企业社会责任信息披露研究
|
摘要
当今世界出现了一种崭新的企业概念,即企业已不再被看作只是为拥有者创造利润和财富的工具,它还必须对整个社会的政治、经济发展负责。这种企业新概念注定会改变人们对企业的看法、企业对自己的看法以及企业在21世纪社会中的位置。①企业作为社会的一分子,就相当于细胞存在于生物体中一样,细胞离不开生物体的支持,同时也要为生物整体的生存贡献自己的力量,而企业在社会中同时要承担一部分社会责任,企业的社会属性决定了其必须承担一部分社会责任。而近年来企业的一些不负责任行为已经对社会和谐发展和可持续发展造成了一定威胁。如企业对环境污染、劳资双方的矛盾等产生的一系列社会问题,因此而受到强烈的社会抨击,严重影响到社会对企业的信任,影响到企业的可持续发展。
推动企业社会责任在我国的快速发展,己经成为我国社会必须研究的新课题,披露社会责任信息将是我们解决这一课题的最佳方法。各国学者就企业社会责任信息披露进行了多维的研究,形成了丰富的研究成果。我国的研究相对较晚,至今尚未制定企业披露社会责任信息的相关法律规定。理论上的研究也不够深入系统,大多数仅限于对社会责任信息披露内容和模式的一般探讨,没有进行系统的研究。
本文立足于我国上市公司,运用利益相关者理论与企业可持续发展理论,结合信息披露的相关理论,采用规范研究与实证研究结合的方法,对企业社会责任信息披露的总体特征进行了描述性统计,运用资本市场上市公司有关数据分析了我国企业社会责任信息披露的影响因素、价值体现,对社会责任信息披露的内容和模式进行了比较研究,在个案深入分析的基础上提出了适合我国企业的社会责任信息披露分析框架,也为加强社会责任信息披露规范的建设提供实证证据。
论文除导论外分为六章,主要内容如下:
第一章,社会责任信息披露的理论基础。本章是对企业社会责任信息披露的一个理论框架解释,分别从企业社会责任和信息披露两个角度来对企业社会责任信息披露做出经济学解释。股东至上到利益相关者治理理论的变迁为社会责任信息披露奠定了内在基础,企业可持续发展理论为社会责任信息披露指明了目的。这两方面解释为什么信息披露必须考虑企业的社会责任业绩而不仅仅是财务业绩,为企业社会责任信息披露提供了实质性的解释理论。信息不对称理论则从会计信息的内在属性出发,要求社会责任信息的披露必须有强制性义务;代理理论与信号传递理论又使得社会责任信息披露存在自愿性披露的动机。这两方面从会计信息披露理论角度综合解释社会责任信息披露规范必须是强制性披露与自愿性披露相结合的方式,是企业社会责任信息披露的约束性解释。以上四个方面理论缺一不可,共同作用构成企业社会责任信息披露的理论基础。
第二章,企业社会责任信息披露的历史演进与国内外比较研究。本章对国外企业社会责任信息披露的历史演进进行了分析,重点针对社会责任信息披露的内容、披露的模式进行了比较研究,以寻求适合我国现阶段企业的社会责任信息披露内容和模式。通过分析认为社会责任信息披露的内容应充分考虑包括顾客、股东、债权人、供应商、竞争者、员工、政府和社区等在内的利益相关者的要求,披露对各个利益相关者的社会责任。在披露的模式上可以采用多种形式并用的社会责任绩效报告披露,而不拘泥于某种形式。在强制性披露和自愿性披露的选择上,现阶段应以二者相结合。一方面由于我国目前社会责任信息披露体系研究还处于起步阶段,客观上需要一定的强制性披露措施,同时企业崇尚利润的意识尚未转换,完全靠自愿性披露还不够成熟;另一方面也应看到社会责任理论的逐渐兴起促使越来越多的企业有自愿披露社会责任信息的倾向。因此在鼓励自愿性披露的同时也需要强制性披露的规范。
第三章,企业社会责任信息披露指标的构建与总体特征分析。本章通过对各种社会责任信息披露指标的比较,结合我国企业实际情况,运用内容分析法构建了适合我国上市公司的社会责任信息披露指数(CSRDI)。指标体系包括公司背景信息,对投资者、债权人、管理者的责任信息,对员工的责任信息,对消费者、客户的责任信息,对环境的责任信息,对社区的责任信息,对国家利益的责任信息等。利用社会责任信息披露指数对我国企业社会责任信息披露的现状进行了分行业、分项目的总体描述性统计。总体来看,样本公司平均得分率仅53%,刚刚过半;最低得分只有32%,最高分也才82%,社会责任信息披露情况不甚乐观。根据统计数据对我国现阶段企业社会责任信息披露的总体特征做了进一步的分析,有关法律法规和学科体系的缺失使社会责任信息披露没有保障基础,企业自身与利益相关者社会责任意识的缺失使社会责任信息披露动力不足,成本与效益不均衡则造成了社会责任信息披露的实践障碍。
第四章,社会责任信息披露的影响因素研究。本章运用多元回归对我国上市公司的社会责任信息披露影响因素进行了实证研究,结果显示对于我国上市公司而言,公司规模、公司绩效和公司行业是影响社会责任信息披露的重要因素。有关公司治理的变量在研究中未表现出对社会责任信息披露有显著影响,主要原因是在目前我国的实际环境下,上市公司治理结构还不够完善,对上市公司的信息披露影响力度不够。尤其是独立董事比例的增加并没有起到对执行董事行为的制约和监控管理层的机会主义行为。另外,压力集团对公司社会责任信息需求的不足也是导致上市公司缺乏披露动力的原因之一。
研究结果同时也说明企业社会责任信息披露在我国尚属于尝试和摸索阶段,企业和各利益相关者均未形成提供和使用社会责任信息的习惯,提高社会责任信息披露仍然是今后进一步研究的方向。
第五章,社会责任信息披露的价值评价研究。为验证上市公司增加信息披露是否会提升公司价值,本章利用托宾Q对社会责任信息披露与企业价值进行了进一步的实证分析。对研究样本实证检验的结果显示托宾Q与公司社会责任信息披露增量之间的t值虽然并不显著,但也呈现一定正相关。采取积极的社会责任信息披露策略的上市公司市场价值相应较高;而信息供给程度低的上市公司市场价值相应较低。实证结果表明,中国证券市场上“好”的公司开始注重增加社会责任信息供给量,倾向采取自愿性信息披露方式与利益相关者进行沟通,这已成为中国上市公司塑造“社会形象”和增值“信誉资本”的一种有效手段,上市公司信息供给的价值效应逐步凸显。
当然,统计意义上的不显著也反映出一些问题,目前我国上市公司信息披露的主要对象还是投资者,而对债权人、职工以及其他利益相关者的需求考虑甚少;社会责任信息披露还没有被上市公司所普遍认为会有效的提升公司的形象和价值。
第六章,利益相关者为导向的社会责任信息披露策略。本章以个案为研究起点,对中石化公司的社会责任报告进行深入分析。案例公司社会责任报告体现了强烈的利益相关者导向,详细地披露了公司与各利益相关者之间的关系管理,对我国企业社会责任信息的披露具有较强的借鉴作用。本文认为企业社会责任信息披露应以利益相关者为导向为框架,满足利益相关者需求才能全面披露企业社会责任信息。
在前文研究基础上提出一定的政策建议:首先应建立企业社会责任信息披露的准则,以规范企业进行社会责任信息的披露;加强对社会责任会计的确认与计量研究,以突破社会责任信息披露的难点;加强与社会责任相关的立法工作,以提高全社会的社会责任意识为企业社会责任信息的披露提供法律支持。
A brand new concept of enterprise has been introduced in recent years: enterprises are no longer interpreted only as the tool to produce profits and make money for their runners; they are also supposed to be responsible for the political and economic development in the society. This new interpretation of enterprises is bound to change people’s views on enterprises, enterprises’self evaluation and the position of enterprises in 21st century. Just as a single cell is definitely dependent on the whole organism and at the same time contributes to the development of the organism, an enterprise can never turn down the social responsibility doomed by its social characteristic. The social characteristic of an enterprise reasonably requires the sharing of social responsibilities. However, the harmonious and sustainable development of society has been threatened by some irresponsible actions of some enterprises, such as environmental pollution and conflicts between employers and employees. All these lead to strong criticism and distrust against enterprises and damage the sustainable development of them.
The popularization and publication of enterprises’social responsibilities has been a new subject of research for us in China and the best solution to this task undoubtedly goes to the information disclosure of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Much research work has been done and rich achievements have been made in this regard. Research on this subject in China started relatively late and the legislation establishment concerning the information disclosure of CSR has not been achieved yet till today. What’s more, though general investigations about the mode and content of information disclosure of CSR have been conducted, the in-depth and systematic theoretical research on it has always been in lack.
The whole paper is based on the investigation of Chinese listed companies, the theory of stakeholder, enterprises’sustainable development theory and relevant theories of information disclosure of CSR. Joining with the standard and empirical research, the descriptive statistics about the general characteristic of information disclosure of CSR has been made. By analyzing the related data of listed companies, I mainly worked on the infection factors and values of the information disclosure of CSR as well as the comparison between the mode and the content of the information disclosure of CSR. An agreeable analysis framework of the information disclosure of CSR based on the careful studying of individual cases is expected to be established and to provide empirical evidence for the regularization of the information disclosure of CSR.
Besides the lead-in section, six parts are included in this paper.
Chapter one: Theoretical foundation of the information disclosure of CSR. The development from the Stockholder First Theory to the Stakeholder Theory lays a strong internal foundation for the information disclosure of CSR and the sustainable development theory of enterprises shows the right direction of the information disclosure of CSR. These two factors are hopefully supposed to explain why not only the financial achievements but also the goals of social responsibilities of enterprises are preferred to be put into consideration when the information disclosure of CSR is conducted and consequently, the material explanatory theory is made for the information disclosure of CSR. Information Asymmetry Theory imposes the compulsory duty on the information disclosure of CSR on the excuse of the inner requirement of the accounting information; the substitution theory and the signal transfer theory enable the information disclosure of CSR be willingly motivated. These two aspects together give the reasons for why the standard information disclosure of CSR has to be the combination of voluntary disclosure and compulsory disclosure. It is the mandatory explanation of the information disclosure of CSR. The above four theories are indispensably united to lay the theoretical foundation of the information disclosure of CSR.
Chapter two: the history development of the information disclosure of CSR and the contrast between the domestic and foreign research. This part is looking for a suitable mode and content of the information disclosure of CSR in China through the study of the history development of the information disclosure of CSR in foreign countries with the focus on the mode and content. I think the requirements of customers, shareholders, creditors, suppliers, competitors, employees, governments, communities and so forth should all be included into the contents of the information disclosure of CSR and the related social responsibilities of the stakeholders should be disclosed. With regard to the modes of the information disclosure of CSR, various kinds of reports on enterprises’social responsibility achievements instead of the certain form are greatly recommended. Concerning the choosing between the compulsory disclosure and voluntary disclosure, I prefer the combination of the two. On one hand, the systematic research on the information disclosure of CSR is just at the initial starting, which naturally calls for the work of compulsory disclosure and at the same time the profit-making objectivity is still the dominant factor in enterprises’goals, so it is not the right occasion for the voluntary disclosure. On the other hand, the steady rise of the Social Responsibility Theory contributes greatly to the inclination of enterprises’voluntary disclosure of their social responsibility information. Putting the above situations into consideration, we should encourage the voluntary disclosure and regularize it with the compulsory disclosure.
Chapter three: the construction and general characteristic analysis of the CSR disclosure index (CSRDI). Through the comparison among the various CSRDI and with regard to the practical situation of Chinese enterprises, I am trying to construct a suitable CSRDI for Chinese listed companies. The whole CSRDI is consisted of the background information of enterprises, the responsibility information for investors, creditors, managers, employees, customers, clients, environment, community and country and so on. With the employment of the CSRDI, a general descriptive statistic on the current situation of the information disclosure of CSR in different industries and items has been made. Generally speaking, the average scoring of all the model companies is 53%, with the highest 82% and the lowest 32%, which is far less than satisfied. The coming analysis on general characteristics of the current situation of the information disclosure of CSR is made on the base of the statistic figures. I find out that the lack of relevant legislation and systematic research disappoints the guarantee for the information disclosure of CSR, the ignorance of social responsibility from the enterprises themselves as well as the stakeholders spoils the motivation of the information disclosure of CSR, the unbalance between cost and benefit results in the obstacle in the practice of the information disclosure of CSR.
Chapter four: research on the infective factors of information disclosure of CSR. Empirical study has been done on the infective factors of information disclosure of CSR by means of multiple regressions. It turns out that the size, achievement and business are the main infective factors of information disclosure of CSR for listed companies. The variable force of Corporate Governance didn’t have remarkable effect on the information disclosure of CSR. This is mainly because that in the practical situation in china nowadays, the mechanism of the Listed Company Governance is still incomplete and doesn’t have enough influence on the information disclosure of CSR of listed companies. Especially the increase of the numbers of independent directors doesn’t have the power to restrict the actions of executive directors and to monitor the opportunistic behavior of the managers. Besides, the insufficient demand of the Social Responsibility Information from the pressure group also leads to the lack of desire to disclose the Social Responsibility Information for listed companies.
The study also tells us that the information disclosure of CSR is still at the attempt and initiating stage, consequently the habit of providing and using the Social Responsibility Information has not been formed for enterprises and relevant stakeholders. The promotion of the information disclosure of CSR will still be the field of our further study in the future.
Chapter five: the research on the evaluation of the information disclosure of CSR. The empirical study has been made on the relationship between the information disclosure of CSR and the value of the enterprise with the use of Tobin’s Q to check whether the increase of the information disclosure of CSR of listed companies will raise the value of the enterprise or not. The result shows that although the“t”value between the Tobin’s Q and the increase of the information disclosure of CSR is not obvious, it displays positive correlation to some extent—the listed companies adopting the active strategy of the information disclosure of CSR enjoy relatively high values, and vise versa. The empirical result demonstrates that the“fine”listed companies in china are paying more and more attention to the increase of the information disclosure of CSR and intend to communicate with the relevant stakeholders by means of the voluntary information disclosure of CSR, which has been an effective way to better the“social image”and improve the“credibility capital”. The effect of the information disclosure of CSR has been more and more important.
However, the indistinctive elements of the statistic also bring us some problems: At present, the targeted receivers of the information disclosure of CSR are limited to the investors; the requirements of the creditors and stakeholders are seldom considered; the information disclosure of CSR has not been widely accepted by the listed companies as the effective means to improve the image and value of them.
Chapter six: The stakeholder-oriented strategy of the information disclosure of CSR. In this part, based on the individual case study, the in-depth analysis on the social responsibility report of the Sino-Pec was produced. In this case, the report is strongly stakeholder-oriented and demonstrates the relationship between the company and the various relevant stakeholders in details. So it can be a helpful model of the information disclosure of CSR for Chinese enterprises. I confidently believe that the information disclosure of CSR should be stakeholder-oriented and only by fulfilling the requirements of the stakeholders can the complete information disclosure of CSR be achieved.
Based on the previous discussion, some advice on the policy-making will also be made: First, principles of the information disclosure of CSR must be established to regularize the information disclosure of CSR. Second, the accounting and confirmation of the social responsibilities should be studied to overcome the difficulties in the information disclosure of CSR. Finally, the relevant legislation aimed at the improvement of the awareness of the social responsibilities should be strengthened to legally support the information disclosure of CSR.
推动企业社会责任在我国的快速发展,己经成为我国社会必须研究的新课题,披露社会责任信息将是我们解决这一课题的最佳方法。各国学者就企业社会责任信息披露进行了多维的研究,形成了丰富的研究成果。我国的研究相对较晚,至今尚未制定企业披露社会责任信息的相关法律规定。理论上的研究也不够深入系统,大多数仅限于对社会责任信息披露内容和模式的一般探讨,没有进行系统的研究。
本文立足于我国上市公司,运用利益相关者理论与企业可持续发展理论,结合信息披露的相关理论,采用规范研究与实证研究结合的方法,对企业社会责任信息披露的总体特征进行了描述性统计,运用资本市场上市公司有关数据分析了我国企业社会责任信息披露的影响因素、价值体现,对社会责任信息披露的内容和模式进行了比较研究,在个案深入分析的基础上提出了适合我国企业的社会责任信息披露分析框架,也为加强社会责任信息披露规范的建设提供实证证据。
论文除导论外分为六章,主要内容如下:
第一章,社会责任信息披露的理论基础。本章是对企业社会责任信息披露的一个理论框架解释,分别从企业社会责任和信息披露两个角度来对企业社会责任信息披露做出经济学解释。股东至上到利益相关者治理理论的变迁为社会责任信息披露奠定了内在基础,企业可持续发展理论为社会责任信息披露指明了目的。这两方面解释为什么信息披露必须考虑企业的社会责任业绩而不仅仅是财务业绩,为企业社会责任信息披露提供了实质性的解释理论。信息不对称理论则从会计信息的内在属性出发,要求社会责任信息的披露必须有强制性义务;代理理论与信号传递理论又使得社会责任信息披露存在自愿性披露的动机。这两方面从会计信息披露理论角度综合解释社会责任信息披露规范必须是强制性披露与自愿性披露相结合的方式,是企业社会责任信息披露的约束性解释。以上四个方面理论缺一不可,共同作用构成企业社会责任信息披露的理论基础。
第二章,企业社会责任信息披露的历史演进与国内外比较研究。本章对国外企业社会责任信息披露的历史演进进行了分析,重点针对社会责任信息披露的内容、披露的模式进行了比较研究,以寻求适合我国现阶段企业的社会责任信息披露内容和模式。通过分析认为社会责任信息披露的内容应充分考虑包括顾客、股东、债权人、供应商、竞争者、员工、政府和社区等在内的利益相关者的要求,披露对各个利益相关者的社会责任。在披露的模式上可以采用多种形式并用的社会责任绩效报告披露,而不拘泥于某种形式。在强制性披露和自愿性披露的选择上,现阶段应以二者相结合。一方面由于我国目前社会责任信息披露体系研究还处于起步阶段,客观上需要一定的强制性披露措施,同时企业崇尚利润的意识尚未转换,完全靠自愿性披露还不够成熟;另一方面也应看到社会责任理论的逐渐兴起促使越来越多的企业有自愿披露社会责任信息的倾向。因此在鼓励自愿性披露的同时也需要强制性披露的规范。
第三章,企业社会责任信息披露指标的构建与总体特征分析。本章通过对各种社会责任信息披露指标的比较,结合我国企业实际情况,运用内容分析法构建了适合我国上市公司的社会责任信息披露指数(CSRDI)。指标体系包括公司背景信息,对投资者、债权人、管理者的责任信息,对员工的责任信息,对消费者、客户的责任信息,对环境的责任信息,对社区的责任信息,对国家利益的责任信息等。利用社会责任信息披露指数对我国企业社会责任信息披露的现状进行了分行业、分项目的总体描述性统计。总体来看,样本公司平均得分率仅53%,刚刚过半;最低得分只有32%,最高分也才82%,社会责任信息披露情况不甚乐观。根据统计数据对我国现阶段企业社会责任信息披露的总体特征做了进一步的分析,有关法律法规和学科体系的缺失使社会责任信息披露没有保障基础,企业自身与利益相关者社会责任意识的缺失使社会责任信息披露动力不足,成本与效益不均衡则造成了社会责任信息披露的实践障碍。
第四章,社会责任信息披露的影响因素研究。本章运用多元回归对我国上市公司的社会责任信息披露影响因素进行了实证研究,结果显示对于我国上市公司而言,公司规模、公司绩效和公司行业是影响社会责任信息披露的重要因素。有关公司治理的变量在研究中未表现出对社会责任信息披露有显著影响,主要原因是在目前我国的实际环境下,上市公司治理结构还不够完善,对上市公司的信息披露影响力度不够。尤其是独立董事比例的增加并没有起到对执行董事行为的制约和监控管理层的机会主义行为。另外,压力集团对公司社会责任信息需求的不足也是导致上市公司缺乏披露动力的原因之一。
研究结果同时也说明企业社会责任信息披露在我国尚属于尝试和摸索阶段,企业和各利益相关者均未形成提供和使用社会责任信息的习惯,提高社会责任信息披露仍然是今后进一步研究的方向。
第五章,社会责任信息披露的价值评价研究。为验证上市公司增加信息披露是否会提升公司价值,本章利用托宾Q对社会责任信息披露与企业价值进行了进一步的实证分析。对研究样本实证检验的结果显示托宾Q与公司社会责任信息披露增量之间的t值虽然并不显著,但也呈现一定正相关。采取积极的社会责任信息披露策略的上市公司市场价值相应较高;而信息供给程度低的上市公司市场价值相应较低。实证结果表明,中国证券市场上“好”的公司开始注重增加社会责任信息供给量,倾向采取自愿性信息披露方式与利益相关者进行沟通,这已成为中国上市公司塑造“社会形象”和增值“信誉资本”的一种有效手段,上市公司信息供给的价值效应逐步凸显。
当然,统计意义上的不显著也反映出一些问题,目前我国上市公司信息披露的主要对象还是投资者,而对债权人、职工以及其他利益相关者的需求考虑甚少;社会责任信息披露还没有被上市公司所普遍认为会有效的提升公司的形象和价值。
第六章,利益相关者为导向的社会责任信息披露策略。本章以个案为研究起点,对中石化公司的社会责任报告进行深入分析。案例公司社会责任报告体现了强烈的利益相关者导向,详细地披露了公司与各利益相关者之间的关系管理,对我国企业社会责任信息的披露具有较强的借鉴作用。本文认为企业社会责任信息披露应以利益相关者为导向为框架,满足利益相关者需求才能全面披露企业社会责任信息。
在前文研究基础上提出一定的政策建议:首先应建立企业社会责任信息披露的准则,以规范企业进行社会责任信息的披露;加强对社会责任会计的确认与计量研究,以突破社会责任信息披露的难点;加强与社会责任相关的立法工作,以提高全社会的社会责任意识为企业社会责任信息的披露提供法律支持。
A brand new concept of enterprise has been introduced in recent years: enterprises are no longer interpreted only as the tool to produce profits and make money for their runners; they are also supposed to be responsible for the political and economic development in the society. This new interpretation of enterprises is bound to change people’s views on enterprises, enterprises’self evaluation and the position of enterprises in 21st century. Just as a single cell is definitely dependent on the whole organism and at the same time contributes to the development of the organism, an enterprise can never turn down the social responsibility doomed by its social characteristic. The social characteristic of an enterprise reasonably requires the sharing of social responsibilities. However, the harmonious and sustainable development of society has been threatened by some irresponsible actions of some enterprises, such as environmental pollution and conflicts between employers and employees. All these lead to strong criticism and distrust against enterprises and damage the sustainable development of them.
The popularization and publication of enterprises’social responsibilities has been a new subject of research for us in China and the best solution to this task undoubtedly goes to the information disclosure of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Much research work has been done and rich achievements have been made in this regard. Research on this subject in China started relatively late and the legislation establishment concerning the information disclosure of CSR has not been achieved yet till today. What’s more, though general investigations about the mode and content of information disclosure of CSR have been conducted, the in-depth and systematic theoretical research on it has always been in lack.
The whole paper is based on the investigation of Chinese listed companies, the theory of stakeholder, enterprises’sustainable development theory and relevant theories of information disclosure of CSR. Joining with the standard and empirical research, the descriptive statistics about the general characteristic of information disclosure of CSR has been made. By analyzing the related data of listed companies, I mainly worked on the infection factors and values of the information disclosure of CSR as well as the comparison between the mode and the content of the information disclosure of CSR. An agreeable analysis framework of the information disclosure of CSR based on the careful studying of individual cases is expected to be established and to provide empirical evidence for the regularization of the information disclosure of CSR.
Besides the lead-in section, six parts are included in this paper.
Chapter one: Theoretical foundation of the information disclosure of CSR. The development from the Stockholder First Theory to the Stakeholder Theory lays a strong internal foundation for the information disclosure of CSR and the sustainable development theory of enterprises shows the right direction of the information disclosure of CSR. These two factors are hopefully supposed to explain why not only the financial achievements but also the goals of social responsibilities of enterprises are preferred to be put into consideration when the information disclosure of CSR is conducted and consequently, the material explanatory theory is made for the information disclosure of CSR. Information Asymmetry Theory imposes the compulsory duty on the information disclosure of CSR on the excuse of the inner requirement of the accounting information; the substitution theory and the signal transfer theory enable the information disclosure of CSR be willingly motivated. These two aspects together give the reasons for why the standard information disclosure of CSR has to be the combination of voluntary disclosure and compulsory disclosure. It is the mandatory explanation of the information disclosure of CSR. The above four theories are indispensably united to lay the theoretical foundation of the information disclosure of CSR.
Chapter two: the history development of the information disclosure of CSR and the contrast between the domestic and foreign research. This part is looking for a suitable mode and content of the information disclosure of CSR in China through the study of the history development of the information disclosure of CSR in foreign countries with the focus on the mode and content. I think the requirements of customers, shareholders, creditors, suppliers, competitors, employees, governments, communities and so forth should all be included into the contents of the information disclosure of CSR and the related social responsibilities of the stakeholders should be disclosed. With regard to the modes of the information disclosure of CSR, various kinds of reports on enterprises’social responsibility achievements instead of the certain form are greatly recommended. Concerning the choosing between the compulsory disclosure and voluntary disclosure, I prefer the combination of the two. On one hand, the systematic research on the information disclosure of CSR is just at the initial starting, which naturally calls for the work of compulsory disclosure and at the same time the profit-making objectivity is still the dominant factor in enterprises’goals, so it is not the right occasion for the voluntary disclosure. On the other hand, the steady rise of the Social Responsibility Theory contributes greatly to the inclination of enterprises’voluntary disclosure of their social responsibility information. Putting the above situations into consideration, we should encourage the voluntary disclosure and regularize it with the compulsory disclosure.
Chapter three: the construction and general characteristic analysis of the CSR disclosure index (CSRDI). Through the comparison among the various CSRDI and with regard to the practical situation of Chinese enterprises, I am trying to construct a suitable CSRDI for Chinese listed companies. The whole CSRDI is consisted of the background information of enterprises, the responsibility information for investors, creditors, managers, employees, customers, clients, environment, community and country and so on. With the employment of the CSRDI, a general descriptive statistic on the current situation of the information disclosure of CSR in different industries and items has been made. Generally speaking, the average scoring of all the model companies is 53%, with the highest 82% and the lowest 32%, which is far less than satisfied. The coming analysis on general characteristics of the current situation of the information disclosure of CSR is made on the base of the statistic figures. I find out that the lack of relevant legislation and systematic research disappoints the guarantee for the information disclosure of CSR, the ignorance of social responsibility from the enterprises themselves as well as the stakeholders spoils the motivation of the information disclosure of CSR, the unbalance between cost and benefit results in the obstacle in the practice of the information disclosure of CSR.
Chapter four: research on the infective factors of information disclosure of CSR. Empirical study has been done on the infective factors of information disclosure of CSR by means of multiple regressions. It turns out that the size, achievement and business are the main infective factors of information disclosure of CSR for listed companies. The variable force of Corporate Governance didn’t have remarkable effect on the information disclosure of CSR. This is mainly because that in the practical situation in china nowadays, the mechanism of the Listed Company Governance is still incomplete and doesn’t have enough influence on the information disclosure of CSR of listed companies. Especially the increase of the numbers of independent directors doesn’t have the power to restrict the actions of executive directors and to monitor the opportunistic behavior of the managers. Besides, the insufficient demand of the Social Responsibility Information from the pressure group also leads to the lack of desire to disclose the Social Responsibility Information for listed companies.
The study also tells us that the information disclosure of CSR is still at the attempt and initiating stage, consequently the habit of providing and using the Social Responsibility Information has not been formed for enterprises and relevant stakeholders. The promotion of the information disclosure of CSR will still be the field of our further study in the future.
Chapter five: the research on the evaluation of the information disclosure of CSR. The empirical study has been made on the relationship between the information disclosure of CSR and the value of the enterprise with the use of Tobin’s Q to check whether the increase of the information disclosure of CSR of listed companies will raise the value of the enterprise or not. The result shows that although the“t”value between the Tobin’s Q and the increase of the information disclosure of CSR is not obvious, it displays positive correlation to some extent—the listed companies adopting the active strategy of the information disclosure of CSR enjoy relatively high values, and vise versa. The empirical result demonstrates that the“fine”listed companies in china are paying more and more attention to the increase of the information disclosure of CSR and intend to communicate with the relevant stakeholders by means of the voluntary information disclosure of CSR, which has been an effective way to better the“social image”and improve the“credibility capital”. The effect of the information disclosure of CSR has been more and more important.
However, the indistinctive elements of the statistic also bring us some problems: At present, the targeted receivers of the information disclosure of CSR are limited to the investors; the requirements of the creditors and stakeholders are seldom considered; the information disclosure of CSR has not been widely accepted by the listed companies as the effective means to improve the image and value of them.
Chapter six: The stakeholder-oriented strategy of the information disclosure of CSR. In this part, based on the individual case study, the in-depth analysis on the social responsibility report of the Sino-Pec was produced. In this case, the report is strongly stakeholder-oriented and demonstrates the relationship between the company and the various relevant stakeholders in details. So it can be a helpful model of the information disclosure of CSR for Chinese enterprises. I confidently believe that the information disclosure of CSR should be stakeholder-oriented and only by fulfilling the requirements of the stakeholders can the complete information disclosure of CSR be achieved.
Based on the previous discussion, some advice on the policy-making will also be made: First, principles of the information disclosure of CSR must be established to regularize the information disclosure of CSR. Second, the accounting and confirmation of the social responsibilities should be studied to overcome the difficulties in the information disclosure of CSR. Finally, the relevant legislation aimed at the improvement of the awareness of the social responsibilities should be strengthened to legally support the information disclosure of CSR.
引文
①中国石油天然气集团公司社会责任专题,www. cnpc. com. cn
①Edward H. Bowman and Mason Haire, A Strategic Posture Toward Corporate Social Responsibility, California Management Review, winter1975.
①Social Responsibility of Business Corporations,A Statement on National Policy by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development, June 1971, pp.36-40.
①Archie B. Carroll, Stakeholder Thinking in Three Models of Management Morality: A Perspective with Strategic Implications, In the Corporation and Its Stakeholder: Classic and Contemporary Readings, Edited by Max B. E . Clarkson, University of Toronto Press, 1998, 139-170.
②刘俊海,强化公司的社会责任——建立我国现代企业制度的一项重要内容,载王保树主编:《商事法论集》,法律出版社,1997年。
①See Address of Owen D. young, January, 1929. quoted in E Merrick Dodd, Jr. For whom are Corporate Managers Trustees? Harvard Law Review,1932, 1145-1163.
①Jawahar, I. M,and Mc. Laughlin, Gary L., 2001, Toward a Descriptive Stakeholder Theory: An Organizational Life Cycle Approach, Academy of Management Review, Vo1.26(3), 397-414, p398
①乔治·思德勒,《面向行动的经济伦理学》,上海社会科学院出版社,2002年
①中国企业联合会,共享和谐――解读SA800社会责任体系,企业管理出版社,2004年6月。
②邵文华,企业社会责任对企业可持续发展的影响机制分析,经济论坛,2006年。
③据新华社信息北京2003年7月7日电。
①阳秋林,架构我国社会责任会计信息披露的指标分析体系,审计与经济研究,2005年3月。
②财政部关于印发《财政部企业经济效益评价指标体系(试行)》的通知,1995年1月9日。
①中国电力出版社出版,2006年。
①《深圳证券交易所上市公司社会责任指引》,深圳证券交易所2006年9月25日颁布。
①Deborah Leipziger: SA8000, the Definitive Guide To The New Social Standards, Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2001.
①季晓东,浅探现代企业社会责任信息披露,财会月刊,2007年4月。
①Susan Ariel Aronso:How The Europeans Got a Head Start on Policies to Promote Global Corporate Responsibility[J],Corporate Environmental Stategy,2002,9(4)
②李国强,全面认识“企业社会责任”以及SA8000,提升我国企业竞争力[J],经济要参,2005.14
①Davial F. Linowes,Socio-Economic Accounting[J]. The Journal of Accounting,1968.11
②Sylil C. Mobley,The Challenges of Socio-Economic Accounting[J],The Accounting Review,1970.11
③Ahmed Belkaon. Socio-Economic Accounting[M],1984,11
④宋献中,社会责任会计——走向21世纪的现代会计[M],东北财经大学出版社,1999
①阳秋林、李冬生,建立中国企业社会责任审计的构想[J],审计与经济研究,2004.11
①李金华,国家审计是国家治理的工具:为问责导航[J],财经,2004.24
①Marquez, A.& Fombrun, C. J. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility[J]. Corporate Reputation Review, 2005,7(304)
①GRI. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines 2002 [EB/OL],http://www.globalreporting.org
①http://www.kld.com/index.html
②引自田书军,基于GRI体系的浙江上市公司社会责任信息披露研究,2006年4月
①Cooke T.E. and R.S.O. Wallace, 1989,“Global Surveys of Corporate Disclosure Practices and Audit Firms: A Review Essay,”Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 20.
①阳秋林,架构我国社会责任会计信息披露的指标分析体系,审计与经济研究,2005年3月,P59-62
①裘丽亚、徐植,企业社会责任会计信息披露体系的构建,技术经济,2005年第10期
①引自仲大军,当前中国企业的社会责任,经济与社会观察,2002(6)
②Gray, R, R Kouhy and S Lavers, 1995. Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting. A Review of the Literature and a Longitudinal Study of UK Disclosure Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, 47.
①Roberts, R.W., 1992, Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure, An Application of Stakeholder Theory. Accounting Organizations and Society, 17, 595-612.
②Sinclar-Desgagne, B. and Goz1an. E., 2003. A Theory of Environmental Risk Disclosure. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45
③Wi11is, A, 2003, The role of the Global Reporting Initiative' s Sustainability Reporting Guide lines in the social screening of investments, Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 233-237
④Patten,D.M,2002 The Relation between Environmental Performance and Environmental Disclosure: A Research Note. Accounting Organizations&Society, 27(8),763-764.
⑤Cormier, D. and Magnan, M, 2003.Environmental Reporting Management: a European Perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22(1), 43-62.
⑥FTSE 4 Good是用来衡量企业符合全球公认的企业社会责任标准的程度。
⑦如:采矿业和石油开采行业。原因在于采掘业整体公众形象较差,人们对自然资源开采行业的社会绩效和环境绩效比产品价格、质量和安全更加关注。
①Heledd Jenkins and Natalia Y a k o v l e v a,2006. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mining Industry: Exploring Trends in Social and Environmental Disclosure. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14,271-284.
②Brown, N. and Deegan,C,1998.The Public Disclosure of Environmental Performance Information: a Dual Test of Media Agenda Setting Theory and Legitimacy Theory. Accounting and Business Research,29(1),21-41.
①Epstein M. J. and Freedman, 1994, Social Disclosure and the Individual Investor, Accounting Auditing and Accountabi1ity Journa1, 7, 94-100.
②Cullen, L. and Christopher, T, 2002. Governance Disclosures and Firm Characteristics of Listed Australian Mining Companies. International Journal of BusinessStudies, 10(1), 37-58.
①O’Donovan,G,1997.Legitimacy Theory and Corporate Environmental Disclosure: Some Case Study Evidence. Paper presented at 1997 Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand Annual Conference, Hobart.
②Neu,D.,Warsame,H.and Pedwell,K, 1998.Managing Public Impressions: Environmental Disclosures in Annual Reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265-282.
③Deegan,C.,M.Rankin and P. Voght, 1999.Firms’Disclosure Reactions to Major Social Incidents: Australian Evidence.Paper presented at the 22nd European Accounting Association Congress, Bordeaux.
①Lee E. Preston and Douglas P. 0. Bannon. The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship: A Typology and Analysis [J]. Business and Society 1997 (4):419-429.
①Cowen S., Ferreri L., and Parker L., 1987, The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: a typology and frequency-based analysis, Accounting Organizations and Society, 12, 111
②Richardson, A. and M. Welker, 2001,"Social Disclosure, Financial Disclosure and the Cost of Equity Capital", Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 597-616.
①K. Hockerts and L. Moir, 2003.Communicating Corporate Responsibility to Investors: The Changing Role of the Investor Relations Function.2003/89/CMER, working paper series, Submitted to the Journal of Business Ethics.
②David S. Gelb and Joyce A. Strawser, 2001.Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Disclosures: An Alternative Explanation for Increased Disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics,33:1-13.
①Investor Relations Business, Dec 22, 2003,pp8-9.
①张宗新朱伟骅,信息披露增加能够提升公司价值吗?——基于声誉投资模型的公司价值分析及中国股市证据,国家自然科学基金研究项目(70303006)和国家社会科学基金(0BJY052)的研究成果.
①夏立军、方轶强,政府控制、治理环境与公司价值——来自中国证券市场的经验数据,经济研究,2005年05期。
②丁守海,托宾Q值影响投资了吗?——对我国投资理性的另一种检验,数量经济技术经济研究,2006年12期,P146。
①汪辉,上市公司债务融资、公司治理与市场价值,经济研究,2003年8期,P28-35
②张奇峰,政府管制提高会计师事务所声誉吗?——来自中国证券市场的经验证据,管理世界(月刊),2005年第12期,P14-23
③白重恩等,中国上市公司治理结构的实证研究,经济研究,2005年第2期,P81-91
④Lang, Mark; Lundholm, Russell. Cross-Sectional Deteminants of Analyst Ratings of Corporate Disclosures [J]. Journal of Accounting Research, Autumn93, Vol. 31 Issue 2, P246-271
①陈宏辉,企业利益相关者的利益要求:理论与实证研究,经济管理出版社,2004年3月,P280-P288。
①[美]埃尔登S·享德里克森著,王澹如、陈今池编译,《会计理论》,立信会计图书用品社,1987,P35
①Deegan,C.,M.Rankin and P. Voght, 1999.Firms’Disclosure Reactions to Major Social Incidents: Australian Evidence.Paper presented at the 22nd European Accounting Association Congress, Bordeaux.
①卢代富,企业社会责任的经济学与法学分析,法律出版社,2002年10月,P258-P264
1.白重恩,刘俏,陆洲,宋敏,张俊喜:中国上市公司治理结构的实证研究[J],经济研究,2005.02。
2.曹月凤:权益道德责任论——企业与利益关系者的和谐与共生[M],北京:社会科学文献出版社,2006.07。
3.陈宏辉:企业利益相关者的利益要求:理论与实证研究[M],北京:经济管理出版社,2004.03。
4.陈宏辉、贾生华:公司社会责任观的演进与发展[J],中国工业经济,2003.12。
5.陈士辉,股东至上论质疑[J],华东理工大学学报(社会科学版),2005.03。
6.陈琳,王平心:影响中国上市公司经济附加价值因素的实证研究[J],中国管理科学,2005.12。
7.陈今池:现代会计理论概论[M],上海:立信会计出版社,1993年。
8.陈文华:企业责任会计的三大理论基础[J],财务与会计,1997.11。
9.陈毓奎:环境会计和报告的第一份国际指南[J],会计研究,1998.05。
10.陈玉清,马丽丽:我国上市公司社会责任会计信息市场反应实证分析[J],会计研究, 2005. 11。
11.迟德强:海外企业社会责任披露制度及借鉴[J],证券市场导报,2007.08。
12.段盛华:自愿信息披露环境下控制结构披露的市场反应[J],证券市场导报,2004.12。
13.方军雄,洪剑峭:信息披露透明度及其经济后果性的实证研究[J],国家自然科学基金(70472019)“公司治理与会计信息公信度实证研究”的阶段性成果,2005年。
14.冯岭:关注社会责任是企业可持续发展之路[J],管理科学文摘,2006。
15.冯洪全,曾大宏,吴树畅:试论会计信息在资本市场中的价值[J],会计研究,1999.03。
16.葛家澍,陈少华:改进企业财务报告问题研究[M],北京:中国财政经济出版社,2002.07。
17.葛家澍,林志军:现代西方会计理论[M],福建:厦门大学出版社,2001年。
18.葛家澍,刘峰:会计理论——关于财务会计概念结构的研究[M],北京:中国财政经济出版社,2003.01。
19.国家电网公司:国家电网公司2005社会责任报告[R],北京:中国电力出版社,2006。
20.黄娟娟,肖眠:信息披露、收益透明度与权益资本成本[J],中国会计评论理事会,中国第四届实证会计国际研讨会会议论文集(1)[C],上海复旦大学,2005。
21.季晓东:浅探现代企业社会责任信息披露[J],财会月刊(综合)2007.04。
22.蒋顺才,刘雪辉,刘迎新:上市公司信息披露[M],北京:清华大学出版社,2004年第1版。
23.雷震华:浅谈企业社会责任的揭示[J],财会通讯,2002.04。
24.黎精明:关于我国企业社会责任会计信息披露问题的研究[J],武汉科技大学学报,2004.03。
25.李立清,李燕凌:企业社会责任研究[M],北京:人民出版社,2005.08。
26.李培林:论企业社会责任与企业可持续发展[J],当代财经,2006.10。
27.李正:构建我国企业社会责任信息披露体系研究[J],经济经纬,2006.06。
28.李建华,肖发:我国企业环境报告:现状、需求与未来[J],会计研究,2002.04。
29.李耀松:东北上市公司会计信息披露质量的治理因素分析[J],科技与管理,2006.04。
30.刘继峰,吕家毅:企业社会责任内涵的扩展与协调[J],法学评论,2004.05。
31.刘大洪:公司社会责任语境下的可持续发展[J],中南大学学报(社会科学版),2006.08。
32.刘长翠,孔晓婷:社会责任会计信息披露的实证研究——来自沪市2002年-2004年度的经验数据[J],会计研究,2006.10。
33.刘长喜:利益相关者、社会契约与企业社会责任——一个新的分析框架及其应用[J],复旦大学博士论文,2005.04。
34.刘建红、杨亚娥:西方国家社会责任会计信息披露及其对我国的启示[J],西安财经学院学报,2004.02。
35.刘连煜:公司治理与公司社会责任[M],北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001年。
36.刘亚莉:论自然垄断企业的社会责任及财务报告的改进[J],会计研究,2003.08。
37.娄权:上市公司信息披露质量的影响因素——深圳股市面板数据的实证研究[J],郑州航空工业管理学院学报,2006.04。
38.陆正飞,叶康涛:中国资本市场的公司财务研究:回顾与评论(上)[J],财会通讯,2004.05。
39.陆正飞,叶康涛:中国上市公司股权融资偏好解析——偏好股权融资就是缘于融资成本低吗?[J],经济研究,2004.04。
40.卢代富:企业社会责任的经济学与法学分析[M],北京:法律出版社,2002.10。
41.罗金明:阳光是最好的防腐剂——建立企业社会责任信息披露制度[J],经营与管理,2007.08。
42.马力,齐善鸿:公司社会责任理论述评[J],社会经济体制比较(双月刊),2005.02。
43. (美)保罗B.W.米勒,保罗R.班森,阎达五,李勇等译:高质量财务报告[M],机械工业出版社,2004。
44.孟凡利:环境会计信息披露及相关理论问题[J],会计研究,1999.04。
45.孟庆若:试论企业社会责任会计报告模式[J],会计研究,1996.12。
46.宁凌:企业社会责任的经济、社会学分析与我国企业的社会责任[J],南方经济,2000.06。
47.裘丽亚,徐植:企业社会责任会计信息披露体系的构建[J],技术经济,2005.10。
48.邱宜干:我国上市公司会计信息披露问题研究[M],南昌:江西人民出版社,2003.09。
49.邵文华:企业社会责任对企业可持续发展的影响机制分析[J],经济论坛,2006.12。
50.沈洪涛:公司特征与公司社会责任信息披露——来自我国上市公司的经验证据[J],会计研究,2007.03。
51.沈洪涛,金婷婷:我国上市公司社会责任信息披露的现状分析[J],审计与经济研究,2006.06。
52.沈艺峰,沈洪涛:论公司社会责任与相关利益者理论的全面结合趋势[J],中国经济问题,2003.02。
53.沈艺峰,沈洪涛,相关利益者理论研究传统之探讨[J],中国经济问题,2003.03。
54.沈艺峰,肖眠,黄涓涓:中小投资者法律保护与权益资本成本[J],经济研究,2005.06。
55.史蒂文. F.沃克和杰佛里. E.马著,赵宝华,刘彦平译:利益相关者权力[M],北京:经济管理出版社,2003年。
56.宋秦:社会责任投资——基于可持续发展战略下的一种投资模式的研究[J],贵州商业高等专科学校学报,2007.03。
57.宋献中:论企业核心能力信息的自愿披露[J],会计研究,2006.02。
58.宋献中,龚明晓:上市公司会计年报中社会责任信息的价值研究[J],管理世界,2006.12。
59.宋献中,龚明晓:社会责任信息的质量与决策价值评价——上市公司会计年报的内容分析[J],会计研究,2007.02。
60.舒强兴,王红英:企业社会责任信息披露问题的探讨[J],财经理论与实践,2006.06。
61.孙蔓莉,姚岳:公司报告语言信息研究[J],甘肃社会科学,2005.03。
62.汤立斌:上市公司会计信息披露法律责任的设定问题[J],会计研究,2002.08。
63.唐跃军:信息披露机制评价、信息披露指数与企业业绩——基于931家上市公司的调查[J],管理评论,2005.10。
64.陶世隆:公平披露规则与证券证券市场透明度[J],管理世界,2002.01。
65.田昆儒:社会责任会计渊源及构造初探[J],财会通讯,1997.07。
66.万莉,罗怡芬:企业社会责任的均衡模型——基于利益相关者和不完全契约理论[J],上海市社会科学界第四届学术年会文集——经济、管理科学卷[C],2006年度。
67.汪辉:上市公司债务融资、公司治理与市场价值[J],经济研究,2003.08。
68.汪炜:信息披露、透明度与资本成本[J],经济研究,2004.07。
69.王建明,闫本宗,陈红喜:基于社会责任的企业环境信息披露博弈分析[J],生态经济,2007.04。
70.王莉华:论可持续发展与社会责任会计[J],商业研究,2003.16。
71.王立彦,冯子敏:国际企业环境信息披露与管理启示[J],经济研究参考,2001.03。
72.威廉. H.比弗,薛云奎等译:财务呈报:会计革命[M],东北财经大学出版社,1999年。
73.威廉. R.斯科特,陈汉文,夏文贤:财务会计理论[M],北京:机械工业出版社,2006.01。
74.魏明海,刘峰,施鲤翔:论会计透明度[J],会计研究,2001.09。
75.魏明海:会计信息质量经验研究的完善与运用[J],会计研究,2005.03。
76.温素彬:社会责任性投资与企业绩效评价[C],第九届财务学科建设研讨会,2004。
77.吴联生:投资者对上市公司会计信息需求的调查分析[J],经济研究, 2000.04。
78.薛云奎,王志台:无形资产信息披露及其价值相关性研究——来自上海股市的经验证据[J],会计研究,2001.11。
79.杨爱华:信息不对称、会计信息披露与博弈[J],财会通讯(学术版),2005.06。
80.杨德锋:基于资源基础论的企业社会责任研究[J],上海市社会科学界第四届学术年会文集——经济、管理科学卷[C],2006年度。
81.杨瑞龙,周业安:公司的相关利益者理论及其应用[M],北京:经济科学出版社,2000年。
82.阳秋林:建立中国特色的社会责任会计势在必行——关于我国现行企业实行社会责任会计情况的调查报告[J],南华大学学报,2002.03。
83.阳秋林:中国社会责任会计研究[M],北京:中国财政经济出版社,2005.07。
84.阳秋林:架构我国社会责任会计信息披露的指标分析体系,审计与经济研究[J],2005.03。
85.阳秋林,李冬生:建立中国企业社会责任审计的构想[J],审计与经济研究,2004.11。
86.杨祖亭,张月玲:环境会计报告方法初探[J],商业研究, 2003.16
87.袁蕴,牟涛:基于利益相关者的社会责任信息披露[J],商业会计,2007.07。
88.袁蕴,牟涛:企业社会责任信息披露研究综述与启示[J],财会月刊(理论版),2007.09。
89.曾颖,陆正飞:信息披露质量与股权融资成本[J],经济研究,2006.02。
90.张奇峰:政府管制提高会计师事务所声誉吗?——来自中国证券市场的经验证据[J],管理世界,2005.12。
91.张洪波,李健:企业社会责任和利益相关者理论:基于整合视角的研究[J],企业管理,2007.03。
92.张文贤,徐寰宇,潘煜双:企业社会责任研究:指标体系的设计[J],新资本,2006.05。
93.张宗新,朱伟骅:信息披露增加能够提升公司价值吗?——基于声誉投资模型的公司价值分析及中国股市证据[J],国家自然科学基金研究项目(70303006)和国家社会科学基金(0BJY052)的研究成果,2006年。
94.张宗新等:上市公司自愿性信息披露行为有效吗?——基于1998-2003年中国证券市场的实证检验[J],经济学(季刊),2005年第4卷第2期。
95.赵颖,马连福:海外企业社会责任信息披露研究综述及启示[J],证券市场导报,2007.08。
96.仲大军:当前中国企业的社会责任[J],经济与社会观察,2002.06。
97.周国银,张少标:社会责任国际标准(SA8000)实施指南[M],深圳:深圳海天出版社,2002年。
98.周立:虚假与制约:信息披露质量与股权融资成本[J],理论与改革,2004.05。
99.周祖城,王旭,韦佳园:中国企业社会责任信息披露的现状分析与对策思考[J],软科学,2007.04。
100. Carroll, A. B. & Buchholtz. A. K.著,黄煜平,朱中彬和徐小娟等译:企业与社会伦理与利益相关者管理(原书第五版)[M],北京:机械工业出版社,2004。
101. PaulB. W. Miller等,阎达五等译:高质量财务报告[M],北京:机械工业出版社,2004年。
102. Abagail McWilliams, Donald Siegel. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the Firm Perspective Academy of Management [J], The Academy of Management Review 2001. Vol. 26, Iss. 1; P. 117.
103. Abbott Walter F. and Monsen, R.Joseph: On the Measurement of Corporate Social Responsibility: Self-Reported Disclosures as a Method of Measuring Corporate Social Involvement [J], Academy of Management Journal, Sep79, 1979, Vol.22 Issue 3, pp.501~515.
104. Alexander, Gordon J., Buchholz, Regene A. Corporate Social Responsibility and Stock Market Performance Academy of Management Journal. Sept. 1978.Vo1.21, Iss. 3; pg. 479.
105. Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A.B. & Hatfield, J.D. An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and rofitability Academy Of Management Journal[J], 1985, 28: 446-463.
106. Bradford. A Comparative Study of the Contents of Corporate Social Responsibility Reports of UK Companies [J], Management of Environmental Quality, 2004, 15(4).
107. Carroll, A. B. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders [J], Business Horizons, 1991, 34(4).
108. Cowen S., Ferreri L., and Parker L., The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: a typology and frequency-based analysis, Accounting Organizations and Society, 1987, 12-111.
109. David Woodward: Some Evidence on Executives Views of Corporate Social Responsibility, British Accounting Review, 2001.33.
110. Edward H. Bowman and Mason Haire: A Strategic Posture toward Corporate Social Responsibility, California Management Review, winter, 1975.
111. Epstein, M., Flamholtz, E. and Mc Donough, J. J.: Corporate social accounting in the United State of America state of the art and future prospect, Accounting, Organization and Society, 1976, Vol. 1 No. 1
112. Epstein M. J. and Freedman,Social Disclosure and the Individual Investor, Accounting, Auditing and Accountabi1ity [J], Journa1, 1994.
113. Gigler, F. & Hemmer, T., On the Frequency, Quality, And Informational Roleof Mandatory Financial Reports [J], Journal of Accounting Research, 1998, 36(Supplement): 117-147.
114. Gray, S. J., Meek, G K. & Roberts, C. B. International Capital Market Pressures And Voluntary Annual Report Disclosures By U.S. And U.K. Multinationals [J], Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 1995, 6(1).
115. Guthrie, J. E. Social Accounting In Australia: Social Responsibility Disclosures in the Top 150 Listed Australian Companies 1980 Annual Reports [M]. Perth: Western Australia Institute of Technology, 1982.
116. Healy, P M. & Palepu, K.Cz Information Asymmetry, Corporate Disclosure and the Capital Markets: A Review of the Empirical Disclosure Literature [J]. Journal of Accounting&Economics, 2001, 31(1-3): 405-410.
117. Heledd Jenkins and Natalia Ya kovleva. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mining Industry: Exploring Trends in Social and Environmental Disclosure .Journal of Cleaner Production, 2006, (14):271-284.
118. Homer H. Johnson: Does It Pay to Be Good? Social Responsibility and Financial Performance, Business Horizons, 2003.11.
119. Idowu, S. O. & Towler, B. A. A Comparative Study of The Contents of Corporate Social Responsibility Reports of UK Companies [J]. Management of Environmental Quality, 2004, 15(4): 420-435.
120. Kenneth E Aupperle, Archie B Carroll, and John D.Hatfield. An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability .Academy of Management Journal [J], 1985, Vol.28 (No.2):446-463.
121. KPMG, The KPMG International Survey of CSR Reporting[R], 2005.
122. Lee E. Preston and Douglas P. O. Bannon. The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship: A Typology and Analysis. Business and Society [J] 1997(4).
123. Marquez, A. & Fombrun, C. J. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility [J]. Corporate Reputation Review, 2005, 07.
124. Mcguire, J. B., Sundgren, A. & Schneeweis, T. Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance [J]. Academy OfManagement Journal, 1988, 31(4): 854-872.
125. Meek, Gary K., Roberts, and Clare B., andGray Sidney J.: Factors influencing voluntary annual reportdisclosures by US, UK and continental European multinational corporations. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 3rd Quarter, 1995.
126. Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S. & Freeman, K. Scoring Corporate Environmental And Sustainability Reports Using GRI 2000, ISO14031 And Other Criteria [J]. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2002, 9(4): 215-233.
127. Nasi, J., Nasi, S. & Phillips, N. et al. The Evolution of Corporate Responsiveness [J], Business and Society, 1997, 36(3): 296-321.
128. Newson, M. & Deegan, C. Global Expectations and Their Association with Corporate Social Disclosure Practices in Australia, Singapore, and South Korea [J]. The International Journal of Accounting, 2002, 37(2): 183-213.
129. Nobuyuki NT Tokoro, Stakeholders and CSR: A New Perspective on the Structure of Relationships. Journal of Asian Business & Management [J], Jun 2007, Vol6, Issue2, P143-162.
130. Orlitzky, Marc, and Benjamin, John D.: Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review, Businessand Society, 2001.Vo.l 40 (4): 369~396.
131. Preston, Lee E., and O. Bannon, Douglas P.: The corporate social-financial performance relationship, A typology and analysis. Business and Society, 1997. Vo.l 36 (4): 419~429.
132. Ramanathan, K. V toward A Theory of Corporate Social Accounting [J]. The Accounting Review, 1976, 51(3): 516-520.
133. R.H.Gray: The Trend of Corporate Social and Environmental Accounting [J], British Institute of Management, 1991.
134. Robert W. Ingram.: An Investigation of the information content of (certain) social responsibility disclosures, Journal ofAccountingResearch, 1978, 16 (2): 270~285.
135. Roberts,R.W., Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: an Application of Stakeholder Theory [J], Accounting Organizations andSociety, 1992, 17.
136. Simon, S. M. & Wong, K. S. A Study of the Relationship between Corporate Governance Structure and the Extent of Voluntary Disclosure [J]. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing&Taxation, 2001, 10(2): 139-156.
137. Simon Zadak, Peter Pruzan, and Richard Evans: Building Corporate Account Ability [J], New Economic Foundation, 1997.
138. Susan Ariel Aronso:How The Europeans Got a Head Start on Policies to Promote Global Corporate Responsibility , Corporate Environmental Stategy[J],2002,09.
139. Thompson, P. & Zakaria, Z. Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting In Malaysia: Progress and Prospects [J], The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2004(13): 125-135.
140. Vincent N. Parrillo, Ardyth Stimson: Contemporary Social Problems [M],北京:华夏出版社,2002年。
141. Wesley Mendes da Silva, The Voluntary Disclosure of Financial Information on the Internet and the Firm Value Effect in Companies across Latin America, SSRN Working Paper. 2004.
142. Zeghal, D. & Ahmed, S. A. Comparisons of Social Responsibility Information Disclosure Media Used By Canadian Firms [J], Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 1990, 3(1): 38-53.
①Edward H. Bowman and Mason Haire, A Strategic Posture Toward Corporate Social Responsibility, California Management Review, winter1975.
①Social Responsibility of Business Corporations,A Statement on National Policy by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development, June 1971, pp.36-40.
①Archie B. Carroll, Stakeholder Thinking in Three Models of Management Morality: A Perspective with Strategic Implications, In the Corporation and Its Stakeholder: Classic and Contemporary Readings, Edited by Max B. E . Clarkson, University of Toronto Press, 1998, 139-170.
②刘俊海,强化公司的社会责任——建立我国现代企业制度的一项重要内容,载王保树主编:《商事法论集》,法律出版社,1997年。
①See Address of Owen D. young, January, 1929. quoted in E Merrick Dodd, Jr. For whom are Corporate Managers Trustees? Harvard Law Review,1932, 1145-1163.
①Jawahar, I. M,and Mc. Laughlin, Gary L., 2001, Toward a Descriptive Stakeholder Theory: An Organizational Life Cycle Approach, Academy of Management Review, Vo1.26(3), 397-414, p398
①乔治·思德勒,《面向行动的经济伦理学》,上海社会科学院出版社,2002年
①中国企业联合会,共享和谐――解读SA800社会责任体系,企业管理出版社,2004年6月。
②邵文华,企业社会责任对企业可持续发展的影响机制分析,经济论坛,2006年。
③据新华社信息北京2003年7月7日电。
①阳秋林,架构我国社会责任会计信息披露的指标分析体系,审计与经济研究,2005年3月。
②财政部关于印发《财政部企业经济效益评价指标体系(试行)》的通知,1995年1月9日。
①中国电力出版社出版,2006年。
①《深圳证券交易所上市公司社会责任指引》,深圳证券交易所2006年9月25日颁布。
①Deborah Leipziger: SA8000, the Definitive Guide To The New Social Standards, Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2001.
①季晓东,浅探现代企业社会责任信息披露,财会月刊,2007年4月。
①Susan Ariel Aronso:How The Europeans Got a Head Start on Policies to Promote Global Corporate Responsibility[J],Corporate Environmental Stategy,2002,9(4)
②李国强,全面认识“企业社会责任”以及SA8000,提升我国企业竞争力[J],经济要参,2005.14
①Davial F. Linowes,Socio-Economic Accounting[J]. The Journal of Accounting,1968.11
②Sylil C. Mobley,The Challenges of Socio-Economic Accounting[J],The Accounting Review,1970.11
③Ahmed Belkaon. Socio-Economic Accounting[M],1984,11
④宋献中,社会责任会计——走向21世纪的现代会计[M],东北财经大学出版社,1999
①阳秋林、李冬生,建立中国企业社会责任审计的构想[J],审计与经济研究,2004.11
①李金华,国家审计是国家治理的工具:为问责导航[J],财经,2004.24
①Marquez, A.& Fombrun, C. J. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility[J]. Corporate Reputation Review, 2005,7(304)
①GRI. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines 2002 [EB/OL],http://www.globalreporting.org
①http://www.kld.com/index.html
②引自田书军,基于GRI体系的浙江上市公司社会责任信息披露研究,2006年4月
①Cooke T.E. and R.S.O. Wallace, 1989,“Global Surveys of Corporate Disclosure Practices and Audit Firms: A Review Essay,”Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 20.
①阳秋林,架构我国社会责任会计信息披露的指标分析体系,审计与经济研究,2005年3月,P59-62
①裘丽亚、徐植,企业社会责任会计信息披露体系的构建,技术经济,2005年第10期
①引自仲大军,当前中国企业的社会责任,经济与社会观察,2002(6)
②Gray, R, R Kouhy and S Lavers, 1995. Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting. A Review of the Literature and a Longitudinal Study of UK Disclosure Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, 47.
①Roberts, R.W., 1992, Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure, An Application of Stakeholder Theory. Accounting Organizations and Society, 17, 595-612.
②Sinclar-Desgagne, B. and Goz1an. E., 2003. A Theory of Environmental Risk Disclosure. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45
③Wi11is, A, 2003, The role of the Global Reporting Initiative' s Sustainability Reporting Guide lines in the social screening of investments, Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 233-237
④Patten,D.M,2002 The Relation between Environmental Performance and Environmental Disclosure: A Research Note. Accounting Organizations&Society, 27(8),763-764.
⑤Cormier, D. and Magnan, M, 2003.Environmental Reporting Management: a European Perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22(1), 43-62.
⑥FTSE 4 Good是用来衡量企业符合全球公认的企业社会责任标准的程度。
⑦如:采矿业和石油开采行业。原因在于采掘业整体公众形象较差,人们对自然资源开采行业的社会绩效和环境绩效比产品价格、质量和安全更加关注。
①Heledd Jenkins and Natalia Y a k o v l e v a,2006. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mining Industry: Exploring Trends in Social and Environmental Disclosure. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14,271-284.
②Brown, N. and Deegan,C,1998.The Public Disclosure of Environmental Performance Information: a Dual Test of Media Agenda Setting Theory and Legitimacy Theory. Accounting and Business Research,29(1),21-41.
①Epstein M. J. and Freedman, 1994, Social Disclosure and the Individual Investor, Accounting Auditing and Accountabi1ity Journa1, 7, 94-100.
②Cullen, L. and Christopher, T, 2002. Governance Disclosures and Firm Characteristics of Listed Australian Mining Companies. International Journal of BusinessStudies, 10(1), 37-58.
①O’Donovan,G,1997.Legitimacy Theory and Corporate Environmental Disclosure: Some Case Study Evidence. Paper presented at 1997 Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand Annual Conference, Hobart.
②Neu,D.,Warsame,H.and Pedwell,K, 1998.Managing Public Impressions: Environmental Disclosures in Annual Reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265-282.
③Deegan,C.,M.Rankin and P. Voght, 1999.Firms’Disclosure Reactions to Major Social Incidents: Australian Evidence.Paper presented at the 22nd European Accounting Association Congress, Bordeaux.
①Lee E. Preston and Douglas P. 0. Bannon. The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship: A Typology and Analysis [J]. Business and Society 1997 (4):419-429.
①Cowen S., Ferreri L., and Parker L., 1987, The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: a typology and frequency-based analysis, Accounting Organizations and Society, 12, 111
②Richardson, A. and M. Welker, 2001,"Social Disclosure, Financial Disclosure and the Cost of Equity Capital", Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 597-616.
①K. Hockerts and L. Moir, 2003.Communicating Corporate Responsibility to Investors: The Changing Role of the Investor Relations Function.2003/89/CMER, working paper series, Submitted to the Journal of Business Ethics.
②David S. Gelb and Joyce A. Strawser, 2001.Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Disclosures: An Alternative Explanation for Increased Disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics,33:1-13.
①Investor Relations Business, Dec 22, 2003,pp8-9.
①张宗新朱伟骅,信息披露增加能够提升公司价值吗?——基于声誉投资模型的公司价值分析及中国股市证据,国家自然科学基金研究项目(70303006)和国家社会科学基金(0BJY052)的研究成果.
①夏立军、方轶强,政府控制、治理环境与公司价值——来自中国证券市场的经验数据,经济研究,2005年05期。
②丁守海,托宾Q值影响投资了吗?——对我国投资理性的另一种检验,数量经济技术经济研究,2006年12期,P146。
①汪辉,上市公司债务融资、公司治理与市场价值,经济研究,2003年8期,P28-35
②张奇峰,政府管制提高会计师事务所声誉吗?——来自中国证券市场的经验证据,管理世界(月刊),2005年第12期,P14-23
③白重恩等,中国上市公司治理结构的实证研究,经济研究,2005年第2期,P81-91
④Lang, Mark; Lundholm, Russell. Cross-Sectional Deteminants of Analyst Ratings of Corporate Disclosures [J]. Journal of Accounting Research, Autumn93, Vol. 31 Issue 2, P246-271
①陈宏辉,企业利益相关者的利益要求:理论与实证研究,经济管理出版社,2004年3月,P280-P288。
①[美]埃尔登S·享德里克森著,王澹如、陈今池编译,《会计理论》,立信会计图书用品社,1987,P35
①Deegan,C.,M.Rankin and P. Voght, 1999.Firms’Disclosure Reactions to Major Social Incidents: Australian Evidence.Paper presented at the 22nd European Accounting Association Congress, Bordeaux.
①卢代富,企业社会责任的经济学与法学分析,法律出版社,2002年10月,P258-P264
1.白重恩,刘俏,陆洲,宋敏,张俊喜:中国上市公司治理结构的实证研究[J],经济研究,2005.02。
2.曹月凤:权益道德责任论——企业与利益关系者的和谐与共生[M],北京:社会科学文献出版社,2006.07。
3.陈宏辉:企业利益相关者的利益要求:理论与实证研究[M],北京:经济管理出版社,2004.03。
4.陈宏辉、贾生华:公司社会责任观的演进与发展[J],中国工业经济,2003.12。
5.陈士辉,股东至上论质疑[J],华东理工大学学报(社会科学版),2005.03。
6.陈琳,王平心:影响中国上市公司经济附加价值因素的实证研究[J],中国管理科学,2005.12。
7.陈今池:现代会计理论概论[M],上海:立信会计出版社,1993年。
8.陈文华:企业责任会计的三大理论基础[J],财务与会计,1997.11。
9.陈毓奎:环境会计和报告的第一份国际指南[J],会计研究,1998.05。
10.陈玉清,马丽丽:我国上市公司社会责任会计信息市场反应实证分析[J],会计研究, 2005. 11。
11.迟德强:海外企业社会责任披露制度及借鉴[J],证券市场导报,2007.08。
12.段盛华:自愿信息披露环境下控制结构披露的市场反应[J],证券市场导报,2004.12。
13.方军雄,洪剑峭:信息披露透明度及其经济后果性的实证研究[J],国家自然科学基金(70472019)“公司治理与会计信息公信度实证研究”的阶段性成果,2005年。
14.冯岭:关注社会责任是企业可持续发展之路[J],管理科学文摘,2006。
15.冯洪全,曾大宏,吴树畅:试论会计信息在资本市场中的价值[J],会计研究,1999.03。
16.葛家澍,陈少华:改进企业财务报告问题研究[M],北京:中国财政经济出版社,2002.07。
17.葛家澍,林志军:现代西方会计理论[M],福建:厦门大学出版社,2001年。
18.葛家澍,刘峰:会计理论——关于财务会计概念结构的研究[M],北京:中国财政经济出版社,2003.01。
19.国家电网公司:国家电网公司2005社会责任报告[R],北京:中国电力出版社,2006。
20.黄娟娟,肖眠:信息披露、收益透明度与权益资本成本[J],中国会计评论理事会,中国第四届实证会计国际研讨会会议论文集(1)[C],上海复旦大学,2005。
21.季晓东:浅探现代企业社会责任信息披露[J],财会月刊(综合)2007.04。
22.蒋顺才,刘雪辉,刘迎新:上市公司信息披露[M],北京:清华大学出版社,2004年第1版。
23.雷震华:浅谈企业社会责任的揭示[J],财会通讯,2002.04。
24.黎精明:关于我国企业社会责任会计信息披露问题的研究[J],武汉科技大学学报,2004.03。
25.李立清,李燕凌:企业社会责任研究[M],北京:人民出版社,2005.08。
26.李培林:论企业社会责任与企业可持续发展[J],当代财经,2006.10。
27.李正:构建我国企业社会责任信息披露体系研究[J],经济经纬,2006.06。
28.李建华,肖发:我国企业环境报告:现状、需求与未来[J],会计研究,2002.04。
29.李耀松:东北上市公司会计信息披露质量的治理因素分析[J],科技与管理,2006.04。
30.刘继峰,吕家毅:企业社会责任内涵的扩展与协调[J],法学评论,2004.05。
31.刘大洪:公司社会责任语境下的可持续发展[J],中南大学学报(社会科学版),2006.08。
32.刘长翠,孔晓婷:社会责任会计信息披露的实证研究——来自沪市2002年-2004年度的经验数据[J],会计研究,2006.10。
33.刘长喜:利益相关者、社会契约与企业社会责任——一个新的分析框架及其应用[J],复旦大学博士论文,2005.04。
34.刘建红、杨亚娥:西方国家社会责任会计信息披露及其对我国的启示[J],西安财经学院学报,2004.02。
35.刘连煜:公司治理与公司社会责任[M],北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001年。
36.刘亚莉:论自然垄断企业的社会责任及财务报告的改进[J],会计研究,2003.08。
37.娄权:上市公司信息披露质量的影响因素——深圳股市面板数据的实证研究[J],郑州航空工业管理学院学报,2006.04。
38.陆正飞,叶康涛:中国资本市场的公司财务研究:回顾与评论(上)[J],财会通讯,2004.05。
39.陆正飞,叶康涛:中国上市公司股权融资偏好解析——偏好股权融资就是缘于融资成本低吗?[J],经济研究,2004.04。
40.卢代富:企业社会责任的经济学与法学分析[M],北京:法律出版社,2002.10。
41.罗金明:阳光是最好的防腐剂——建立企业社会责任信息披露制度[J],经营与管理,2007.08。
42.马力,齐善鸿:公司社会责任理论述评[J],社会经济体制比较(双月刊),2005.02。
43. (美)保罗B.W.米勒,保罗R.班森,阎达五,李勇等译:高质量财务报告[M],机械工业出版社,2004。
44.孟凡利:环境会计信息披露及相关理论问题[J],会计研究,1999.04。
45.孟庆若:试论企业社会责任会计报告模式[J],会计研究,1996.12。
46.宁凌:企业社会责任的经济、社会学分析与我国企业的社会责任[J],南方经济,2000.06。
47.裘丽亚,徐植:企业社会责任会计信息披露体系的构建[J],技术经济,2005.10。
48.邱宜干:我国上市公司会计信息披露问题研究[M],南昌:江西人民出版社,2003.09。
49.邵文华:企业社会责任对企业可持续发展的影响机制分析[J],经济论坛,2006.12。
50.沈洪涛:公司特征与公司社会责任信息披露——来自我国上市公司的经验证据[J],会计研究,2007.03。
51.沈洪涛,金婷婷:我国上市公司社会责任信息披露的现状分析[J],审计与经济研究,2006.06。
52.沈艺峰,沈洪涛:论公司社会责任与相关利益者理论的全面结合趋势[J],中国经济问题,2003.02。
53.沈艺峰,沈洪涛,相关利益者理论研究传统之探讨[J],中国经济问题,2003.03。
54.沈艺峰,肖眠,黄涓涓:中小投资者法律保护与权益资本成本[J],经济研究,2005.06。
55.史蒂文. F.沃克和杰佛里. E.马著,赵宝华,刘彦平译:利益相关者权力[M],北京:经济管理出版社,2003年。
56.宋秦:社会责任投资——基于可持续发展战略下的一种投资模式的研究[J],贵州商业高等专科学校学报,2007.03。
57.宋献中:论企业核心能力信息的自愿披露[J],会计研究,2006.02。
58.宋献中,龚明晓:上市公司会计年报中社会责任信息的价值研究[J],管理世界,2006.12。
59.宋献中,龚明晓:社会责任信息的质量与决策价值评价——上市公司会计年报的内容分析[J],会计研究,2007.02。
60.舒强兴,王红英:企业社会责任信息披露问题的探讨[J],财经理论与实践,2006.06。
61.孙蔓莉,姚岳:公司报告语言信息研究[J],甘肃社会科学,2005.03。
62.汤立斌:上市公司会计信息披露法律责任的设定问题[J],会计研究,2002.08。
63.唐跃军:信息披露机制评价、信息披露指数与企业业绩——基于931家上市公司的调查[J],管理评论,2005.10。
64.陶世隆:公平披露规则与证券证券市场透明度[J],管理世界,2002.01。
65.田昆儒:社会责任会计渊源及构造初探[J],财会通讯,1997.07。
66.万莉,罗怡芬:企业社会责任的均衡模型——基于利益相关者和不完全契约理论[J],上海市社会科学界第四届学术年会文集——经济、管理科学卷[C],2006年度。
67.汪辉:上市公司债务融资、公司治理与市场价值[J],经济研究,2003.08。
68.汪炜:信息披露、透明度与资本成本[J],经济研究,2004.07。
69.王建明,闫本宗,陈红喜:基于社会责任的企业环境信息披露博弈分析[J],生态经济,2007.04。
70.王莉华:论可持续发展与社会责任会计[J],商业研究,2003.16。
71.王立彦,冯子敏:国际企业环境信息披露与管理启示[J],经济研究参考,2001.03。
72.威廉. H.比弗,薛云奎等译:财务呈报:会计革命[M],东北财经大学出版社,1999年。
73.威廉. R.斯科特,陈汉文,夏文贤:财务会计理论[M],北京:机械工业出版社,2006.01。
74.魏明海,刘峰,施鲤翔:论会计透明度[J],会计研究,2001.09。
75.魏明海:会计信息质量经验研究的完善与运用[J],会计研究,2005.03。
76.温素彬:社会责任性投资与企业绩效评价[C],第九届财务学科建设研讨会,2004。
77.吴联生:投资者对上市公司会计信息需求的调查分析[J],经济研究, 2000.04。
78.薛云奎,王志台:无形资产信息披露及其价值相关性研究——来自上海股市的经验证据[J],会计研究,2001.11。
79.杨爱华:信息不对称、会计信息披露与博弈[J],财会通讯(学术版),2005.06。
80.杨德锋:基于资源基础论的企业社会责任研究[J],上海市社会科学界第四届学术年会文集——经济、管理科学卷[C],2006年度。
81.杨瑞龙,周业安:公司的相关利益者理论及其应用[M],北京:经济科学出版社,2000年。
82.阳秋林:建立中国特色的社会责任会计势在必行——关于我国现行企业实行社会责任会计情况的调查报告[J],南华大学学报,2002.03。
83.阳秋林:中国社会责任会计研究[M],北京:中国财政经济出版社,2005.07。
84.阳秋林:架构我国社会责任会计信息披露的指标分析体系,审计与经济研究[J],2005.03。
85.阳秋林,李冬生:建立中国企业社会责任审计的构想[J],审计与经济研究,2004.11。
86.杨祖亭,张月玲:环境会计报告方法初探[J],商业研究, 2003.16
87.袁蕴,牟涛:基于利益相关者的社会责任信息披露[J],商业会计,2007.07。
88.袁蕴,牟涛:企业社会责任信息披露研究综述与启示[J],财会月刊(理论版),2007.09。
89.曾颖,陆正飞:信息披露质量与股权融资成本[J],经济研究,2006.02。
90.张奇峰:政府管制提高会计师事务所声誉吗?——来自中国证券市场的经验证据[J],管理世界,2005.12。
91.张洪波,李健:企业社会责任和利益相关者理论:基于整合视角的研究[J],企业管理,2007.03。
92.张文贤,徐寰宇,潘煜双:企业社会责任研究:指标体系的设计[J],新资本,2006.05。
93.张宗新,朱伟骅:信息披露增加能够提升公司价值吗?——基于声誉投资模型的公司价值分析及中国股市证据[J],国家自然科学基金研究项目(70303006)和国家社会科学基金(0BJY052)的研究成果,2006年。
94.张宗新等:上市公司自愿性信息披露行为有效吗?——基于1998-2003年中国证券市场的实证检验[J],经济学(季刊),2005年第4卷第2期。
95.赵颖,马连福:海外企业社会责任信息披露研究综述及启示[J],证券市场导报,2007.08。
96.仲大军:当前中国企业的社会责任[J],经济与社会观察,2002.06。
97.周国银,张少标:社会责任国际标准(SA8000)实施指南[M],深圳:深圳海天出版社,2002年。
98.周立:虚假与制约:信息披露质量与股权融资成本[J],理论与改革,2004.05。
99.周祖城,王旭,韦佳园:中国企业社会责任信息披露的现状分析与对策思考[J],软科学,2007.04。
100. Carroll, A. B. & Buchholtz. A. K.著,黄煜平,朱中彬和徐小娟等译:企业与社会伦理与利益相关者管理(原书第五版)[M],北京:机械工业出版社,2004。
101. PaulB. W. Miller等,阎达五等译:高质量财务报告[M],北京:机械工业出版社,2004年。
102. Abagail McWilliams, Donald Siegel. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the Firm Perspective Academy of Management [J], The Academy of Management Review 2001. Vol. 26, Iss. 1; P. 117.
103. Abbott Walter F. and Monsen, R.Joseph: On the Measurement of Corporate Social Responsibility: Self-Reported Disclosures as a Method of Measuring Corporate Social Involvement [J], Academy of Management Journal, Sep79, 1979, Vol.22 Issue 3, pp.501~515.
104. Alexander, Gordon J., Buchholz, Regene A. Corporate Social Responsibility and Stock Market Performance Academy of Management Journal. Sept. 1978.Vo1.21, Iss. 3; pg. 479.
105. Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A.B. & Hatfield, J.D. An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and rofitability Academy Of Management Journal[J], 1985, 28: 446-463.
106. Bradford. A Comparative Study of the Contents of Corporate Social Responsibility Reports of UK Companies [J], Management of Environmental Quality, 2004, 15(4).
107. Carroll, A. B. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders [J], Business Horizons, 1991, 34(4).
108. Cowen S., Ferreri L., and Parker L., The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: a typology and frequency-based analysis, Accounting Organizations and Society, 1987, 12-111.
109. David Woodward: Some Evidence on Executives Views of Corporate Social Responsibility, British Accounting Review, 2001.33.
110. Edward H. Bowman and Mason Haire: A Strategic Posture toward Corporate Social Responsibility, California Management Review, winter, 1975.
111. Epstein, M., Flamholtz, E. and Mc Donough, J. J.: Corporate social accounting in the United State of America state of the art and future prospect, Accounting, Organization and Society, 1976, Vol. 1 No. 1
112. Epstein M. J. and Freedman,Social Disclosure and the Individual Investor, Accounting, Auditing and Accountabi1ity [J], Journa1, 1994.
113. Gigler, F. & Hemmer, T., On the Frequency, Quality, And Informational Roleof Mandatory Financial Reports [J], Journal of Accounting Research, 1998, 36(Supplement): 117-147.
114. Gray, S. J., Meek, G K. & Roberts, C. B. International Capital Market Pressures And Voluntary Annual Report Disclosures By U.S. And U.K. Multinationals [J], Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 1995, 6(1).
115. Guthrie, J. E. Social Accounting In Australia: Social Responsibility Disclosures in the Top 150 Listed Australian Companies 1980 Annual Reports [M]. Perth: Western Australia Institute of Technology, 1982.
116. Healy, P M. & Palepu, K.Cz Information Asymmetry, Corporate Disclosure and the Capital Markets: A Review of the Empirical Disclosure Literature [J]. Journal of Accounting&Economics, 2001, 31(1-3): 405-410.
117. Heledd Jenkins and Natalia Ya kovleva. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mining Industry: Exploring Trends in Social and Environmental Disclosure .Journal of Cleaner Production, 2006, (14):271-284.
118. Homer H. Johnson: Does It Pay to Be Good? Social Responsibility and Financial Performance, Business Horizons, 2003.11.
119. Idowu, S. O. & Towler, B. A. A Comparative Study of The Contents of Corporate Social Responsibility Reports of UK Companies [J]. Management of Environmental Quality, 2004, 15(4): 420-435.
120. Kenneth E Aupperle, Archie B Carroll, and John D.Hatfield. An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability .Academy of Management Journal [J], 1985, Vol.28 (No.2):446-463.
121. KPMG, The KPMG International Survey of CSR Reporting[R], 2005.
122. Lee E. Preston and Douglas P. O. Bannon. The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship: A Typology and Analysis. Business and Society [J] 1997(4).
123. Marquez, A. & Fombrun, C. J. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility [J]. Corporate Reputation Review, 2005, 07.
124. Mcguire, J. B., Sundgren, A. & Schneeweis, T. Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance [J]. Academy OfManagement Journal, 1988, 31(4): 854-872.
125. Meek, Gary K., Roberts, and Clare B., andGray Sidney J.: Factors influencing voluntary annual reportdisclosures by US, UK and continental European multinational corporations. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 3rd Quarter, 1995.
126. Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S. & Freeman, K. Scoring Corporate Environmental And Sustainability Reports Using GRI 2000, ISO14031 And Other Criteria [J]. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2002, 9(4): 215-233.
127. Nasi, J., Nasi, S. & Phillips, N. et al. The Evolution of Corporate Responsiveness [J], Business and Society, 1997, 36(3): 296-321.
128. Newson, M. & Deegan, C. Global Expectations and Their Association with Corporate Social Disclosure Practices in Australia, Singapore, and South Korea [J]. The International Journal of Accounting, 2002, 37(2): 183-213.
129. Nobuyuki NT Tokoro, Stakeholders and CSR: A New Perspective on the Structure of Relationships. Journal of Asian Business & Management [J], Jun 2007, Vol6, Issue2, P143-162.
130. Orlitzky, Marc, and Benjamin, John D.: Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review, Businessand Society, 2001.Vo.l 40 (4): 369~396.
131. Preston, Lee E., and O. Bannon, Douglas P.: The corporate social-financial performance relationship, A typology and analysis. Business and Society, 1997. Vo.l 36 (4): 419~429.
132. Ramanathan, K. V toward A Theory of Corporate Social Accounting [J]. The Accounting Review, 1976, 51(3): 516-520.
133. R.H.Gray: The Trend of Corporate Social and Environmental Accounting [J], British Institute of Management, 1991.
134. Robert W. Ingram.: An Investigation of the information content of (certain) social responsibility disclosures, Journal ofAccountingResearch, 1978, 16 (2): 270~285.
135. Roberts,R.W., Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: an Application of Stakeholder Theory [J], Accounting Organizations andSociety, 1992, 17.
136. Simon, S. M. & Wong, K. S. A Study of the Relationship between Corporate Governance Structure and the Extent of Voluntary Disclosure [J]. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing&Taxation, 2001, 10(2): 139-156.
137. Simon Zadak, Peter Pruzan, and Richard Evans: Building Corporate Account Ability [J], New Economic Foundation, 1997.
138. Susan Ariel Aronso:How The Europeans Got a Head Start on Policies to Promote Global Corporate Responsibility , Corporate Environmental Stategy[J],2002,09.
139. Thompson, P. & Zakaria, Z. Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting In Malaysia: Progress and Prospects [J], The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2004(13): 125-135.
140. Vincent N. Parrillo, Ardyth Stimson: Contemporary Social Problems [M],北京:华夏出版社,2002年。
141. Wesley Mendes da Silva, The Voluntary Disclosure of Financial Information on the Internet and the Firm Value Effect in Companies across Latin America, SSRN Working Paper. 2004.
142. Zeghal, D. & Ahmed, S. A. Comparisons of Social Responsibility Information Disclosure Media Used By Canadian Firms [J], Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 1990, 3(1): 38-53.