EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 36 (2017) SHS Web Conf., 36 (2017) 00034 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 36, 2017
The 2016 4th International Conference on Governance and Accountability (2016 ICGA)
Article Number 00034
Number of page(s) 9
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20173600034
Published online 24 July 2017
  1. Adams, C. (2002). Internal Organizational Factors Influencing Corporate Social and Ethical Reporting: Beyond Current Theorising, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 15(2),223–250. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adams, C. and Zutshi, A. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Business Should Act Responsibly and Be Accountable, Australian Accounting Review 14(3),31–39. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Amran, A. and Haniffa, R. (2011). Evidence in development of sustainability reporting: case of a developing country. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20 (2011), pp. 141–156. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Belal and Cooper, (2001). The absence of corporate social responsibility reporting in Bangladesh. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22 (2011), pp. 654–667. [Google Scholar]
  5. Brammer and Pavelin, (2006). Voluntary environmental disclosures by large UK companies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 33 (2006), pp. 1168–1188. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bursa Malaysia,(2014). Bursa Malaysia Announces Launch of Environmental, Social and Governance Index. Retrieved 20 April 2015, from http://www.bursamalaysia.com/corporate/media-centre/media-releases/3081. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bursa Malaysia,(2015). Bursa Malaysia Announces Constituent Additions to ESG Index. Retrieved 20 April 2015, from http://www.bursamalaysia.com/corporate/media-centre/media-releases/3853. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bursa Malaysia, (2016). FTSE Bursa Malaysia Hijrah Shariah Index. Retrieved 11 August 2016, from http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/islamic-markets/products/islamic-capital-market/shariah-compliant-listed-equities. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cormier, D. and Magnan, M. (2003). Environmental reporting management: a continental European perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22 (2003), pp. 43–62. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Haddock, J. (2005). Consumer influence on internet-based corporate communication of environmental activities: the UK food sector. British Food Journal, 107 (2005), pp. 792–805. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Haddock, J. and Fraser, I. (2008). Assessing corporate environmental reporting motivations: differences between “close-to-market” and “business-to-business” companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15 (2008), pp. 140–155. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hahn and Kuhnen, (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59 (2013), pp. 5–21. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kent and Monem, (2008). What drives TBL reporting: good governance or threat to legitimacy. Australian Accounting Review, 18 (2008), pp. 297–309. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Parsa, S. and Kouhy, R. (2008). Social reporting by companies listed on the alternative investment market. Journal of Business Ethics, 79 (2008), pp. 345–360. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Reddy, K. and Fu, M. (2014). Does shariah compliant stocks perform better than the conventional stocks? A comparative study of stocks listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, 6 (2014), pp.155–170. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sotorrio, L. and Sanchez, J.L.F. (2010). Corporate social reporting for different audiences: the case of multinational corporations in Spain. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17 (2010), pp. 272–283. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Djajadikerta, H. G., Roni, S. M., & Trireksani, T. (2015). Dysfunctional information system behaviors are not all created the same: Challenges to the generalizability of security-based research. Information & Management, 52(8), 1012–1024. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.07.008 [CrossRef] [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.