EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 36 (2017) SHS Web Conf., 36 (2017) 00015 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 36, 2017
The 2016 4th International Conference on Governance and Accountability (2016 ICGA)
Article Number 00015
Number of page(s) 15
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20173600015
Published online 24 July 2017
  1. Alrazi, B., De Villiers, C., & Van Staden, C.J., (2016), The environmental disclosures of the electricity generation industry: a global perspective, Accounting and Business Research, 46(6), 665–701. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ascui, F. (2014). A review of carbon accounting in the social and environmental accounting literature: what can it contribute to the debate? Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 34(1),6–28. DOI: 10.1080/0969160X.2013.870487 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bansal, P. & Roth, K. (2000), Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness, Academy of Management Journal, 43(4),717–736. DOI: 10.2307/1556363 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ben-Amar, W. & McIlkenny, P. (2015). Board effectiveness and the voluntary disclosure of climate change information, Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8),709–714. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1840 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ben-Amar, W., Chang, M. & McIlkenny, P. (2015), Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: Evidence from the Carbon Disclosure Project, Journal of Business Ethics, July, 1–15. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2759-1 [Google Scholar]
  6. CDP (2015). Accelerating action: CDP Global Water Report 2015, Carbon Disclosure Project: London. Retrieved from: https://www.cdp.net/CDPResults/CDP-Global-Water-Report-2015.pdf [Google Scholar]
  7. Ceres (2011). The Ceres Aqua Gauge: A Framework for 21st Century Water Risk Management: Retrieved from: https://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/aqua-gauge [Google Scholar]
  8. CIA (2016). The World Factbook: Legal System. Central Intelligence Agency: Washington. Retrieved from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2100.html [Google Scholar]
  9. Clarkson, M.B.E., (1995), A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance, Academy of Management Review, 20(1),92–117. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258888 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cowen, S. S., Ferreri, L. B., & Parker, L. D. (1987), The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency-based analysis, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(2),111–122. DOI: 10.1016/0361-3682(87)90001-8 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. De Villiers, C., Naiker, V., & Van Staden, C.J., (2011), The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance, Journal of Management, 37(6),1636–1663. DOI: 0.1177/014920631141150 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Depoers, F., Jeanjean, T. & Jérôme, T. (2016), Voluntary disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions: Contrasting the Carbon Disclosure Project and corporate reports, Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3),445–461. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2432-0 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Elijido-Ten, E. (2007), Applying stakeholder theory to analyze corporate environmental performance: Evidence from Australian listed companies, Asian Review of Accounting, 15(2), 164–184. DOI: 10.1108/13217340710823378 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fama, E.F. & Jensen, M.C., (1983), Separation of ownership and control, The Journal of Law & Economics, 26(2),301–325. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/725104 [Google Scholar]
  15. Field, A. (2013), Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.), SAGE Publications: London. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gago, R.F., & Antolìn, M.N., (2004), Stakeholder salience in corporate environmental strategy, Corporate Governance, 4 (3), 65–76. DOI: 10.1108/14720700410547512. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gonzalez-Gonzalez, J.M. & Ramírez, C.Z. (2016), Voluntary carbon disclosure by Spanish companies: an empirical analysis, International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 8(1), 57–79. DOI: 10.1108/IJCCSM-09-2014-0114 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Graul, J. & Gotthardt, D. (2016). The relevance of national contexts for carbon disclosure decisions of stock-listed companies: a multilevel analysis, Journal of Cleaner Production, 133, 1204–1217. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.182 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C., (1996). Accounting & Accountability - Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting. Prentice Hall Europe: Hertfordshire. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gray, S. (1988). Towards a theory of cultural influence on the development of accounting systems internationally, ABACUS, 24(1),1–15. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.1988.tb00200.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. GRI (2013). G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines: Reporting Principles and Standard Disclosures, Global Reporting Initiative: Amsterdam. Retrieved from: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part1-Reporting-Principles-and-Standard-Disclosures.pdf [Google Scholar]
  22. Hahn, R. & Kühnen, M. (2013), Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research, Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hahn, R., Reimsbach, D. & Schiemann, F. (2015). Organizations, climate change, and transparency: Reviewing the literature on carbon disclosure, Organization & Environment, 28(1), 80–102. DOI: 10.1177/108602661557554 [Google Scholar]
  24. Haniffa, R.M. & Cooke, T.M. (2006). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(5),391–430. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2005.06.001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hofstede, G. (2016), National culture, itim International: Helsinki. Retrieved from: https://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html [Google Scholar]
  26. Kassinis, G., & Vafeas, N. (2002), Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants of environmental litigation, Strategic Management Journal, 23, 399–415. DOI:10.1002/smj.230 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kent, P., & Chan, C. (2009), Application of stakeholder theory to corporate environmental disclosures, Corporate Ownership & Control, 7(1),399–414. DOI: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/business_pubs/258/ [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kolk, A., & Perego, P. (2010), Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance statements: an international investigation, Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 182–198. DOI: 10.1002/bse.643 [Google Scholar]
  29. KPMG (2015). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015. KPMG International Cooperative: Netherlands. Retrieved from: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/11/kpmg-international-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2015.pdf [Google Scholar]
  30. KPMG, GRI, UNEP, & USB (2016). Carrots & Sticks: Global Trends in Sustainability Reporting Regulation and Policy. Retrieved from: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/05/carrots-and-sticks-may-2016.pdf [Google Scholar]
  31. Li, D., Huang, M., Ren, S., Chen, X., & Ning, L. (2016). Environmental legitimacy, green innovation, and corporate carbon disclosure: Evidence from CDP China 100, Journal of Business Ethics, May, 1–16. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3187-6 [Google Scholar]
  32. Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2015), Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee, and greenhouse gas disclosure, The British Accounting Review, 47(4),409–424. DOI: 10.1016/j.bar.2014.01.002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Luo L., Lan Y.C., & Tang, Q., (2012), Corporate incentives to disclose carbon information: Evidence from the CDP Global 500 Report, Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 23, 93–120. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-646X.2012.01055.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Luo, L. & Tang, Q. (2016). Determinants of the quality of corporate carbon management systems: An international study, The International Journal of Accounting, 51(2),275–305. DOI: 10.1016/j.intacc.2016.04.007 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Luo, L., Tang, Q., & Lan, Y.C., (2013). Comparison of propensity for carbon disclosure between developing and developed countries: A resource constraint perspective, Accounting Research Journal, 26(1),6–34. DOI: 10.1108/ARJ-04-2012-0024 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Luo, L.L. & Tang, Q. (2016), Does national culture influence corporate carbon disclosure propensity?, Journal of International Accounting Research: Spring, 15(1),17–47. DOI: 10.2308/jiar-51131 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. McKendall, M., Sanchez, C. & Sicilian, P., (1999), Corporate governance and corporate illegality: The effects of board structure on environmental violations, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 7(3),201–223. DOI: 10.1108/eb028900 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., and Wood, D.J., (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts, Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), 853–886. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/259247 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mohd. Remali, A.R., Mohd. Ali, I., Mat Husin, N., & Alrazi, B., (2016), An exploratory study on water reporting among top Malaysian public listed companies, Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 64–73. DOI: 10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00010-1 [Google Scholar]
  40. O’Higgins, E.R.E. & Morgan, J.W. (2006), Stakeholder salience and engagement in political organisations: Who and what really counts? Society and Business Review, 1(1),62–76. DOI: 10.1108/17465680610643355 [Google Scholar]
  41. Peters, G.F. & Romi, A.E. (2014). Does the voluntary adoption of corporate governance mechanisms improve environmental risk disclosures? Evidence from greenhouse gas emission accounting. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4),637–666. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1886-9 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rankin, M., Windsor, C., & Wahyuni, D., (2011). An investigation of voluntary corporate greenhouse gas emissions reporting in a market governance system: Australian evidence, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24 (8), 1037–1070. DOI: 10.1108/09513571111184751 [Google Scholar]
  43. Reid, E.M. & Toffel, M.W. (2009), Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies, Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1157–1178. DOI: 10.1002/smj.796 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  44. SC (2012). Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance. Securities Commission: Kuala Lumpur. Retrieved from: https://www.sc.com.my/wp-content/uploads/eng/html/cg/cg2012.pdf [Google Scholar]
  45. Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3),937–967. DOI: 10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.937 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. Stechemesser, K. & Guenther, E. (2012). Carbon accounting: a systematic literature review, Journal of Cleaner Production, 36, 17–38. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.021 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Vafeas, N. & Nikolaou, V. (2001). The association between corporate environmental and financial performance, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 8, 195–214. DOI: 10.1016/S1041-7060(01)08010-5 [Google Scholar]
  48. Van der Laan Smith, J., Adhikari, A., & Tondkar, R. H. (2005), Exploring differences in social disclosures internationally: A stakeholder perspective, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24, 123–151. DOI:10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2004.12.007 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  49. WEF (2015). Global Risk 2015, 10th Edition, World Economic Forum: Geneva. Retrieved from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_2015_Report15.pdf [Google Scholar]
  50. World Bank (2016). Worldwide Governance Indicators. The World Bank Group: Washington. Retrieved from: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home [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.