Open Access
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 36, 2017
The 2016 4th International Conference on Governance and Accountability (2016 ICGA)
Article Number 00012
Number of page(s) 21
Published online 24 July 2017
  1. Amran, A., Lim, L.L. and Sofri, Y. (2007). A Study of Corporate Philanthropic Traits among Major Malaysian Corporations, Social Responsibility Journal, 3 (4), 21 – 30 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, A. and Gupta, P.P. (2009). A cross-country comparison of corporate governance and firm performance: Do financial structure and the legal system matter? Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 5, 61–69. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) (2014). Report of the judges, ACCA Malaysia Sustainability Reporting Awards (MaSRA). Malaysia: ACCA. [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnea, A. and Rubin, A., (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 71–86. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Belkaoui, A. and Karpik, P.G., (1989). Determinants of the corporate decision to disclose social information. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 2 (1), 36–51. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Botosan, C.A. (1997). Disclosure level and the cost of equity capital. Accounting Review, 72 (3), 323–50. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowerman, B.L. and O’Connell, R.T. (1990). Liner statistical models: An applied approach (2nd ed.), Belmont, CA: Duxbury. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brammer, S. and Pavelin, S. (2008). Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17 (2), 120–36. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Broberg, P., Tagesson, T. and Collin, S., (2010). What explains variation in voluntary disclosure? A study of the annual reports of corporations listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchange. Journal of Management & Governance, 14, 351–77. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Campbell, J.L., (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32 (3), 946–67. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Carpenter, M.A. and Westphal, J.D. (2001), “The strategic context of external network ties: Examining the impact of director appointments on board involvement in strategic decision making”, Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4), 639–60. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chambers, E., Chapple, W., Moon, J. and Sullivan, M. (2003). CSR in Asia: A seven country study of CSR website reporting. International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility (ICCSR) Research Paper Series, 09–2003. Nottingham: Nottingham University Business School. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chih, H.L., Chih, H.H. and Chih, T.Z. (2009). On the determinants of corporate social responsibility: International evidence on the financial industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 115–35. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cormier, D., Magnan, M. (2003). Environmental reporting management: a continental European perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22, 43–62. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Creative Research System (2012). The Survey System: Sample size calculator. Available at: <> [Accessed 31 august 2014]. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dallal, G.E. (2000), How to Read the Output From Multiple Linear Regression Analyses. Available at: <> [Accessed 31 august 2014]. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dancey, C., & Reidy, J. (2004). Statistics without maths for psychology: Using SPSS for Windows, London: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  18. Eng, L.L. and Mak Y.T. (2003). Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure. Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, 22, 325–345. [Google Scholar]
  19. Field, A., (2009). Discovery statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.), SAGE Publications Ltd. London. [Google Scholar]
  20. Financial Reporting Council (2012). UK Corporate Governance Code. Available at: [Accessed 18 June 2014] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fortainer, F., Kolk, A., Pinkse, J. (2011). Harmonization in CSR reporting: MNEs and global CSR standards. Management International Review, 51, 665–96. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Freeman, R.E., Moutchnik, A., 2013. Stakeholder management and CSR: questions and answers. UmweltWirtschaftsForum: uwf, 21, pp.5–9. Available at: http://10.1007/s00550-013-0266-3 [Accessed 18 June 2014]. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. FTSE Group (2014a). FTSE 100 UK Index Series Quarterly Data – May 2014. Available at: [Accessed 15 June 2014] [Google Scholar]
  24. FTSE Group (2014b). FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI Index Series Review Changes Overview – June 2014. Available at: [Accessed 15 June 2014] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gallo, P.J., Jones Christensen, L. (2011). Firm size matters: an empirical investigation of organizational size and ownership on sustainability-related behaviors. Business & Society, 50, 315–49. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gamerschlag, R., Moller, K. and Verbeeten, F. (2011). Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: Empirical evidence from Germany. Review of Managerial Science, 5 (2-3), 233–62. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 2013. G4 Sustainability Guidelines. Available at: [Accessed 7 April 2014]. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995). Methodological Themes: Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8 (2), 78–101. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. GRI Reporting Framework, 2013. Available at: [Accessed 14 March 2014] [Google Scholar]
  30. Giannarakis, G. (2014) “Corporate governance and financial characteristic effects on the extent of corporate social responsibility disclosure”, Social Responsibility Journal, 10 (4), 569–590. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gul, F., A. and Leong, S. (2004). Board leadership, outside directors’ expertise and voluntary corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 23 (5), 351–79. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Haniffa, R., Cooke, T.E. (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24, 391–430. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hauke, J. and Kossowski, T. (2011). Comparison of values of Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaestiones Geographicae, 30 (2), 87–93. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Jöreskog, K., G. (1999). Formula for Skewness and Kurtosis. Available at: [Accessed 27 August 2014]. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kassinis, G. and Vafeas, N. (2002). Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants of environmental litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 23 (5), 399–414. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kytle, B. and Ruggie, J. R. (2005). Corporate social responsibility as risk management: A model for multinationals. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper 10. Cambridge: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. [Google Scholar]
  38. LaFond, R. and Watts, R.L. (2008). The information role of conservatism. Accounting Review, 83 (2), 447–78. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F. and Shleifer, A. (2008). The Economic Consequences of Legal Origins. Journal of Economic Literature, 46 (2), 285–332. Available at: [Accessed 4 July 2014] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lan, Y., Wang, L. and Zhang, X., (2013). Determinants and features of voluntary disclosure in the Chinese stock market. China Journal of Accounting Research, 6, 265–85. [Google Scholar]
  41. Markowski, C.A. and Markowski, E.P. (1990). Conditions for the Effectiveness of a Preliminary Test of Variance, The American Statisticia,Vol. 44, No. 4 (Nov.), 322–326 [Google Scholar]
  42. Mat Nor, F., Mohd. Shariff, F. and Ibrahim, I. (2010). The effects of concentrated ownership on the performance of the firm: Do external shareholdings and board structure matter? Jurnal Pengurusan, 30, 93–102. [Google Scholar]
  43. Milne, M.J. and Adler, R.W. (1999). Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 12 (2), 237–56. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  44. Mohd Ali, M., Ibrahim, M.K., Mohammad, R., Zain, M.M. and Alwi, M.R. (2009). Malaysia: Value relevance of accounting numbers. In Idowu, S.O. & Filho, W.L. (Eds.), Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility, 201–230. Berlin: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  45. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L. and Rynes, S.L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24 (3), 403–441. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. Ratna, N., Grantley, T., Rusminm R., Greg T., Bikram, C. (2016). Factors determining social and environmental reporting by Indian textile and apparel firms: a test of legitimacy theory. Social Responsibility Journal, 12 (1), 167–89. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Reverte, C. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 351–66. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. Securities Commission (SC) Malaysia (2012). Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance (MCGG). Available at: <> [Accessed 18 June 2014] [Google Scholar]
  49. Siegel and Vitaliano (2007). An empirical analysis of the strategic use of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16 (3), 773–92. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  50. Udayasankar, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and firm size. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 167–75. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  51. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2013. Carrots and Sticks: Sustainability reporting policies worldwide – Today’s best practice, tomorrow’s trends. Available at: <> [Accessed 14 March 2014] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.