encounters several challenges that could act as hurdle on the path of their sustainable
economic progress. Both Brazil and South Africa are plagued by the problem of high-income
inequality as indicated by GINI coefficients. According to GINI estimates that measure
income inequality, South Africa is ranked as most unequal country having 62.5 score and
Brazil is at rank eight with score of 51.5 (Gous, 2018). India has relatively high poverty than
its BRICS counterparts. According to World Bank Report (2016), about 58 per cent of Indian
population does not make more than $3.10 per day. China suffers from problems of changing
demographics in terms of ageing population and internal migration of workforce (Wei,
2017). In addition, China faces some severe difficulties relating to environmental pollution
(Levin, 2015). Russia stood at a rank 131 in the Corruption Perception Index out of 168
countries (Transparency International, 2015) thus, ranking at the highest in corruption
relative to its peers among BRICS nations. The progress of business at the cost of social and
environmental damage does not make a progressive nation. Hence, business must induce
social practices as part of its vision, specifically in these emerging countries which have a
tendency to be future super powers.
The USA and the UK are taken as yardstick for measuring corporate social
responsibility (CSR) in Western countries. These countries adopted an early understanding
to the notion that business needs to engage with community and execute CSR strategies for
the benefit of society (Soh et al., 2014). The USA accounts for the world’s largest economy
with an estimated GDP of $18.56tn (World Bank, 2016). The USA is regarded as a pioneer in
the area of CSR reporting (Giannarakis, 2014). CSR reporting is not regulated in the USA,
but despite this, every year large number of American companies presents the results of
their social and environmental performance. According to Cecil and Mahoney (2010),
number of companies producing CSR reports in the USA has increased with compounded
annual growth rate of 37 per cent between time-period from 1991 to 2006. In United States,
the involvement of Government in economic activity is extremely limited and fully exhibits
the characteristics of free market economy. The resultant lack of provision of State welfare
has been a major driving force behind engagement of the US companies in CSR. In addition,
United States has stock market as the main source of capital. The relative higher importance
of stock market in the USA persuades companies to provide extensive disclosures to its
stakeholders so as to appear legitimate (Matten and Moon, 2008). The UK ranks as sixth
largest economy by GDP and ninth largest in terms of purchasing power parity. The UK has Developing
been playing a significant role in western cross-country CSR learning through business and developed
associations such as Business in the Community (BITC) (Chambers et al., 2003). Several CSR
related initiatives have been undertaken in the UK, which include, appointment of Minister
countries
for Corporate Social Responsibility in 2000, introduction of ACCA ‘s environmental
reporting award and formation of several social and environment research/promotion
bodies as Business in the Community (BITC) and Institute of Social and Ethical
Accountability. Other initiatives include promulgation of laws such as Environment 3
Protection Act, 1990, Pollution Prevention and Control Act, 1999 and Climate Change Act,
2008. Companies Act 2006 has also made it mandatory for listed companies to provide
information relating to environment, diversity, workplace, social and community problems
in annual business review. It was later amended in 2013 and requires companies to prepare
strategic report instead of business review and provide disclosure on greenhouse gas
emission along with the business information provided earlier. Thus, it would be interesting
to compare CSR reporting practices of these two distinct groups of countries classified as
developing (BRICS) and developed (the USA and the UK) nations.
The article is divided into five sections. Section 1 introduces the two groups of nations-
developing and developed ones. Section 2 presents the review of available literature on CSR
and identifies the research gap. Section 3 deals with the methodology applied. The results
are reported and discussed in Section 4. Section 5 concludes the findings and its implications
and presents future scope for research.

2. Review of literature
The prior empirical research with regard to CSR disclosure has been carried out mostly in
developed countries (Ernst and Ernst, 1978; Abbott and Monsen, 1979 and Deegan and
Gordon, 1996). Studies in developed countries report high level of CSR disclosure. Abbott
and Monsen (1979) reported a high disclosure of 86 per cent in the sample of Fortune 500
companies. Kelly (1981) indicated rising trend in the amount of social disclosure in Australia
over a period from 1969 to 1978. Guthrie and Parker (1990) reported disclosure percentage of
98 per cent for the UK, 85 per cent for the USA and 56 per cent for Australia. Fukukawa and
Moon (2004) reported that in Japan 90 per cent companies provided CSR report. Birth et al.
(2008) found disclosure to the extent of 72 per cent with respect to Switzerland. Jizi et al.
(2014) found that percentage of the US companies producing CSR information increased
from 93 per cent to 97 per cent during the period between 2009 and 2011. On the contrary,
studies on CSR disclosure in developing countries revealed relatively lower extent of CSR
disclosure. The disclosure percentage is as low as 6.4 per cent in Hong Kong (Lynn, 1992), 50
per cent in South Africa (Savage, 1994); 52 per cent in Singapore (Tsang, 1998), 44 per cent in
Bangladesh (Belal, 2001; Azim et al., 2011; Ullah and Rahman, 2015) and 47 per cent in India
(Murthy, 2008; Lattemann et al., 2009; Kansal and Singh, 2012).
A few scholars have also conducted region specific; cross- national CSR studies
comparing either developed or developing countries. Maignan and Ralston (2002)
investigated intensity of CSR communication in three economically developed European
countries (France, the Netherlands and the UK) and the USA. The findings of the study
depicted that CSR principles, processes and stakeholder issues were mentioned by large
number of the USA and the UK firms in contrast to their French and Dutch counterparts.
Smith et al. (2005) conducted comparative analysis of CSR reporting practices among
companies in three developed nations (Norway, Denmark and the USA). The results
revealed that number of words, sentences and percentage of pages devoted to CSR
disclosure was higher for Norwegian and Danish companies than the US companies.
JGR Baskin (2006) tried to examine the extent of CSR reporting practices of companies in
11,1 emerging markets (BRICS) for the year 2004. The results revealed that South Africa led
other emerging markets in CSR reporting with an overall score of 7.2. Brazil obtained second
highest score of 5.8, closely followed by India with 5.6 score whereas Russia and China were
significantly lagging behind having scores of 2.1 and 1.1 respectively. Likewise, Alon et al.
(2010) investigated the corporate communication in relation to CSR motives, processes and
4 stakeholder issues among companies in Brazil, Russia, India and China. The results revealed
that China had the maximum proportion of non-reporting companies (75 per cent) among the
total companies in the sample. Brazil appeared to be the most communicative of its CSR
activities with mean score of 14.5, followed by Russia with mean of 11.5 while India and
China were having means of 9.91 and 6.43, respectively. Habisch et al. (2011) conducted
cross-country CSR disclosure study comparing three developed countries, Germany, Italy.
The results exhibited that German companies discussed large number of CSR issues
whereas the US and Italian companies concentrated on broadly three CSR issues, social
disclosure, strategy and performance and stakeholder needs. Abreu et al. (2012) studied the
CSR disclosure practices of companies in Brazil and China and but for community
relationships, reported significant differences between Chinese and Brazilian companies in
relation to adoption of average CSR practices. The study indicated that CSR disclosure
practices of companies are shaped by the institutional framework of a particular country.
Chapple et al. (2014) examined CSR reporting in six Asian countries over three points of
time, 2002-2003, 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. The websites of largest 50 firms each from China,
India, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia were accessed for CSR disclosure
with respect to CSR waves, different issues addressed and modes employed to address CSR
issues. The results showed that there exist dissimilarities among Asian economies with
respect to addressing of CSR waves and modes. China emphasized more on issues related to
product and process while companies in India paid higher attention to the community
issues. However, some similarities were found in CSR waves and CSR modes for remaining
four Asian countries.
The studies comparing developed and developing countries across the world are
relatively less. Welford (2005) examined the written policies on CSR of companies in 15
nations in three geographical regions: Europe, Asia and North America. The study found
more CSR activity in Europe and North America in contrast to Asia with regard to internal
aspects of CSR. For external aspects of CSR, there were more policies on supply chain
management than on ethical issues. The study exhibited that companies CSR policies were
shaped by political and economic conditions prevailing in a particular country setting.
Dawkins and Ngunjiri (2008) conducted comparative study to assess the differences
between CSR disclosure practices of the South African companies listed on Johannesburg
stock exchange index and leading global companies listed on Fortune Global 100 for the
year 2006. It was found that the companies in South Africa had higher CSR disclosure than
companies listed in Fortune 100 for all dimensions except human rights. The study
attributed reasons for high disclosure in South Africa in contrast to global companies to the
legal and regulatory measures, institutional pressures and affirmative policy regulations.
Similarly, Muthuri and Gilbert (2011) tried to assess the differences among Kenyan
domestic, Kenyan international and foreign international companies with regard to extent of
CSR, different CSR issues addressed, CSR process employed and drivers for CSR
engagement. The study found greater variation in the adoption of CSR practices between
Kenyan domestic companies and Kenyan companies with operations or headquarters
abroad and attributed variation to the difference in institutional environment of domestic
and international markets. Bashtovaya (2014) compared the CSR reporting practices of top
ten companies operating in the energy sector in the USA and Russia. The results revealed Developing
that Russian companies led the US companies on the themes related to social performance, and developed
employees and consumers whereas the US companies reported extensively on
environmental performance and covered large number of environmental issues which were
countries
alien to Russian firms. The study suggested that institutional factors were responsible for
the variation in CSR disclosure between two countries. Tang et al. (2015) compared CSR
communication practices of companies in United States and China on corporate websites at
two different points of time i.e. 2008 and 2012. The study determined the extent to which the 5
US and Chinese companies differed with respect to rationales, themes and practices of CSR
using content analysis. The study found significant differences between the US and Chinese
companies’ CSR communication practices in 2008. However, differences in CSR
communication among companies in the USA and China got diminished in 2012. The study
attributed reason for the change in CSR communication among Chinese companies between
two time periods to the process of institutionalization in China. Vilar and Simao (2015)
conducted study to examine CSR practices on the websites of 110 banks from 11 geographic
regions. The results showed that the extent and type of disclosure varied according to the
geographic location. The large volume of CSR information was found among the banks
situated in regions with high development index. The cultural and political- legal patterns
were also evident related to the themes of fight against child labor, animal protection and
religion. Habek and Wolniak (2016) examined the status of sustainability disclosure in six
EU member States, Denmark, France, the UK, Sweden, Poland and The Netherlands and
ascertained differences in sustainability reporting practices among companies in these
countries. The results revealed that maximum number of reports (90 per cent) was issued by
France, followed by Sweden (75 per cent). The study found significant differences in the
level and quality of disclosure practices among countries taken in the sample. Kane et al.
(2017) explored websites of top 50 firms in the USA and South Korea to ascertain the extent
of variation in CSR disclosure among companies in these two countries. The findings
revealed that extent of CSR disclosure differ between the USA and South Korea. The US
companies provide more in-depth information pertaining to CSR indicators in contrast to
South Korean companies.
As evidenced from the review of literature, large amount of work on CSR disclosure has
been conducted in both developed and developing countries, but more studies are available
for research in a particular country setting only, that is, either developed (Andrew et al.,
1989; Fukukawa and Moon, 2004; Jose and Lee, 2007 and Lungu et al., 2011) or developing
nations (Tsang, 1998; Belal, 2001; Chaudhri and Wang, 2007; Dong et al., 2012; Kansal and
Singh, 2012 and Fifka and Pobizhan, 2014). A few scholars carried out cross- national
research earlier also, but again most of them covered either developed countries as (Guthrie
and Parker, 1990; Maignan and Ralston, 2002; Smith et al., 2005; Habisch et al., 2011) or
developing nations as (Chapple and Moon, 2005; Baskin, 2006; Lattemann et al., 2009; Alon
et al., 2010; Abreu et al., 2012 and Chapple et al., 2014). To the best knowledge of the
researchers quite a few comparative studies on CSR disclosure have covered both developed
and developing countries simultaneously. Dawkins and Ngunjiri (2008) compared the CSR
reporting practices of companies in South Africa and leading global companies listed on
Fortune 500. Bashtovaya (2014) compared CSR reporting practices of companies in United
States and Russia. Tang et al. (2015) tried to assess the differences between CSR disclosure
practices of companies in United States and China. However, no study took up an
identifiable group representing developing countries as BRICS and compared them with
certain developed nations like the USA and the UK. The results of these studies by taking
one country each from the developed and developing countries are not much capable of
JGR generalization, so, in the current study, researchers have endeavored to work upon
11,1 representative sample with bigger number of countries so that the results can be applied
holistically to both the developed and the developing economies.
Thus, it is observed from the review of available studies that there are differences in the
understanding and adoption of CSR practices across countries, specifically, the developed
and developing ones (Kemp, 2001; Welford, 2005; Baughn et al., 2007 and Abreu and Barlow,
6 2013). Developed countries have relatively large amount of wealth as compared to
developing countries (Heyneman, 1980). As endorsed by the resource-based view, firms in
developed countries are more likely to invest in social and environmental activities because
of the availability of plentiful resources at their disposal (Baughn et al., 2007). Developing
countries are usually less economically developed which coaxes them to focus their attention
on securing basic amenities of livelihood than on investing in societal affairs. There is a
huge difference in the level of awareness among stakeholders of developing and developed
countries. The amount of pressure exerted by stakeholders on firms to act in a socially
responsible manner depends on the economic development of a country (Gnyawali, 1996;
Ramasamy and Ting, 2004 and Chapple and Moon, 2005). In developed countries,
consumers are better aware about activities of businesses (Abreu and Barlow, 2013), media
serves as watchdog of society, NGOs and civil society organizations are proactive and
pressurize companies to enhance social engagement beyond the interest of shareholders’
wealth and profitability (Chambers et al., 2003; Vilar and Simao, 2015). Political factors like
the level of corruption and Government interference too influence corporate CSR disclosure
practices. Baughn et al. (2007) found that companies operating in countries with high level of
governmental corruption have less inclination to engage in CSR activities. Or in other words,
countries with high level of political freedom place greater emphasis on CSR disclosure
(Baughn et al., 2007; Tang et al., 2015). Developing countries are characterized by having
high level of corruption. According to Transparency International Corruption Perception
Index (Transparency International, 2017), which ranks countries on the basis of the
perceived level of public sector corruption, major developing countries such as BRICS
(Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and MINT (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and
Turkey) economies have obtained lesser earning than global average score of 43. Rodriguez
et al. (2005) further put forth that corruption enhances the complexity of institutional
environment and makes the firm appear illegitimate. Even, Kimber and Lipton (2005) has
pointed out that in countries where economies are highly controlled by the government,
companies make greater endeavors in pleasing Government rather than indulging in
socially responsible activities. In developing countries such as China, Malaysia and Russia,
State has the major shareholding in many large corporations, unlike developed countries
like United States, where shareholding is widely dispersed among the shareholders (Matten
and Moon, 2008). The higher stake of government in nation’s firms restricts the ability of
companies to take decisions independently (Fifka and Pobizhan, 2014). Social and cultural
differences too make an evident variation in disclosure of societal parameters especially
where these are voluntary in nature. Culture depicts value and belief system of countries
(Withrop, 1991). Sustenance is embedded in the culture of the developed countries (Gray,
1988). It is a routine with them. Their upbringing has taught them to practise social
activities even when not required by law. On the contrary, in developing countries, there is
lack of self-regulation and self-control. Everytime, law is needed to oversee and regulate the
functioning of companies. Thus, these disparities at both the firm and country level
influence CSR reporting in different set of countries. In the light of the same, the present
study endeavors to compare CSR reporting practices of companies between two groups of
countries-developing nations represented by BRICS group and developed nations Developing
represented by the USA and the UK. and developed
countries
3. Database and research methodology
3.1 Universe and sample of the study
The universe of the study consists of companies listed on major indices of leading stock
exchanges of developing markets (BRICS) and of developed markets (the USA and the UK), 7
namely IBrX 100, 100 companies (Brazil), Broad Market Index, 100 companies (Russia), BSE
100, 100 companies (India), SSE 180, 180 companies (China), FTSE/JSE All Share index, 160
companies (South Africa), NYSE 100, 100 companies (the USA), FTSE 100, 100 companies
(the UK). These indices comprise of companies that are representative of diverse sectors of
the economy. The companies that did not present CSR information were not considered
for the study and the companies that communicated social responsibility information in
language other than English were also left out. English is a global language and is used in
business across the globe. It provides a common podium for evaluation reducing translation
bias (Alon et al., 2010). After applying the above filters, final sample turned out to be Brazil-
IBrX, 46 companies, Russia-Broad Market index, 50 companies, India-S&P BSE 100, 50
companies, China- SSE 180, 29 companies, South Africa- FTSE/JSE All Share index, 50
companies, United States- NYSE the USA 100, 50 companies, United Kingdom- FTSE 100,
50 companies.

3.2 Time period

The disclosure of CSR information has been examined for the financial year 2014-15. This
year is selected as countries have witnessed new developments in the field of CSR
disclosure. For instance, in India spending of the profits of preceding three years on CSR
activities was mandated by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MOCA). In China, Ministry of
Commerce of the People Republic of China (MOFCOM) issued a regulation in 2014 that
required Chinese companies operating overseas to adopt social responsibility. This period
also coexists with replacement of G3 guidelines on sustainability reporting by G4
guidelines. G4 guidelines stress on the role of stakeholder as an essential component in the
process of reporting. Hence, many CSR endeavors are seen around the globe in this
particular year. It is perceived that capturing 2014-15 would best highlight the efforts of
countries towards CSR contributions.

3.3 Data source

The data for CSR have been collected from all the sources where social responsibility
information is available including companies’ Annual reports, separate CSR reports and
websites of companies.

3.4 Collection of data

3.4.1 Corporate social responsibility disclosure index. CSR disclosure index is a tool that
helps in the collection of the scattered data/information in the most concise manner. For the
purpose of collecting data, CSR disclosure index has been constructed. The index is framed
after investigating the disclosure of CSR information in Annual Reports and separate CSR
reports of companies. A review of the previous studies available on CSR disclosure has also
provided support in the construction of the index. The CSR disclosure index includes five
categories, namely, “Human Resources”, “Community”, “Environment”, “Customer and
JGR Product” and “Others”. These 5 categories are further sub- divided into 31 items. Table II
11,1 gives a detailed view of the CSR index discussed in subsequent pages.
3.4.2 Content analysis. Content Analysis is a technique for gathering data and involves
classifying quantitative and qualitative information into pre-defined categories so as to
extract patterns in the presentation and reporting of information.
The information gathered from companies’ respective reports has been assigned
8 numerical value of 0, 1, 2 and 3 on the basis of type, nature and quality of disclosure made.
Score of 0 has been given when no disclosure is made, 1- if only qualitative disclosure is
made, 2- if quantitative disclosure is made and 3- in case disclosure is monetary in nature.
The score of 1 has been assigned to items for which quantitative or monetary disclosure is
not feasible such as presence of CSR committee, sustainability report, CSR intent in vision/
mission and work from home/flexibility of timings. For these items, only their presence or
absence is checked. Maximum score of 2 has been assigned to a few items such as customer
relationship management, recycling/waste management, video conferencing/not traveling
and protection of biodiversity/wildlife conservation, where majority of the companies in
sample provide quantitative disclosure only. Else, the score of these items would
have reduced the total mean disclosure score for the companies. Hence, the total obtainable
score comes out to be 65. Company-wise and Item-wise score has been calculated. Company
wise score is calculated by dividing the score obtained by a company to the maximum score
obtainable. Item wise score is calculated by dividing the number of companies disclosing
item to total number of companies in the sample. Further, item wise category score has been
computed by dividing summation of individual item score in particular category to total
number of items in that category.

3.5 Statistical tools used

Descriptive statistics such as Mean, Minimum, Maximum and Standard Deviation has been
calculated to bring out the key features of data in study. They simply provide a way to
describe or summarize the data which enables researchers to draw out meaningful
conclusions from it. Independent Sample T-test compares the mean scores of two
independent groups in order to check for the statistical evidence whether populations from
which samples are drawn has different mean values (Malhotra and Dash, 2011). In the
current study, independent sample t test is applied to find out whether there exist significant
differences in the mean scores of developing and developed countries.

4. Results and analysis

This section examines and compares the CSR reporting practices of developing countries
represented by the BRICS group with developed nations represented by the USA and the
UK.

4.1 Company-wise disclosure

CSR disclosure scores of companies from BRICS countries and the USA and the UK are
presented in Table I.
As seen from Table I, the mean CSR disclosure score of leading Brazilian companies is 50
per cent. The overall percentage disclosure score of companies falls in the range of 12 per
cent to 80 per cent with Banco Do Brasil at rank 1 with the highest CSR disclosure score of
80 per cent and Random Part at last rank 46 with a score of just 12 per cent. In Russia, the
average CSR disclosure score of 50 companies listed on Broad Market index is 41 per cent.
The percentage disclosure score varies from a low of 14 per cent to a high of 79 per cent. Enel
Russia has the highest CSR disclosure score of 79 per cent, standing at rank 1 while
 Developing Countries
Brazil Russia India China
Company Name S (%) R Company Name S (%) R Company Name S (%) R Company Name S (%) R

Banco Do Brasil 80 1 Enel Russia 79 1 Mahindra and Mahindra 81 1 China Shenhua Energy Company 79 1
Itau Unibanco 71 2 Severstal 73 2 Bharat Petroleum 79 2 Baoshan Iron and Steel Company 71 2
Corporation
Santander Bank 71 2 United Company 70 3 Bharat Heavy 75 3 Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical (Group) 68 3
Rusal Electricals Company
Marfrig 38 3 RusHydro 68 4 Bajaj Auto 73 5 Wuhan Iron and Steel Company 67 4
Energias BR 70 4 Rosneft 67 5 IndusInd Bank 71 6 China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation 62 5
CEMIG 68 5 Sberbank 64 6 NTPC 71 6 China United Network Communications 61 6
Petrobras 68 5 Lukoil 61 7 Tata Motors 71 6 Bank of Communications 59 7
M.Diasbranco 68 5 Nizhnekamskneftekhim 61 7 Indian Oil Corporation 68 9
CRH 67 8
Braskem 67 8 Kazanorgsintez 58 9 Coal India 68 9 Bank of China 53 9
Copel 65 9 Novatek 56 10 ITC 68 9 PetroChina Company 53 9
Company Name S (%) R Company Name S (%) R Company Name S (%) R Company Name S (%) R
Bradesco 64 10 Alrosa 56 10 Grasim Industries 68 9 Hainan Airlines Company 53 9
OI 64 10 NLMK 56 10 Hero MotoCorp. 68 9 Industrial Commercial Bank of China 52 12
Tim Part 64 10 NCSP 53 13 Siemens 68 9 China Coal Energy Company 52 12
Tractebel 62 13 Tatneft 52 14 Infosys 68 9 Shanghai Pudong Development Bank 50 14
EcoRodovias 62 13 Slavneft- 52 14 Tata Consultancy 68 9 China Oilfield Services 50 14
Megionneftegaz Services
CPFL Energia 61 15 Inter RAO 50 16 Hindustan Unilever 67 17 Agricultural Bank of China 47 16
Usiminas 58 16 FGC UES 47 17 Oil and Natural Gas 65 18 China Southern Airlines Company 46 17
Corporation
Duratex 58 16 Polymetal 47 17 Power Grid Corporation 65 18 China Minsheng Bank 43 18
International
Eletrobras 56 18 Moesk 45 19 Vedanta 65 18 China Life Insurance Company 43 18
SABESP 56 18 Uralkali 45 19 UltraTech Cement 65 18 China COSCO Holdings Company 43 18
Fibria 56 18 Gazprom 44 21 Axis Bank 63 21 China National Nuclear Power Company 42 21
WEG 55 21 TMK 44 21 Yes Bank 63 21 Air China 42 21
Company S (%) R Company S (%) R Company S (%) R Company S (%) R
GOL 53 22 Rosseti 41 23 Reliance Industries 63 21 China Communications Construction 41 23
Company
Copasa 52 23 IDGC of South 39 24 Gail (India) 63 21 Ping an Insurance (Group) company of China 39 24
CESP 50 24 MTS 39 24 Godrej Consumer 63 21 Industrial Bank 36 25
Products
Marcopolo 50 24 IDGC of Centre 38 26 Maruti Suzuki India 63 21 Datang International Power Generation 35 26
and Volga Region Company
Vale 47 26 IDGC of Centre 36 27 NMDC 62 27 Shanghai Pharmaceuticals Holding Company 33 27
Telef Brasil 47 26 Aeroflot 36 27 Wipro 60 28 Wanhua Chemical Group Company 32 28

(continued)

developing (BRICS)
Disclosure in
countries
and developed
Developing

countries
and developed (the
Company-Wise CSR

USA and the UK)

Table I.
9
 10
11,1
JGR

Table I.
Developing Countries
Brazil Russia India China
Company Name S (%) R Company Name S (%) R Company Name S (%) R Company Name S (%) R

MRV 45 28 Quadra 35 29 Kotak Mahindra Bank 59 29 Huaneng Power International 27 29

Embraer 45 28 Acron 35 29 Titan Company 59 29
Estacio Part 45 28 Lenta 35 29 Bharti Airtel 59 29
Cielo 42 31 E.ON Russia 33 32 Bosch 57 32
Company S (%) R Company S (%) R Company S (%) R Company S (%) R
BM&F Bovespa 42 31 KTC 33 32 Housing Development 56 33
Finance Corporation
Cia Hering 42 31 RPC UWC 32 34 Dabur India 56 33
Suzano Papel 41 34 Norilsk Nickel 30 35 Ambuja Cement 54 35
JBS 38 35 Sollers 30 35 Idea Cellular 54 35
Gerdau 33 37 Lenenergo 29 37 Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories 54 35
Minerva 33 37 PhosAgro 29 37 Hindustan Zinc 52 38
Lojas Americ 30 39 OGK-2 27 39 Nestle India 52 38
Multiplus 30 39 Megafon 26 40 Tech Mahindra 52 38
QGEP Part 29 41 Mostotrest 23 41 ICICI Bank 51 41
Cyrela Realt 27 42 Vozrozhdenie 21 42 State Bank of India 49 42
Bank
Multiplan 26 43 Rostelecom 21 42 HDFC Bank 48 43
Company S (%) R Company S (%) R Company S (%) R Company S (%) R
CCR SA 24 44 Moscow 20 44 Adani Ports and Special 48 43
Exchange Economic Zone
B2W Digital 21 45 IDGC of Volga 20 44 Asian Paints 44 45
Randon Part 12 46 Dixy Group 20 44 Cipla 43 46
Saint-Petersburg 18 47 Lupin 43 46
Mosenergo 17 48 Bank Of Baroda 41 48
Cherkizovo Group 14 49 Power Finance 30 49
Corporation
LSR Group 14 49 United Spirits 29 50
Mean Disclosure 50 41 60 49
Score
Mean Disclosure 49.4
Score Developing/
Developed group

Note: S=Score, R= Rank

(continued)
 Developing Countries Developed Countries
South Africa The USA The UK
Company Name S (%) R Company Name S (%) R Company Name S (%) R

Anglo American 79 1 Bank of America Corporation 86 1 BHP Billiton 81 1

Kumba Iron Ore 77 2 International Business Machine Corporation (IBM) 81 2 BT Group 80 2
BHP Billiton 74 3 Toyota Motor Corp. 77 3 Anglo American 77 3
Exxaro Resources 64 4 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 77 3 WPP 73 4
Glencore 62 5 3M 73 5 BP 69 5
Impala Platinum Holdings 62 5 Exxon Mobil Corporation 67 6 Rio Tinto 69 5
Nedbank Group 61 7 Philip Morris International 67 6 British American Tobacco 69 5
Anglo American Platinum 61 7 Johnson and Johnson 67 6 CRH 67 8
British American Tobacco 61 7 Merck and Co, Inc. 67 6 Llyods Banking Group 66 9
Woolworths Holdings 61 7 China Mobile 66 10 Royal Dutch Shell 64 10
Company Name S (%) R Company Name S (%) R Company Name S (%) R
Mediclinic International 61 7 AT&T Inc. 66 10 Kingfisher 63 11
Mondi 59 12 Citi Group Inc. 63 12 Next 59 12
Tiger Brands 59 12 Coca- Cola 61 13 GlaxoSmithKline 59 12
Sasol 56 14 Royal Bank of Canada 59 14 SSE 58 14
Compagnie Financiere Richemont 56 14 FEMSA 59 14 Vodafone Group 58 14
Massmart Holdings 56 14 Pepsico Inc. 59 14 Legal and General 56 16
Group plc
Investec 55 17 United Parcel Service Inc 59 14 Diageo 56 16
Remgro 53 18 Wells Fargo 58 18 Imperial Tobacco Group 56 16
Standard Bank Group 52 19 Medtronic 58 18 BG Group 55 19
Vodacom Group 50 20 Glaxo Smithkline 58 18 Glencore 55 19
Telkom SA SOC 50 20 TotalFinaElf, S.A. 56 21 Prudential 53 21
FirstRand 48 22 Schlumberger N.V. 56 21 Associated British Foods 52 22
Company S (%) R Company S (%) R Company S (%) R
Liberty Holdings 48 22 Anheuser-Busch Inbev SA 56 21 MORRISONS 52 22
Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc
Gold Fields 48 22 Walt Disney 56 21 Aviva 50 24
Aspen Pharmacare Holdings 48 22 Petrochina 53 25 HSBC Holdings 50 24
Sanlam 45 26 Novartis AG 53 25 Centrica 50 24
Growthpoint Properties 45 26 NTT Docomo, Inc. 52 27 Experian 50 24
MMI Holdings 44 28 BP 50 28 Shire 50 24
Sab Miller 44 28 Procter and Gamble 50 28 Unilever 48 29
Discovery 42 30 Altria Group 50 28 Royal Bank of Scotland 47 30
MTN Group 42 30 Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. 50 28 National Grid 47 30
Anglogold Ashanti 41 32 Allergan 50 28 Antofagasta 47 30
Company S (%) R Company S (%) R Company S (%) R
Barclays Africa Group 39 33 Sanofi 50 28 Taylor Wimpey 47 30

(continued)
countries
and developed
Developing

11

Table I.
 12
11,1
JGR

Table I.
Developing Countries Developed Countries
South Africa The USA The UK
Company Name S (%) R Company Name S (%) R Company Name S (%) R

Pioneer Food Group 39 33 Visa Inc. 48 34 BAE Systems 47 30

Truworths International 39 33 Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation 48 34 Standard life 45 35
Imperial Holdings 39 33 AbbVie Inc 48 34 Fresnillo 45 35
Intu Properties 38 37 HSBC Holdings 47 37 Sky 45 35
Capital and Counties Properties plc 38 37 McDonalds Corporation 47 37 AstraZeneca 45 35
Life Healthcare Group Holdings 38 37 Pfizer, Inc. 47 37 Standard Chartered Bank 44 39
Ltd.
Old Mutual 36 40 Unilever 44 40 Rolls-Royce Holdings 44 39
Redefine Properties 36 40 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 44 40 SAB Miller 41 41
Netcare 36 40 JP Morgan Chase and co, 42 42 Compass Group 41 41
Mr Price Group 32 43 Chevron Corporation 42 42 Pearson 41 41
Company S (%) R Company S (%) R Company S (%) R
Shoprite Holdings 32 43 SAP SE 42 42 Old Mutual 39 44
Naspers 30 45 CVS Healthcare Corporation 42 42 Reckitt Benckiser Group 39 44
Coronation Fund Managers 29 46 UnitedHealth Group Inc. 41 46 Smith and Nephew 39 44
Steinhoff International Holdings 29 46 United Technologies Corporation 39 47 Land Securities 36 47
Group
Capitec Bank Holdings 27 48 Nike Inc 38 48 Arm Holdings 36 47
Brait SE 17 49 MasterCard Incorporated 30 49 Barclays 34 49
New Europe Property Investments 11 50 Home Depot, Inc. 30 49 Wolseley 22 50
47 55 52
49.4 53.5
Cherkizovo Group and LSR Group have made least CSR disclosure with a score of just 14 Developing
per cent each sharing rank 49. With respect to India, the mean CSR disclosure score of 50 and developed
companies listed on BSE 100 is 60 per cent. The percentage disclosure score varies from a
low of 29 per cent to a high 81 per cent. Mahindra and Mahindra has the highest CSR
countries
disclosure score of 81 per cent, standing at rank 1 and United Spirits has made the least
CSR disclosure with a score of just 29 per cent at rank 50. Regarding China, the average CSR
disclosure score of 29 companies listed on SSE 180 is 49 per cent. The percentage disclosure
score falls in the range of 27 per cent to 79 per cent. China Shenhua Energy is at rank 1 with 13
the highest CSR disclosure score and Huaneng Power International is at rank 29 with the
least disclosure score. As regards South Africa, the mean CSR disclosure score of 50
companies listed on Johannesburg Stock Exchange is 47 per cent. The percentage disclosure
score falls in the range of 11 per cent to 79 per cent. Anglo American stands at rank 1 with
the highest CSR disclosure score and New Europe Property Investments is holding last rank
with the lowest CSR disclosure.
With respect to nations in developed group, the average CSR disclosure score of leading
the US companies is 55 per cent. The percentage disclosure score varies from a low of 30 per
cent to a high 86 per cent. Bank of America has the highest CSR disclosure score of 86 per
cent, standing at rank 1 while MasterCard Incorporated and Home Depot are at the last rank
49 with a score of just 30 per cent. In the UK, the mean CSR disclosure score of the 50
companies listed on FTSE 100 is 52 per cent. The percentage disclosure score falls in the
range between 22 per cent and 81 per cent with BHP Billiton at rank 1 with the highest CSR
disclosure score of 81 per cent and Wolseley at last rank 50 with a score of just 22 per cent.

4.2 Item-wise disclosure

Table II presents the item-wise disclosure score of companies in developing (BRICS) and
developed (the USA and the UK) countries in terms of percentage (number of companies) for
the year 2014-2015.
As shown in Table II, Brazilian companies placed higher emphasis on reporting in the
category of “Customer and Product”, reported by around 79 per cent (36) companies. The
companies have made least disclosure in the categories of “Community” and “Others”,
reported by just 53 per cent companies. The results of item-wise analysis reveal that,
“conservation of natural resources and energy efficiency” has maximum disclosure score
reported by 98 per cent (45) companies. The minimum score is for “Disaster relief” with
hardly 4 per cent (2) companies reporting the same. Coming to Russia, the category-wise
disclosure depicts that maximum reporting is made in the category of “Environment”,
reported by around 64 per cent (32) companies. The companies have made the least
disclosure in the category of “Others”, disclosed by just 27.6 per cent (14) companies. The
most disclosed item is “Recycling/waste management” presented by 92 per cent (46)
companies and “Work from home/flexibility of timings” has the least score reported by only
by 8 per cent (4) companies. Moving on to India, the category-wise mean disclosure score
depicts that maximum reporting is made by Indian companies in the category of “Customer
and Product”, reported by around 92 per cent (46) companies. The companies have made
least disclosure in the category of “Human Resources” reported by just 51.5 per cent (26)
companies. Conservation of natural resources and energy efficiency’ has maximum
disclosure score reported by 100 per cent (50) companies. The item-wise disclosure score is
minimum for “Donations/charities with 14 per cent (7) companies disclosing the same. With
respect to China, ‘Customer and Product” is the highest reported category, presented by
around 74 per cent companies. The companies have made least disclosure in the category of
“Others” reported by just 44 per cent companies. The most disclosed item is “Promoting
 14
11,1
JGR

(2014-15)
Table II.

by developing and
developed countries
Item-Wise Disclosure
Score (%) (No.)
Developing Countries Developed Countries
Overall Category Overall Category
Particular of Items in CSR Disclosure Index B R I C SA Mean The USA The UK Mean

Human Resources
Equal opportunities for employees/
embracing diversity 76 (35) 48 (24) 98 (49) 70 (20) 96 (48) 96 (48) 100 (50)
Work from home/flexibility of timings 11 (5) 8 (4) 16 (8) 0 (0) 32 (16) 40 (20) 38 (19)
Welfare of employees and their dependents 85 (39) 90 (45) 34 (17) 90 (26) 46 (23) 66 (33) 26 (13)
Employee participation in volunteering
programs on community development 67 (31) 50 (25) 58 (29) 93 (27) 66 (33) 94 (47) 82 (41)
Mean Disclosure Score 60 (28) 49 (25) 51.5 (26) 63 (18) 60 (30) 56.7 74 (37) 61.5 (31) 67.75

Community
Promoting education 70 (32) 66 (33) 94 (47) (47) 97 (28) 90 (45) 70 (35) 60 (30)
Promoting art, culture and sports 80 (37) 84 (42) 46 (23) 41 (12) 46 (23) 40 (20) 34 (17)
Disaster relief 4 (2) 12 (6) 56 (28) 86 (25) 16 (8) 66 (33) 24 (12)
Vocational training and entrepreneurship
development programme/ employment
generation 67 (31) 18 (9) 88 (44) 31 (9) 64 (32) 50 (25) 72 (36)
Community awareness programmes 26 (12) 26 (13) 64 (32) 41 (12) 34 (17) 54 (27) 38 (19)
Health and hygiene/cleanliness sanitation 57 (26) 52 (26) 96 (48) 55 (16) 70 (35) 76 (38) 60 (30)
Donations/charities 24 (11) 32 (16) 14 (7) 34 (10) 32 (16) 42 (21) 58 (29)
Membership with NGOs/Government/
Universities 74 (34) 52 (26) 92 (46) 45 (13) 88 (44) 90 (45) 90 (45)
Poverty reduction/social equality 50 (23) 58 (29) 34 (17) 83 (24) 62 (31) 42 (21) 46 (23)
Help to specific sectors of economy 65 (30) 78 (39) 94 (47) 90 (26) 66 (33) 86 (43) 68 (34)
Mean Disclosure Score 53 (24) 48 (24) 67.8 (34) 60 (17.5) 57 (28) 57.18 61.6 (31) 55 (27) 58.3

Environment
ISO 14001 certification 54 (25) 58 (29) 78 (39) 38 (11) 36 (18) 40 (20) 50 (25)
Pollution control and prevention of
environmental damage 54 (25) 76 (38) 44 (22) 48 (14) 24 (12) 42 (21) 44 (22)
Conservation of natural resources and energy
efficiency 98 (45) 84 (42) 100 (50) 93 (27) 94 (47) 100 (50) 100 (50)
(continued)
 Score (%) (No.)
Developing Countries Developed Countries
Overall Category Overall Category
Particular of Items in CSR Disclosure Index B R I C SA Mean The USA The UK Mean

Recycling/waste management/water
management 96 (44) 92 (46) 92 (46) 59 (17) 88 (44) 94 (47) 92 (46)
Video conferencing/not traveling/reduction
in paper consumption and printing 30 (14) 14 (7) 48 (24) 59 (17) 38 (19) 42 (21) 36 (18)
Protection of biodiversity/ wildlife
conservation/ afforestation 70 (32) 62 (31) 76 (38) 55 (16) 46 (23) 68 (34) 64 (32)
Mean Disclosure Score 67 (31) 64 (32) 73 (36.5) 59 (17) 54.3 (27) 63.4 64.3 (32) 64.3 (32) 64.3

Customer and Product

Product innovation/R&D 72 (33) 42 (21) 90 (45) 86 (25) 36 (18) 88 (44) 76 (38)
Product quality and safety 87 (40) 76 (38) 96 (48) 76 (22) 54 (27) 76 (38) 92 (46)
Customer relationship management 87 (40) 70 (35) 98 (49) 83 (24) 72 (36) 68 (34) 92 (46)
Sustainable sourcing in supply chain
management 93 (43) 58 (29) 86 (43) 79 (23) 92 (46) 100 (50) 98 (49)
Responsible marketing and communication 57 (26) 20 (10) 90 (45) 45 (13) 22 (11) 58 (29) 42 (21)
Mean Disclosure Score 79 (36) 53 (27) 92 (46) 74 (21) 55.2 (28) 70.7 78 (39) 80 (40) 79

Others
CSR intent in vision/mission 67 (31) 62 (31) 68 (34) 55 (16) 60 (30) 54 (27) 68 (34)
Sustainability report 89 (41) 28 (14) 46 (23) 90 (26) 54 (27) 78 (39) 78 (39)
CSR committee 57 (26) 8 (4) 100 (50) 34 (10) 96 (48) 38 (19) 68 (34)
Negative reporting 41 (19) 36 (18) 52 (26) 10 (3) 34 (17) 28 (14) 62 (31)
Third party assurance/audit 52 (24) 20 (10) 38 (19) 41 (12) 60 (30) 48 (24) 74 (37)
Global CSR 11 (5) 12 (6) 20 (10) 31 (9) 38 (19) 84 (42) 82 (41)
Mean Disclosure Score 53 (24) 27.6 (14) 54 (27) 44 (13) 57 (28) 47.1 55 (27) 72 (36) 63.5

Notes: B=Brazil; R=Russia, I=India; C =China; SA=South Africa

countries
and developed
Developing

15

Table II.
JGR education” disclosed by 97 per cent companies and “Work from home” is the least disclosed
11,1 one, with none of the company reporting it. In South Africa, maximum reporting is made in
the category of “Human Resources”, reported by around 60 per cent (30) companies.
“Environment” is the least reported category, disclosed by just 54.3 per cent (27) companies.
Among all the items “Conservation of natural resources and CSR committee are the most
reported items in South Africa”. “Disaster relief” has the least score reported by only 16 per
16 cent (8) companies.
Among the countries in developed group, maximum reporting is made by the US
companies in the category of “Customer and Product”, disclosed by around 78 per cent (39)
companies. The companies have made the least disclosure in the category of “Others”,
reported by just 55 per cent (27) companies. The most disclosed item by the US companies is
“Conservation of natural resources and energy efficiency” disclosed by 100 per cent (50)
companies and “Negative reporting” is the least reported item with hardly 28 per cent (14)
companies reporting the same. In the UK, companies have made maximum reporting in the
category of “Customer and Product, reported by around 80 per cent (40) companies. The
companies have made the least disclosure in the category of ‘Community”, reported by just
55 per cent (27) companies. The most disclosed items by companies in the UK are “Equal
opportunity for employees/embracing diversity” and “conservation of natural resources”
and is disclosed by 100 per cent (50) companies. The least disclosed item is “Disaster relief”
with merely 24 per cent (12) companies reporting it.
The comparative summarized view of CSR reporting practices among developing
countries represented by Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa and developed
countries represented by the USA and the UK is presented in Table III as follows:
The results clearly exhibit difference in the mean disclosure scores of developing and
developed nations. In order to determine whether the difference in the extent of CSR
disclosure among developing and developed economies is statistically significant,
independent sample t-test is applied. The null hypothesis is that there does not exist any
variation in the mean disclosure score of developing and developed countries. The result of
Independent sample t-test after randomization (in order to make sample comparable) is
shown in Table IV:
As evident from Table IV, t-values is 2.224 and is significant at 5 per cent level of
significance. It signifies that there exists variation between developing and developed
countries with respect to percentage CSR disclosure score. Thus, it depicts that developed
countries provide significantly more CSR disclosure in contrast to developing nations.
The results reveal that the mean CSR disclosure score of developed countries is
significantly higher than that of developing countries. There is greater level of
institutionalization in developed nations (Tang et al., 2015). The engagement of firms in CSR
practices is shaped by the country’s institutional framework in which they operate (Matten
and Moon, 2008). The companies operating in particular institutional environment are
subject to regulative, normative and cognitive forces that mould the development of CSR.
The regulative forces refer to organization’s engagement into CSR practices as a result of
rules and regulations. However, degree of compliance by companies depends upon the
efficiency of the legal system and regulatory framework to enforce the same (Marquis et al.,
2007). In developing countries despite the laws, these are poorly enforced (Kimber and
Lipton, 2005) on account of weak institutional environment and poor governance (Kemp,
2001 and Khavul et al., 2013). The overall CSR disclosure score of India (60 per cent) is not
very high, even though it has been mandatory to spend on CSR activities from 1 April, 2014.
On the other hand, developed countries are characterized by having high regulatory
enforcement and greater scrutiny (Visser, 2008) that put excessive pressure on firms to
 Developing Countries Developed Countries
Country
Developing Developed
Items Brazil Russia India China South Africa Group The USA The UK Group

CSR Reporting companies (sample) 46 50 50 29 50 225 50 50 100

Overall mean CSR disclosure score 50% 41% 60% 49% 47% 49.4% 55% 52% 53.5%

Rank 2 5 1 3 4 (II) 1 2 (I)

Category-wise Mean CSR disclosure

score
HR 60% 49% 51.5% 63.3% 60% 56.7% 74 61.5 67.75%
C 53% 47.8% 67.8% 60.3% 57% 57.18% 61.6 55 58.3%
E 67% 64% 73% 59% 54.3% 63.4% 64.3 64.3 64.3%
CP 79% 53.2% 92% 74% 55.2% 70.7% 78 80 79%
O 53% 27.6% 54% 44% 57% 47.1% 55 72 63.5%
Maximum Reported Category CP E CP CP HR CP CP CP CP
Minimum Reported Category C O HR O E O O C C

Maximum reported item

HR welfare of welfare of equal employee equal equal equal equal equal
employees employees opportunities volunteering opportunities opportunities opportunities opportunities opportunities
for employees for employees for employees for employees for employees for employees
C promoting art, promoting health and promoting promoting promoting membership membership membership
culture and art, culture sanitation education education education with NGOs with NGOs with NGOs
sports and sports
E conservation recycling/ conservation conservation conservation of conservation conservation conservation conservation
of natural waste of natural of natural natural of natural of natural of natural of natural
resources management resources resources resources resources resources resources resources
CP sustainable product CRM product sustainable CRM sustainable sustainable sustainable
sourcing in quality and innovation sourcing in in sourcing in sourcing in sourcing in
supply chain safety supply chain supply chain supply chain supply chain
management management management management management
O sustainability CSR intent CSR sustainability CSR committee CSR intent in global CSR global CSR global CSR
report in vision/ committee report vision/
mission mission
(continued)

developing (BRICS)
CSR reporting in
Table III.

summarized view of
countries

Comparative
and developed
Developing

countries
and developed (the
17

USA and the UK)

 18
11,1
JGR

Table III.
Developing Countries Developed Countries
Country
Developing Developed
Items Brazil Russia India China South Africa Group The USA The UK Group

Minimum reported item

HR work from work from work from work from work from work from work from welfare of work from
home home home home home home home employees home
C disaster relief disaster donations vocational disaster relief disaster relief promoting art, disaster relief promoting art,
relief training culture and culture and
sports sports
E video video pollution ISO 14001 pollution video ISO 14001 video video
conferencing conferencing control certification control conferencing certification conferencing conferencing
CP responsible responsible Sustainable responsible responsible responsible responsible responsible responsible
marketing marketing sourcing in marketing marketing marketing marketing marketing marketing
supply chain
management
O global CSR global CSR global CSR negative negative global CSR negative negative negative
Reporting Reporting reporting reporting reporting

Notes: HR=Human Resources; C=Community; E=Environment; CP=Customer and Product; O=Others

behave responsibly. Baughn et al. (2007) endorses that corporations are less likely to engage Developing
or value CSR, if the country has high level of governmental corruption. As a consequence, it and developed
allows companies to avoid restraints of law (Rodriguez et al., 2005). The developing
countries, namely, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are standing at ranks 76,
countries
119, 76, 83 and 61 respectively in the corruption perception index out of 168 countries
whereas the USA and the UK are at ranks 16th and 10th, respectively (Transparency
International, 2015). It clearly specifies high level of corruption prevailing in developing
(BRICS) nations in contrast to their counterparts in developed countries (the USA and the
19
UK). Normative forces refer to set of values and social norms that define acceptable
corporate social behavior (Campbell, 2006 and Marquis et al., 2007). The organizations are
bound to conform to these social values set out by multitude of social actors such as NGOs,
media, institutional investors, educational and other professional institutions to legitimate
their business practices. These social actors exercise pressure on firms to adopt certain
structures and practices that are considered to be socially responsible (Doh and Guay, 2006;
Campbell, 2007 and Matten and Moon, 2008). The developed nations such as the USA and
the UK have strong institutional framework with large presence of NGOs, inquisitive media,
professional cultures and industry led associations that encourage the development of CSR
(Campbell, 2007; Abreu and Barlow, 2013 and Tang et. al, 2015). On the other hand, NGOs
and media are not strong enough in developing countries to exert pressure on companies to
be socially responsible. Thus, the basic characteristics possessed by institutions in
developed countries compel the organization to act in a socially responsible manner
(Campbell, 2007). Cognitive forces state that the tendency of the organization to exhibit
socially responsible behavior is governed by the cultural beliefs and ideology shared by
society in a particular institutional environment in which they carry on operations
(Galaskiewicz, 1997). This force significantly contributes to the uptake of CSR in developing
nations on account of strong religious beliefs and cultural norms prevailing in these nations
(Jamali, 2014). Also, as companies operating in developing countries are expanding globally;
they mimic the best practices of companies in developed nations (Tuli, 2015). However, in
the presence of weak governance and lack of active involvement of all the actors, namely,
government, NGOs, media, civil society and business; it alone cannot contribute fully to the
development of CSR. In a nutshell, developing countries have several institutional gaps and
voids in the form of weak enforcement of laws, poor governance and lack of co-ordination
between business, government and various actors that restrict the development of CSR
unlike their counterparts in developed nations.
The companies in both economies are more concerned in fulfilling responsibilities
towards products/customers. According to Carroll’s (1979) CSR pyramid, the foremost
responsibility of the business is economic responsibility and it constitutes an essential
component of CSR. It stresses on giving prior importance to economic performance, as it is a
must for the continuing existence of the firms. Furthermore, discretionary responsibility can

Table IV.
Results of
independent sample
T-test for CSR
disclosure score of
Country No. of Companies Mean SD Std Error Mean t Sig.(2-tailed)
companies from
Developing (BRICS) 119 49.25 15.599 1.430 2.224 0.027 developing and
Developed (the USA and the UK) 100 53.45 12.327 1.233 developed countries
JGR be exercised only if business is able to generate sufficient profits. Hence, companies attach
11,1 greater significance to product innovation, producing quality products and building
relationship with customers as it proves advantageous to business in terms of revenues and
share value. However, companies in developed economies give less priority to community
issues. The developed nations encounter less socio economic problems such as development
of infrastructure, provision of healthcare facilities and education, which in developing
20 countries are major drivers for CSR. In addition, developed nations have relatively large tax
bases that lead companies to assume that providing social service is the task for the
government. “Others” is the least preferred category in developing nations. Though
companies in developing countries are producing CSR information either in annual reports
or in separate stand- alone CSR reports but it lacks reliability and transparency. This is
evident from the lower score of the indicators such as external assurance and negative
reporting. It seems that companies are just attempting to appear legitimate in the eyes of
stakeholders by particularly producing positive CSR related information. The reports in the
absence of independent assurance and negative information do not reflect the true picture of
company’s CSR activities and give rise to doubts on the reliability and credibility of the
information provided.
Differences also exist between companies in developed and developing economies with
regard to disclosure of CSR items though “Equal opportunity for employees/embracing
diversity” is the most disclosed item under “Human Resources” category in both developed
and developing countries. This seems to be on account of prevalence of laws that give equal
representation to all employees protecting them against any discrimination. Similarly,
offering of provisions such as work from home/flexibility of timings beyond those required
by the law is not preferred much in both the economies. The managerial perception also
affects the adoption of the privilege of flexible working timings. Managers usually assume
that employees coming late to work are less conscientious than the early starters, even
though there is no difference in the total working hours (Nisen, 2014). Hence, employees are
reluctant to use flexible work options on account of fear that it could harm their career
progression. Developing nations invest more in promoting education. The lower literacy rate
is one of the pressing concerns in developing countries (UNESCO, 2015). Hence, companies
attribute their efforts in enhancing education levels. On the other hand, developed nations
indulge in CSR by forming partnerships with NGOs rather than carrying out through one-
off events such as donations. NGOs exhibit professional knowledge and expertise along
with the higher network linkage (Bobenrieth et al., 2010). Thus, partnerships help the
corporations in understanding stakeholder needs better and exploit its existing capabilities
at its best. As far as environment is concerned, both developed and developing countries are
making investments in installing renewable technologies. There is increased global concern
for climate change and rising greenhouse gas emissions. Governments in both economies
are taking number of initiatives stimulating corporations to conserve the scarce natural
resources. Sustainability is a matter of global concern today. However, unfortunately very
few firms in both set of groups prefer using substitutes to business traveling. The
companies need to think of this alternative as well, as traveling to business meetings
enhances level of carbon emissions. Modern technology should be preferred in current e-era.
Developed countries tend to report CSR as global practice whereas it is least reported item in
developing countries. Developing countries have just initiated expanding their operations
globally; hence, these have restricted knowledge in carrying out CSR practices at global
level. On the other hand, western corporations with their earlier existence (Chambers et al.,
2003) have greater tendency to engage globally in CSR.
 Our results are similar to the findings of Chambers et al. (2003) who advocated that CSR Developing
uptake was lower in Asian countries in contrast to those in the West. Even, Welford (2005) and developed
who has examined the written policies on CSR of companies in 15 nations in three
geographical regions: Europe, Asia and North America stated that Asian countries use CSR
countries
policies less often as compared to Europe and North American countries. Similarly, Vilar
and Simao (2015) conducted study to examine CSR practices on the websites of 110 banks
from 11 geographic regions and found that banks in developed countries present more CSR
information than those in less developed countries. However, our results are not in line with 21
Tang et al. (2015) who report no significant differences in the number of CSR items disclosed
by companies in the USA and China during follow-up study in 2012. Perhaps, this study has
covered just two countries and focused on just presence or absence of CSR items. With
respect to category, Customer and Product is the most reported category in both developing
and developed countries. Our findings coincide with studies conducted in developing
countries (Ahmad et al., 2003; Raman, 2006 and Kilic et al., 2015) and in developed countries
(Capriotti and Moreno, 2007 and Lindgreen et al., 2009) that indicate higher disclosure for
customer and product category. However, it contradicts with the findings of the studies in
developed countries by Maignan and Ralston (2002) and Fukukawa and Moon (2004) who
found environment to be the most popular theme of disclosure in companies of France, The
Netherlands and Japan respectively. The reason seems to be high environmental regulations
in these countries unlike our sampled companies.

5. Conclusion
The study contributes to the literature by examining and comparing the nature and extent
of CSR disclosure of companies in developing and developed countries. Comparison of CSR
disclosure practices of developing and developed countries produces significant overall
differences suggesting that developed countries present more CSR disclosure information in
contrast to the developing countries. Appropriate solutions need to be taken up by the
developing countries to elevate their disclosure score and improve social reporting practices.
First and foremost, policymakers in developing countries should emphasize more on
improving regulatory environment. Laws should be made more stringent and there should
be strict penalties in case of noncompliance by companies. The government in developing
countries should take up a proactive role in CSR reporting. They should introduce education
and awareness programs on CSR so that gradually the concept of CSR gets imbibed in the
cultural roots of developing countries. The study would also like to make an appeal to the
Government in developing countries to make external assurance of CSR reports compulsory
so as to enhance the reliability of CSR information which tends to involve high degree of
subjectivity. The results also strongly recommend to regulatory bodies in developing
countries to provide a standard format for the disclosure of CSR information. The findings
of the study indicate that CSR information produced by companies in developing countries
is largely discretionary. There is absence of detailed guidance regarding various CSR issues.
Policymakers should provide proper guidelines regarding the format as well as content of
CSR information to be disclosed. In brief, CSR disclosure needs standardization. Hence, it is
recommended to the professional accounting bodies that an accounting standard on “CSR”
be developed. This shall definitely inject harmony in CSR accounting and reporting
practices around the globe. These endeavors would not only uniform CSR issues but would
also help in avoiding duplication of efforts by various bodies to give CSR a concrete shape.
Item-wise results implicate that consumers are the most important stakeholder in both
developing and developed countries. The circumference of CSR should be expanded to cover
more stakeholders rather than just those who fulfill economic interests of companies. For
JGR instance, flexible working hours for employees which is the least favored item in both
11,1 groups of countries should be promoted. This would facilitate employees to maintain work/
life balance. Similarly, adverse environmental impact of the corporate activities needs to be
checked. The findings of the present study highlight that very few companies are using
alternate healthy measures for environment protection in both developing and developed
countries. Executives and managers in both groups of nations should ensure the use of
22 certain alternatives such as video conferencing, teleconferencing and thus reduce travel;
saving on oil, fuel and pollution. Use of such measures would be a step towards sustainable
living. Sincere efforts for development of society as a whole should be the goal of CSR
activities.
An endeavor has been made in the current paper to study the differences in developed
and developing countries at both the company and item/theme level by choosing
appropriate sample of countries. Still since the study is based on data for one year only, the
results may not be perfectly generalized. A longitudinal analysis would perhaps allow more
minute investigation of CSR reporting patterns. Similarly, the study can also be replicated in
other nations to examine similarities and differences in their CSR reporting practices.
Factors affecting the reporting practices among developing and developed countries too
need an empirical assessment. The current paper hopefully sets the ball rolling for the
budding researchers to undertake more research comparing different nations across the
globe.

References
Abbott, W.F. and Monsen, R.J. (1979), “On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: self-
reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 501-515.
Abreu, M.C.S. and Barlow, C. (2013), “A comparative picture of corporate social responsibility
approaches by leading companies in the United Kingdom and Brazil”, Social Responsibility
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 571-588.
Abreu, M.C.S., de Castro, F., de Assis Soares, F. and da Silva Filho, J.C.L. (2012), “A comparative
understanding of corporate social responsibility of textile firms in Brazil and China”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 119-126.
Ahmad, N.N.N., Sulaiman, M. and Siswantoro, D. (2003), “Corporate social responsibility disclosure in
Malaysia: an analysis of annual reports of KLSE listed companies”, International Journal of
Economics, Management and Accounting, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 51-86.
Alon, I., Lattemann, C., Fetscherin, M., Li, S. and Schneider, A.M. (2010), “Usage of public corporate
communications of social responsibility in Brazil, russia, India and China (BRIC)”, International
Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 6-22.
Andrew, B.H., Gul, F.A., Guthrie, J.E. and Teoh, H.Y. (1989), “A note on corporate social disclosure
practices in developing countries: the case of Malaysia and Singapore”, The British Accounting
Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 371-376.
Azevedo, V.G., Sartori, S. and Campos, L.M. (2018), “CO2 emissions: a quantitative analysis among the
BRICS nations”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 81, pp. 107-115.
Azim, M.I., Ahmed, E. and D’Netto, B. (2011), “Corporate social disclosure in Bangladesh a study of the
financial sector”, International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 37-55.
Bashtovaya, V. (2014), “CSR reporting in the United States and russia”, Social Responsibility Journal,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 68-84.
Baskin, J. (2006), “Value, values and sustainability: corporate responsibility in emerging market
companies”, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1094573 (accessed 14 May 2018).
Baughn, C.C., Bodie, N.L. and McIntosh, J.C. (2007), “Corporate social and environmental responsibility Developing
in asian countries and other geographical regions”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 189-205.
and developed
Belal, A.R. (2001), “A study of corporate social disclosures in Bangladesh”, Managerial Auditing
countries
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 274-289.
Birth, G., Illia, L., Lurati, F. and Zamparini, A. (2008), “Communicating CSR: practices among
switzerland’s top 300 companies”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 182-196. 23
Bobenrieth, M.E. Stibbe, D. and Kinderdorpen, S.O.S. (2010), “Changing trends in Business-Ngo
partnerships. Amsterdam: the partnering initiative and SOS kinderdorpen”, available at: https://
thepartneringinitiative.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/08/ChangingTrends_BizNGO_Partnerships_
2010-2.pdf (accessed 15 July 2018).
Campbell, J.L. (2006), “Institutional analysis and the paradox of corporate social responsibility”,
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 925-938.
Campbell, J.L. (2007), “Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional
theory of corporate social responsibility”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 946-967.
Capriotti, P. and Moreno, A. (2007), “Communicating corporate responsibility through corporate web
sites in Spain”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 221-237.
Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.
Cecil, L. and Mahoney, L. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility reporting in the United States”,
McNair Scholars Research Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 42-52.
Chambers, E. Chapple, W. Moon, J. and Sullivan, M. (2003), “CSR in asia: a seven country study of CSR website
reporting”, available at: http://195.130.87.21:8080/dspace/handle/123456789/1094 (accessed 15 March
2018).
Chapple, W., Herzig, C. and Slager, R.C. (2014), “The dynamics of corporate social responsibility in asia: a 6
country study”, paper presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management,
Philadelphia, PA, United States, available at: https://centres.insead.edu/social-innovation/what-
wedo/documents/The_Dynamics_of_Corporate_Social_Responsibility_INSEAD.pdf (accessed 20
March 2018).
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. 415-441.
Chaudhri, V. and Wang, J. (2007), “Communicating corporate social responsibility on the internet: a case
study of the top 100 information technology companies in India”, Management Communication
Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 232-247.
Chen, L. and De Lombaerde, P. (2014), “Testing the relationships between globalization, regionalization
and the regional hubness of the BRICs”, Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol. 36, pp. 111-131.
Dawkins, C. and Ngunjiri, F.W. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility reporting in South Africa: a
descriptive and comparative analysis”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 286-307.
Deegan, C. and Gordon, B. (1996), “A study of the environmental disclosure practices of Australian
corporations”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 187-199.
Doh, J.P. and Guay, T.R. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in
Europe and the United States: an institutional-stakeholder perspective”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 47-73.
Dong, S. Burritt, R. and Qian, W. (2012), “An assessment of CSR reporting practice in china’s mining
and minerals industry”, available at: https://unisa.edu.au/Global/business/centres/cags/docs/
seminars/Paper%20Shidi.pdf (accessed 10 April 2018).
JGR Ernst & Ernst (1978), “Social responsibility disclosure: surveys of Fortune 500 annual reports”, Ernst &
Ernst, USA.
11,1
Fifka, M.S. and Pobizhan, M. (2014), “An institutional approach to corporate social responsibility in
russia”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 192-201.
Fukukawa, K. and Moon, J. (2004), “A japanese model of corporate social responsibility? A study of
online reporting”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 16, pp. 45-59.
24 Galaskiewicz, J. (1997), “An urban grants economy revisited: corporate charitable contributions in the
twin cities, 1979-81, 1987-89”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 445-471.
Giannarakis, G. (2014), “The determinants influencing the extent of CSR disclosure”, International
Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 393-416.
Gnyawali, D.R. (1996), “Corporate social performance: an international perspective”, Advances in
International Comparative Management, Vol. 11, pp. 251-273.
Gous, N. (2018), “SA most unequal country in world: poverty shows apartheid’s enduring legacy”,
available at: www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2018-04-04-poverty-shows-how-apartheid-
legacy-endures-in-south-africa/ (accessed 20 April 2018).
Gray, S.J. (1988), “Towards a theory of cultural influence on the development of accounting systems
internationally”, Abacus, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Guthrie, J. and Parker, L. (1990), “Corporate social disclosure practice: a comparative international
analysis”, Advance in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 159-175.
Habek, P. and Wolniak, R. (2016), “Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports: the
case of reporting practices in selected European union member states”, Quality and Quantity,
Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 399-420.
Habisch, A., Patelli, L., Pedrini, M. and Schwartz, C. (2011), “Different talks with different folks: a
comparative survey of stakeholder dialog in Germany, Italy, and the US”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 100 No. 3, pp. 381-404.
Heyneman, S.P. (1980), “Differences between developed and developing countries: comment on
simmons and alexander’s determinants of school achievement”, Economic Development and
Cultural Change, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 403-406.
Jamali, D. (2014), “CSR in developing countries through an institutional lens”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Sustainability: Emerging Trends in Developing Economies, Vol. 8, pp. 21-44.
Jizi, M.I., Salama, A., Dixon, R. and Stratling, R. (2014), “Corporate governance and corporate social
responsibility disclosure: evidence from the US banking sector”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 125 No. 4, pp. 601-615.
Jose, A. and Lee, S.M. (2007), “Environmental reporting of global corporations: a content analysis based
on website disclosures”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 307-321.
Kane, V., Dikeç, A. and Park, J.Y. (2017), “Cross-national CSR web reporting: a comparative analysis of
multinational corporations in the US and South Korea”, Review of Pacific Basin Financial
Markets and Policies, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Kansal, M. and Singh, S. (2012), “Measurement of corporate social performance: an Indian perspective”,
Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 527-546.
Kelly, G.J. (1981), “Australian social responsibility disclosure: some insights into contemporary
measurement”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 97-107.
Kemp, M. (2001), “Corporate social responsibility in Indonesia: Quixotic dream or confident expectation?”,
available at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.
google.co.in/&httpsredir=1&article=1011&context=codes (accessed 21 June 2018).
Khavul, S., Chavez, H. and Bruton, G.D. (2013), “When institutional change outruns the change agent:
the contested terrain of entrepreneurial microfinance for those in poverty”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 30-50.
Kilic, M., Kuzey, C. and Uyar, A. (2015), “The impact of ownership and board structure on corporate Developing
social responsibility (CSR) reporting in the Turkish banking industry”, Corporate Governance:
The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 357-374. and developed
Kimber, D. and Lipton, P. (2005), “Corporate governance and business ethics in the Asia-Pacific region”, countries
Business and Society, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 178-210.
Lattemann, C., Fetscherin, M., Alon, I., Li, S. and Schneider, A.M. (2009), “CSR communication intensity
in Chinese and Indian multinational companies”, Corporate Governance: An International
Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 426 -442. 25
Levin, D. (2015), Air Pollution in China Is Tied to 1.6 Million Deaths a Year, The New York, NY Times, p. A6.
Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V. and Johnston, W.J. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility: an empirical
investigation of US organizations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. S2, pp. 303-323.
Lungu, C.I., Caraiani, C., Dascalu, C. and Guse, R.G. (2011), “Exploratory study on social and
environmental reporting of European companies in crises period”, Accounting and Management
Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 459-478.
Lynn, M. (1992), “A note on corporate social disclosure in Hong Kong”, The British Accounting Review,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 105-110.
Maignan, I. and Ralston, D.A. (2002), “Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: insights from
businesses’ self-presentations”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 497-514.
Malhotra, N.K. and Dash, S. (2011), “Marketing research, an applied orientation”, Dorling Kindersley
(India), Pearson.
Marquis, C., Glynn, M.A. and Davis, G.F. (2007), “Community isomorphism and corporate social
action”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 925-945.
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. 404-424.
Murthy, V. (2008), “Corporate social disclosure practices of top software firms in India”, Global Business
Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 173-188.
Muthuri, J.N. and Gilbert, V. (2011), “An institutional analysis of corporate social responsibility in
Kenya”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98 No. 3, pp. 467-483.
Nisen, M. (2014), “No matter what the boss says about flextime, get to work early”, available at: https://qz.
com/209513/no-matter-what-the-boss-says-about-flextime-get-to-work-early/ (accessed 16 May 2018).
Pao, H.T. and Tsai, C.M. (2010), “CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in BRIC
countries”, Energy Policy, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 7850-7860.
Radulescu, I.G., Panait, M. and Voica, C. (2014), “BRICS countries challenge to the world economy new
trends”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 8, pp. 605-613.
Raman, S.R. (2006), “Corporate social reporting in India – a view from the top”, Global Business Review,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 313-324.
Ramasamy, B. and Ting, H.W. (2004), “A comparative analysis of corporate social responsibility
awareness”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 13 No. 13, pp. 109-123.
Rodriguez, P., Uhlenbruck, K. and Eden, L. (2005), “Government corruption and the entry strategies of
multinationals”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 383-396.
Savage, A.A. (1994), “Corporate social disclosure practices in South Africa: a research note”, Social and
Environmental Accountability Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 2-4.
Smith, J.L., Adhikari, A. and Tondkar, R.H. (2005), “Exploring differences in social disclosures internationally:
a stakeholder perspective”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 123-151.
Soh, C., Kim, H.J. and Whang, T. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) implementation in South
Korea: Lessons from American and British CSR policies”, Journal of International and Area
Studies, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 99-118.
JGR Tang, L., Gallagher, C.C. and Bie, B. (2015), “Corporate social responsibility communication through
corporate websites: a comparison of leading corporations in the United States and China”,
11,1 International Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 205-227.
Transparency International (2015), “Corruption perception index”, available at: www.transparency.org/
cpi2015 (accessed 21 February, 2018).
Transparency International (2017), “Corruption perception index”, available at: www.transparency.org/
news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017 (accessed 3 March, 2018).
26
Tsang, E.W. (1998), “A longitudinal study of corporate social reporting in Singapore: the case of the
banking, food and beverages and hotel industries”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 624-635.
Tuli, S. (2015), “Sustainability reporting in developing and developed economies”, available at: http://
shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/100916 (accessed 25 May 2018).
Ullah, M.H. and Rahman, M.A. (2015), “Corporate social responsibility reporting practices in banking
companies in Bangladesh: impact of regulatory change”, Journal of Financial Reporting and
Accounting, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 200-225.
UNESCO (2015), “EFA global monitoring report”, available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/
002322/232205e.pdf (accessed 3 March 2018).
Vilar, V.H. and Simao, J. (2015), “CSR disclosure on the web: major themes in the banking sector”,
International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 296-318.
Visser, W. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility in developing countries”, in Crane, A., McWilliams,
A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and Siegel, D. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social
Responsibility, Oxford University Press, London pp. 473-499.
Wei, Y. (2017), “Analysing china’s population: social change in a new demographic era”, Canadian
Studies in Population, Vol. 43 No. 3-4, pp. 302-304.
Welford, R. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia”, Journal of
Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 17, pp. 33-52.
Withrop, R.H. (1991), “Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology”, Green World Press, USA.
World Bank (2016), “GDP ranking”, available at: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/gdp-
ranking (accessed 5 June 2018).
World Bank Report (2016), “Poverty and shared prosperity”, available at: https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/25078/9781464809583.pdf (accessed 27 April 2018).
World Resources Institute (2015), “Infographic: what do your country’s emissions look Like”, available
at: www.wri.org/blog/2015/06/infographic-what-do-your-countrys-emissions-look (accessed 25
June 2018).

Further reading
Bartlett, J., Tywoniak, S. and Hatcher, C. (2007), “Public relations professional practice and the
institutionalisation of CSR”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 281-299.

Corresponding author
Binny Makkar can be contacted at: binnyk3@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com