农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露研究
|
摘要
在整个社会迅猛发展的时代,企业作为一种“新概念”已经被赋予自然属性与社会属性的双重性质。企业已经不仅仅是追求自身经济利益最大化的实体,更需要关注整个社会的进步与发展。伴随着经济发展所暴露出来的环境污染、资源枯竭、产品质量与安全等社会经济问题,使得对企业社会责任问题的探讨和研究成为理论界和实务界的焦点。而农业企业由于自身的行业特性,农产品及其安全与人们的健康甚至生命紧密相连,诸如“三聚氰胺”奶粉、双汇“瘦肉精”等食品安全事件的发生,使得农业企业的社会责任问题更加被关注。同时,近年来国家对农业的政策支持越来越大,一些农业企业在此背景下得到了快速发展,但相继出现的“背农”现象不能不令人深思。此外,当前企业社会责任会计信息披露体系尚未建立,而现行报告体系所披露的企业社会责任信息又存在诸多问题。因此,围绕着农业企业社会责任会计信息披露进行选题有着极其重要的理论价值和实践价值。
从农业企业视角出发,以农业上市公司为研究对象的企业社会责任会计信息披露问题研究目标是：针对农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露的整体水平和不同利益相关者的社会责任会计信息披露水平进行综合评价；从农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露的整体水平和不同利益相关者的社会责任会计信息披露水平两个层面,来确定对公司社会责任会计信息披露水平产生影响的主要因素；研究农业上市公司披露总体社会责任会计信息和披露不同利益相关者社会责任会计信息的意愿；在传统会计核算体系框架下探讨公司社会责任会计信息披露目标、内容、质量要求和社会责任报告的编制。
为了实现研究目标,研究的主要内容如下：
第一,明确农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露问题的研究方法与研究思路。
第二,相关理论回顾。对企业社会责任理论、契约理论和利益相关者理论进行回顾,并进行评价。企业的投资者、员工、消费者、供应商、政府、弱势与公益群体和环境构成了以企业为核心的契约关系的各方,企业社会责任与利益相关者的有机统一体现为企业对直接利益群体的经济责任、对弱势与公益群体的道德责任、对政府的的法律责任和对环境的生态责任,共同构成了企业社会责任会计信息披露的内容框架。
第三,农业上市公司及其社会责任会计信息披露的基本情况。在2007～2009年间,能够以社会责任报告方式对外披露社会责任会计信息的农业上市公司的数量分别是0家、5家、7家,年度报告(包括社会责任报告)及相关网站等所披露的社会责任会计信息格式不统一、信息内容零散且不规范,农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露的整体情况不够乐观。
第四,基于因子聚类分析的农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露水平评价。从行业本身看,农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露的整体水平还是比较低的,54家样本公司中38.89%的公司都在行业平均水平以下；农业上市公司只有对政府的法律责任的会计信息披露水平比较高外,对直接利益群体的经济责任、弱势与公益群体的道德责任和环境的生态责任的会计信息披露水平均很低,这也是导致农业上市公司整体社会责任会计信息披露水平比较低的主要原因。
第五,农业上市公司社会责任信息披露水平的影响因素。农业上市公司的经营管理能力、公司规模和发展能力是影响其社会责任会计信息披露水平的主要因素。但是,对于不同利益相关者又有所不同,对直接利益群体经济责任的会计信息披露水平产生显著影响的主要因素是经营管理能力、公司规模、发展能力和公司的非农业经营情况,对弱势与公益群体道德责任的会计信息披露水平产生显著影响的主要因素是公司的盈利能力和发展能力,对政府法律责任和环境生态责任的会计信息披露水平则没有非常显著的影响因素。
第六,农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露意愿。在公司价值最大化目标下,农业上市公司会积极披露总体的社会责任会计信息,而对于不同利益相关者,农业上市公司会积极披露对直接利益群体经济责任的会计信息和对环境生态责任的会计信息,对弱势与公益群体道德责任和对政府法律责任的会计信息的披露则没有表现出明显的积极性。
第七,对农业上市公司社会责任会计信息的披露模式设计。农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露的目标在于满足信息使用者的对各类社会责任信息的需求,为此,公司需要披露经济责任、道德责任、法律责任和生态责任四个方面的信息,而这些信息的质量除了满足传统会计信息的基本质量要求外,还必须满足注重社会效益性、责任明确性、完整性和可审核性等特有质量要求。
最后,根据研究结果,提出研究结论,并提出对策建议。
研究的创新之处：
(1)研究视角创新。以农业企业为视角,以农业上市公司为研究对象,以企业契约理论、社会责任理论和利益相关者理论为基础,对农业企业社会责任内容重新界定,并予以综合评价。
(2)理论创新。在对企业社会责任理论、契约理论和利益相关者理论回顾与评价的基础上,提出了企业利益相关者及其社会责任的理论模型,并且在论文的第四章通过因子分析法的结果得到证明。
(3)研究方法创新。采用因子分析与聚类分析法对农业企业社会责任会计信息披露的整体水平和不同利益相关者的社会责任会计信息披露水平进行综合评价。
(4)指标体系创新。系统构建基于现行会计核算体系下的农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露体系,包括披露指标体系和评价指标体系,该体系将进一步完善上市公司会计信息披露体系。此外,在构建农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露评价指标体系时,考虑了环境、产品质量安全等因素,在确定影响农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露水平的因素时,考虑了农业企业的涉农规模、非农化经营程度、国家的政策支持等因素。
(5)信息披露模式创新。明确农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露目标和内容,提出了农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露的基本质量要求和特有质量要求,并在传统会计核算体系框架下,从农业上市公司对直接利益群体的经济责任、对弱势与公益群体的道德责任、对政府的法律责任和对环境的生态责任四个方面,分为货币性信息与非货币性信息,研究了农业上市公司社会责任会计信息归集方法。
In the era of rapid development of society, the enterprise as a "new concept" has been given the dual nature, the natural attributes and social attributes. Enterprises have not only pursued their own economic interests to maximize the physical, but also need to focus on the social progress and development. With economic development, it exposed environmental pollution, resource depletion, product quality and safety and other socio-economic problems, which make the research into the issue of corporate social responsibility become the focus of the theoretical and practical industry. Due to the agricultural enterprises'industry characteristics, agricultural products and their safety link with people's health and even life closely, such as "melamine" milk powder, Shuanghui "lean" and other food safety incidents, the issue of agriculture corporate social responsibility has been more concerned about. Meanwhile, in recent years, the state support in policy to agriculture is very large, some agricultural enterprises in this context have rapidly developed, but the "farmers back" phenomenon appeared later is thought-provoking. In addition, the current corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure system has not been established, and the existing reporting system's disclosure of the corporate social responsibility information has many problems. Thus, topics based on agricultural corporate social responsibility of accounting information disclosure have extremely important theoretical and practical value.
From the perspective of agricultural enterprises, the research aim of issue of social responsibility accounting information disclosure, with the agricultural listed companies as the research objectives, is:comprehensively evaluate the overall level of corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure of the listed agricultural companies and the level of social responsibility with different stakeholders; determine the main factors affecting the level of corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure from the overall level of corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure of the listed agricultural companies and the level of social responsibility with different stakeholders; study the will of the disclosure of general accounting information of agricultural listed companies and the disclosure of social responsibility accounting information of different stakeholders; discuss the objectives, content, quality requirements and social responsibility reporting of corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure in the framework of the traditional accounting system. In order to achieve research objectives, main contents are as follows:
First, make clear of the research methods and research ideas of the issue of agricultural corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure.
Second, review the relevant theories. Corporate social responsibility theory, contract theory and stakeholder theory were reviewed and evaluated. Corporate investors, employees, customers, suppliers, governments, vulnerable populations and public enterprises and the environment conduct as the core of the contractual relationship of the parties. Economic responsibility for direct interest enterprise groups, public interest groups and the disadvantaged and the moral responsibility, the government's legal responsibility and ecological responsibility to the environment, which embody the organic unity of corporate social responsibility and stakeholder, constitute the framework of the contents of corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure.
Third, disclosure of agricultural listed companies and their social responsibility accounting information. From the year 2007 to 2009, the number of agriculture listed companies which were able to disclose social responsibility through social responsibility accounting information reporting was 0,5, and 7. Annual reports (including social responsibility reports) and social responsibility accounting information format disclosed in related sites is not unified, and the content is fragmented and not standardized. The overall situation of agriculture corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure is not optimistic.
Fourth, evaluate the level of agriculture listed companies social responsibility accounting information disclosure based on factors cluster analysis. From the industry itself, agriculture listed companies social responsibility accounting information disclosure is still relatively low. Of 54 sample companies,38.89% are below average in the industry; only on the government's legal responsibility is agricultural listed companies'disclosure of accounting information relatively high, while the accounting information disclosure levels of direct interest groups on the economic responsibility, public interest groups, vulnerable and moral responsibility and the environment, ecological responsibility are very low, which is the main reason leading to relatively low level of agriculture listed companies accounting information disclosure of the overall social responsibility.
Fifth, influencing factors of agriculture listed companies'social responsibility information disclosure. Agriculture Listed companies'business management, company size and development capacity are the major factors to influence the level of information disclosure of social responsibility accounting. However, for the different stakeholders there are different factors. The main factors, which have a significant impact level of the direct interest groups financial responsibility accounting information disclosure, are the management capabilities, company size, capacity development and the company's non-agricultural operation; the main factors, which have a significant impact of the level of accounting information disclosure of the moral responsibility for vulnerable and public service groups, are the company's profitability and development capacity; there is not very significant factor to influence the level of accounting information disclosure of the legal responsibility for the government and the environmental and ecological responsibility.
Sixth, the will of agricultural listed companies'social responsibility accounting information disclosure. With objective of maximizing the value of the company, the agricultural listed companies will be positive to disclose the overall accounting information of social responsibility, and for different stakeholders, agricultural listed companies will be positive to disclose accounting information of economic interest groups direct responsibility and accounting information of environmental and ecological responsibility, while on vulnerable groups and public moral responsibility and legal liability for the Government, disclosure of accounting information did not show much enthusiasm.
Seventh, the mode design of agricultural listed companies'social responsibility accounting information disclosure. The goal of agriculture listed companies social responsibility accounting information disclosure is to satisfy all types of information users' information needs of social responsibility, for this, companies need to disclose four aspects of information:financial responsibility, moral responsibility, legal responsibility and ecological responsibility. The quality of information need to meet not only the basic quality requirements of traditional accounting information, but also the social benefits, accountability, integrity and audit ability and other specific quality requirements.
Finally, according to the findings, propose conclusions and countermeasures.
Research innovations:
(1) Innovation of Perspective. The paper take the perspective of agricultural enterprises, agriculture listed companies for the study, the base of enterprise contract theory, theory of social responsibility and stakeholder theory, corporate social responsibility for the content of agricultural re-defined, and be comprehensive assessment, and the research perspective is currently rare.
(2) Innovation of theory. On the basis of the review and evaluation of corporate social responsibility theory, contract theory and stakeholder theory, this paper proposed the theoretical model of corporate stakeholders and social responsibility, and proved the model in the fourth chapter through the factor analysis.
(3) Innovative of research methods. Using factor analysis and cluster analysis to comprehensively evaluate the overall level of agriculture corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure and the different stakeholders in the social responsibility of accounting information, and the evaluation method in the literature have not been obtained.
(4) Innovation of index system. Construct agricultural listed companies social responsibility accounting information disclosure system based on the current accounting system, including the disclosure index system and evaluation index system, the system will further improve the system of accounting information of listed companies. In addition, construction of agricultural accounting information of listed companies disclose social responsibility evaluation index system, consider the environment, product quality and safety and other factors, in determining the impacting factors the level of agricultural listed companies social responsibility accounting information disclosure takes into account the agricultural enterprises of the agro-size, degree of non-agricultural operation, the state's policy support and other factors, which is none in the past related research.
(5) Innovation of Disclosure model. Clear the objectives and content of agricultural listed companies social responsibility accounting information disclosure, propose basic quality requirements and specific quality requirements of agricultural listed companies social responsibility accounting information disclosure, and in the framework of the traditional accounting system, from the agricultural listed companies direct interest groups, economic responsibility, the moral responsibility of vulnerable and public interest groups, the government's legal responsibility and ecological responsibility to the environment, four levels, namely, monetary information and non-monetary information, study in set method agriculture listed companies social responsibility accounting information.
从农业企业视角出发,以农业上市公司为研究对象的企业社会责任会计信息披露问题研究目标是：针对农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露的整体水平和不同利益相关者的社会责任会计信息披露水平进行综合评价；从农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露的整体水平和不同利益相关者的社会责任会计信息披露水平两个层面,来确定对公司社会责任会计信息披露水平产生影响的主要因素；研究农业上市公司披露总体社会责任会计信息和披露不同利益相关者社会责任会计信息的意愿；在传统会计核算体系框架下探讨公司社会责任会计信息披露目标、内容、质量要求和社会责任报告的编制。
为了实现研究目标,研究的主要内容如下：
第一,明确农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露问题的研究方法与研究思路。
第二,相关理论回顾。对企业社会责任理论、契约理论和利益相关者理论进行回顾,并进行评价。企业的投资者、员工、消费者、供应商、政府、弱势与公益群体和环境构成了以企业为核心的契约关系的各方,企业社会责任与利益相关者的有机统一体现为企业对直接利益群体的经济责任、对弱势与公益群体的道德责任、对政府的的法律责任和对环境的生态责任,共同构成了企业社会责任会计信息披露的内容框架。
第三,农业上市公司及其社会责任会计信息披露的基本情况。在2007～2009年间,能够以社会责任报告方式对外披露社会责任会计信息的农业上市公司的数量分别是0家、5家、7家,年度报告(包括社会责任报告)及相关网站等所披露的社会责任会计信息格式不统一、信息内容零散且不规范,农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露的整体情况不够乐观。
第四,基于因子聚类分析的农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露水平评价。从行业本身看,农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露的整体水平还是比较低的,54家样本公司中38.89%的公司都在行业平均水平以下；农业上市公司只有对政府的法律责任的会计信息披露水平比较高外,对直接利益群体的经济责任、弱势与公益群体的道德责任和环境的生态责任的会计信息披露水平均很低,这也是导致农业上市公司整体社会责任会计信息披露水平比较低的主要原因。
第五,农业上市公司社会责任信息披露水平的影响因素。农业上市公司的经营管理能力、公司规模和发展能力是影响其社会责任会计信息披露水平的主要因素。但是,对于不同利益相关者又有所不同,对直接利益群体经济责任的会计信息披露水平产生显著影响的主要因素是经营管理能力、公司规模、发展能力和公司的非农业经营情况,对弱势与公益群体道德责任的会计信息披露水平产生显著影响的主要因素是公司的盈利能力和发展能力,对政府法律责任和环境生态责任的会计信息披露水平则没有非常显著的影响因素。
第六,农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露意愿。在公司价值最大化目标下,农业上市公司会积极披露总体的社会责任会计信息,而对于不同利益相关者,农业上市公司会积极披露对直接利益群体经济责任的会计信息和对环境生态责任的会计信息,对弱势与公益群体道德责任和对政府法律责任的会计信息的披露则没有表现出明显的积极性。
第七,对农业上市公司社会责任会计信息的披露模式设计。农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露的目标在于满足信息使用者的对各类社会责任信息的需求,为此,公司需要披露经济责任、道德责任、法律责任和生态责任四个方面的信息,而这些信息的质量除了满足传统会计信息的基本质量要求外,还必须满足注重社会效益性、责任明确性、完整性和可审核性等特有质量要求。
最后,根据研究结果,提出研究结论,并提出对策建议。
研究的创新之处：
(1)研究视角创新。以农业企业为视角,以农业上市公司为研究对象,以企业契约理论、社会责任理论和利益相关者理论为基础,对农业企业社会责任内容重新界定,并予以综合评价。
(2)理论创新。在对企业社会责任理论、契约理论和利益相关者理论回顾与评价的基础上,提出了企业利益相关者及其社会责任的理论模型,并且在论文的第四章通过因子分析法的结果得到证明。
(3)研究方法创新。采用因子分析与聚类分析法对农业企业社会责任会计信息披露的整体水平和不同利益相关者的社会责任会计信息披露水平进行综合评价。
(4)指标体系创新。系统构建基于现行会计核算体系下的农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露体系,包括披露指标体系和评价指标体系,该体系将进一步完善上市公司会计信息披露体系。此外,在构建农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露评价指标体系时,考虑了环境、产品质量安全等因素,在确定影响农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露水平的因素时,考虑了农业企业的涉农规模、非农化经营程度、国家的政策支持等因素。
(5)信息披露模式创新。明确农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露目标和内容,提出了农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露的基本质量要求和特有质量要求,并在传统会计核算体系框架下,从农业上市公司对直接利益群体的经济责任、对弱势与公益群体的道德责任、对政府的法律责任和对环境的生态责任四个方面,分为货币性信息与非货币性信息,研究了农业上市公司社会责任会计信息归集方法。
In the era of rapid development of society, the enterprise as a "new concept" has been given the dual nature, the natural attributes and social attributes. Enterprises have not only pursued their own economic interests to maximize the physical, but also need to focus on the social progress and development. With economic development, it exposed environmental pollution, resource depletion, product quality and safety and other socio-economic problems, which make the research into the issue of corporate social responsibility become the focus of the theoretical and practical industry. Due to the agricultural enterprises'industry characteristics, agricultural products and their safety link with people's health and even life closely, such as "melamine" milk powder, Shuanghui "lean" and other food safety incidents, the issue of agriculture corporate social responsibility has been more concerned about. Meanwhile, in recent years, the state support in policy to agriculture is very large, some agricultural enterprises in this context have rapidly developed, but the "farmers back" phenomenon appeared later is thought-provoking. In addition, the current corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure system has not been established, and the existing reporting system's disclosure of the corporate social responsibility information has many problems. Thus, topics based on agricultural corporate social responsibility of accounting information disclosure have extremely important theoretical and practical value.
From the perspective of agricultural enterprises, the research aim of issue of social responsibility accounting information disclosure, with the agricultural listed companies as the research objectives, is:comprehensively evaluate the overall level of corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure of the listed agricultural companies and the level of social responsibility with different stakeholders; determine the main factors affecting the level of corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure from the overall level of corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure of the listed agricultural companies and the level of social responsibility with different stakeholders; study the will of the disclosure of general accounting information of agricultural listed companies and the disclosure of social responsibility accounting information of different stakeholders; discuss the objectives, content, quality requirements and social responsibility reporting of corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure in the framework of the traditional accounting system. In order to achieve research objectives, main contents are as follows:
First, make clear of the research methods and research ideas of the issue of agricultural corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure.
Second, review the relevant theories. Corporate social responsibility theory, contract theory and stakeholder theory were reviewed and evaluated. Corporate investors, employees, customers, suppliers, governments, vulnerable populations and public enterprises and the environment conduct as the core of the contractual relationship of the parties. Economic responsibility for direct interest enterprise groups, public interest groups and the disadvantaged and the moral responsibility, the government's legal responsibility and ecological responsibility to the environment, which embody the organic unity of corporate social responsibility and stakeholder, constitute the framework of the contents of corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure.
Third, disclosure of agricultural listed companies and their social responsibility accounting information. From the year 2007 to 2009, the number of agriculture listed companies which were able to disclose social responsibility through social responsibility accounting information reporting was 0,5, and 7. Annual reports (including social responsibility reports) and social responsibility accounting information format disclosed in related sites is not unified, and the content is fragmented and not standardized. The overall situation of agriculture corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure is not optimistic.
Fourth, evaluate the level of agriculture listed companies social responsibility accounting information disclosure based on factors cluster analysis. From the industry itself, agriculture listed companies social responsibility accounting information disclosure is still relatively low. Of 54 sample companies,38.89% are below average in the industry; only on the government's legal responsibility is agricultural listed companies'disclosure of accounting information relatively high, while the accounting information disclosure levels of direct interest groups on the economic responsibility, public interest groups, vulnerable and moral responsibility and the environment, ecological responsibility are very low, which is the main reason leading to relatively low level of agriculture listed companies accounting information disclosure of the overall social responsibility.
Fifth, influencing factors of agriculture listed companies'social responsibility information disclosure. Agriculture Listed companies'business management, company size and development capacity are the major factors to influence the level of information disclosure of social responsibility accounting. However, for the different stakeholders there are different factors. The main factors, which have a significant impact level of the direct interest groups financial responsibility accounting information disclosure, are the management capabilities, company size, capacity development and the company's non-agricultural operation; the main factors, which have a significant impact of the level of accounting information disclosure of the moral responsibility for vulnerable and public service groups, are the company's profitability and development capacity; there is not very significant factor to influence the level of accounting information disclosure of the legal responsibility for the government and the environmental and ecological responsibility.
Sixth, the will of agricultural listed companies'social responsibility accounting information disclosure. With objective of maximizing the value of the company, the agricultural listed companies will be positive to disclose the overall accounting information of social responsibility, and for different stakeholders, agricultural listed companies will be positive to disclose accounting information of economic interest groups direct responsibility and accounting information of environmental and ecological responsibility, while on vulnerable groups and public moral responsibility and legal liability for the Government, disclosure of accounting information did not show much enthusiasm.
Seventh, the mode design of agricultural listed companies'social responsibility accounting information disclosure. The goal of agriculture listed companies social responsibility accounting information disclosure is to satisfy all types of information users' information needs of social responsibility, for this, companies need to disclose four aspects of information:financial responsibility, moral responsibility, legal responsibility and ecological responsibility. The quality of information need to meet not only the basic quality requirements of traditional accounting information, but also the social benefits, accountability, integrity and audit ability and other specific quality requirements.
Finally, according to the findings, propose conclusions and countermeasures.
Research innovations:
(1) Innovation of Perspective. The paper take the perspective of agricultural enterprises, agriculture listed companies for the study, the base of enterprise contract theory, theory of social responsibility and stakeholder theory, corporate social responsibility for the content of agricultural re-defined, and be comprehensive assessment, and the research perspective is currently rare.
(2) Innovation of theory. On the basis of the review and evaluation of corporate social responsibility theory, contract theory and stakeholder theory, this paper proposed the theoretical model of corporate stakeholders and social responsibility, and proved the model in the fourth chapter through the factor analysis.
(3) Innovative of research methods. Using factor analysis and cluster analysis to comprehensively evaluate the overall level of agriculture corporate social responsibility accounting information disclosure and the different stakeholders in the social responsibility of accounting information, and the evaluation method in the literature have not been obtained.
(4) Innovation of index system. Construct agricultural listed companies social responsibility accounting information disclosure system based on the current accounting system, including the disclosure index system and evaluation index system, the system will further improve the system of accounting information of listed companies. In addition, construction of agricultural accounting information of listed companies disclose social responsibility evaluation index system, consider the environment, product quality and safety and other factors, in determining the impacting factors the level of agricultural listed companies social responsibility accounting information disclosure takes into account the agricultural enterprises of the agro-size, degree of non-agricultural operation, the state's policy support and other factors, which is none in the past related research.
(5) Innovation of Disclosure model. Clear the objectives and content of agricultural listed companies social responsibility accounting information disclosure, propose basic quality requirements and specific quality requirements of agricultural listed companies social responsibility accounting information disclosure, and in the framework of the traditional accounting system, from the agricultural listed companies direct interest groups, economic responsibility, the moral responsibility of vulnerable and public interest groups, the government's legal responsibility and ecological responsibility to the environment, four levels, namely, monetary information and non-monetary information, study in set method agriculture listed companies social responsibility accounting information.
引文
[1] Stephen P. Robbins, Mary Coulter(美).管理学(第七版)[M].北京：经济管理出版社出版社,2004.
[1]Colson, E. (1974) Tradition and Contract:The Problem of Order. Chicago:Academic Press, p.51.
1.陈留彬.2006.中国企业社会责任理论与实证研究-以山东省企业为例.山东大学：山东大学博士学位论文.
2.陈玉清,马丽丽.2005.我国上市公司社会责任会计信息市场反映实证分析.会计研究,(11)：76-81.
3.陈梅.2008.我国上市公司社会责任信息市场反应产生动因的研究.广州：暨南大学硕士学位论文.
4.陈宏辉.2003.企业利益相关者理论与实证研究.杭州：浙江大学博士学位论文.
5.戴蓬军,董淑兰.基于因子聚类分析的农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露评价,Proceedings of 2010 International Conference on Semiconductor Laser and Photonics (ICSLP 2010),2010 (10):190-198.
6.戴蓬军,董淑兰.上市公司社会责任会计信息披露影响因素研究.财会通讯,2010(12)：75-78.
7.董淑兰,戴蓬军.农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露意愿研究.财会月刊,2010(10)：92-95.
8.董菊红.2006.我国农业上市公司“背农投资”问题及治理研究.武汉：华中农业大学硕士学位论文.
9.恩德勒.2002.面向行动的经济伦理学仁.上海：上海社会科学院,276.
10.菲利普·科特勒(Philip Kotler),南希·李(Nancy Lee)2006.企业的社会责任(姜文波等译).北京：机械工程出版社.
11.葛永波.2005.中国农业上市公司投资问题研究.北京：中国经济出版社.
12.郭锐,张东栩,许冰.2006.辽宁上市公司社会责任会计信息的实证研究.理论界,(7)：266-267.
13.郭红玲.2006.基于消费者需求的企业社会责任供给与财务绩效的关联性研究,成都：西南交通大学博士学位论文.
14.顾祝.2004.辩论企业社会责任.中国石油企业,(12)：3.
15.何怀宏.1993.契约论理与社会正义.北京：中国人民大学出版社,17.
16.姜俊.2009.我国农业企业的社会责任、创新与财务绩效的互动影响.自然辩证法研究,(11)：96-101.
17.詹森和麦克林.1998.上海：上海人民出版社.
18.卢代富.2002.企业社会责任的经济学与法学分析.北京：法律出版社.
19.里奇.W.格里芬.1989.实用管理学(杨洪兰等译).上海：复旦大学出版社,73.
20.李立清,李燕凌著.2005.企业社会责任研究.北京：人民出版社年版,25.
21.李正.2006.企业社会责任与企业价值的相关性研究.中国工业经济,(2)：77-83.
22.李正,向锐.2007.中国企业社会责任会计信息披露的内容界定-计量方法和现状研究.会计研究,(7)：3-11.
23.李正.2006.企业社会责任信息披露影响因素实证研究.特区经济,(8)：324-325.
24.李纪明.2009.资源观视角下企业社会责任与企业绩效研究.杭州：浙江工商大学博士学位论文.
25.李莎,游嘉悦.2009.上市公司社会责任会计信息披露的实证研究.湖北工业大学学报,(12)：82-96.
26.李政义.1990.企业社会责任论.台湾：巨流图书公司,198.
27.李冬生,阳秋林.2006.关于社会责任会计涵义综述.财会研究,(2)：24-26.
28.刘俊海.1999.公司的社会责任.北京路：法律出版社,6-7.
29.刘连煜.2001.公司治理与公司社会责任.北京：中国政法大学出版社,67.
30.刘雪飞.2008.农业上市公司价值评估研究.重庆：西南大学硕士学位论文.
31.刘长翠,孔晓婷.2006.社会责任会计信息披露的实证研究.会计研究,(10)：36-43.
32.刘展铭.2008.中国企业履行社会责任的影响因素及与经营绩效关系的实证研究.上海：复旦大学硕士学位论文.
33.刘伟,李凤圣.1998.产权通论.北京：北京出版社.
34.刘建红,杨亚娥.2004.西方国家社会责任会计信息披露及其对我国的启示.西安财经学院学报,(2)：65-67.
35.刘新东.2010.上市公司社会责任信息披露研究.长春：吉林大学博士学位论文.
36.雷良海,杜小娟.2003.上市公司多角化经营程度与经营绩效关系的实证研究.上海理工大学学报,25(4)：341-346.
37.洛克.1983.政府论(下).北京：商务印书馆,77.
38.马连福,赵颖.2007.上市公司社会责任信息披露影响因素研究.证券市场导报,(3)：3-9.
39.马洪伟,蓝海林.2001.多元化战略、组织结构和绩效.南方经济,8：25-286.
40.梅因.1984.古代法.北京：商务印书馆,177.
41.麦影.2010.企业社会责任对竞争优势影响的实证研究.广州：暨南大学博十学位论文.
42.彭熠.2006.我国农业上市公司经营绩效研究----基于转型经济背景的分析.浙江：杭州：浙江大学博十学位论文.
43.裘丽娅,徐植.2006.企业社会责任会计信息披露体系的构建——基于会计信息披露现状的分析.技术经济,(10)：118-121.
44.沈洪涛.2007.公司特征与公司社会责任会计信息披露-来自我国上市公司的经验数据.会计研究,(3)：9-16.
45.宋献中.1997.论社会责任会计的目标.财会通讯,(7)：14.
46.宋献中,龚明晓.2007.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.会计研究,(2)：37-44.
47.田虹.2006.企业社会责任及其推进机制.北京：经济管理出版社.
48.滕光进,杜文中.2000.契约理论与企业本质的再思考.清华大学学报,(6)：45-50.
49.王红一.2002.公司法功能与结构法社会学分析—公司立法问题研究.北京：北京大学出版社,129.
50.王辉.2003.从“企业依存”到“动态演化”——一个利益相关者理论文献的回顾与综述.经济管理,(2)：29-35.
51.王果.2007.企业社会责任理论研究综述及发展建议.湖北经济学院学报,(5)：108-112.
52.汪炜.2005.信息披露-透明度与资本市场效率关于中国上市公司的理论与实证研究.杭州：浙江大学博十论文.
53.王启亮.2009利益相关者导向与企业绩效的关系研究——企业文化的影响.厦门：厦门大学博士学位论文.
54.吴丹红,王章渊.2009.我国企业首份社会责任报告解析.财会通讯,(9)：21-23.
55.邬娟.2009.社会责任会计信息披露研究的新视角——利益相关者理论.经济体制改革,(3)：79-81.
56.谢良安.2007.社会责任会计理论研究：回顾、综述与思考.财会通讯,(7)：111-113.
57.姚琼.2003.农业上市公司资本结构影响因素研究[D].武汉：华中农业大学博士论文.
58.杨亚娥,刘建红.2007.我国企业社会责任会计信息披露现状分析.财会通讯,(7)：78-81.
59.阳秋林.2002.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.南华大学学报,(3)：16-20.
60.阳秋林.2000.知识经济将推动我国尽快建立社会责任会计.东北财经大学学报,(9)：52-54.
61.约翰·B·库伦著.2000.全国管理——战略要经(邱立成译).北京：机械工业出版社,406.
62.袁蕴,牟涛.2007.企业社会责任信息披露研究综述.财会月刊,(9)：72-72.
63.赵璐.2008.董事会特征对企业社会责任表现的影响-基于利益相关者理论.成都：西南交通大学研究生学位论文.
64.约翰·B·库伦著.2000.全国管理——战略要经(邱立成译).北京：机械工业出版社,406.
65.约翰逊,金屈莱.1989.斐内—米勒会计学原理.上海：上海人民出版社,20.
66.周国银,张少标.2002.SA8000：2001—社会责任国际标准实施指南.深圳：海天出版社.
67.周其仁.1996.市场里的企业：一个人力资本与非人力资本的特别合约.经济研究,6：71-80.
68.周祖城.2005.企业伦理学.北京：清华大学出版社.
69.周祖城等.2007.中国企业社会责任信息披露的现状分析与对策思考.软科学,(8)：85-90.
70.周燕,廉莲.2008.契约理论综述.管理观察,(12)：256-257.
71.张黎.2008.我国农业上市公司财务危机预警模型研究.四川：四川农业大学硕十学位论文.
72.朱慈蕴.1998.公司法人格否认法理与公司社会责任.法学研究,(5)：82-99.
73.赵万一.2004.公司治理法律问题研究.北京：法律出版社,347.
74.张十元.2001.论公司的社会责任.法商研究,(6)：107.
75.张明.2007.入世后中国企业社会责任研究-基于和谐的观点.上海：复旦大学博士学位论文.
76.张娟,郑晓旭.2008.从经济学角度分析社会责任会计.中国管理信息化,(5)：44-45.
77.张进发.2009.基于利益相关者理论的企业社会责任管理研究.天津：南开大学博士学位论文.
78.钟成武.2008.我国企业社会责任会计信息披露的实证检验.法制与经济,(7)：101-102.
79.Archie B.2004.Carroll&AnnK.Buchholtz.北京:机械工业出版社.
80.Abbott, W-F. and M onsen, R. J.1979. on the measurement of corporate social responsibility: self-reported disclosures asamethod of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journa,lVol·22 No·3:501-515.
81.Booth, P., Moores, K., Mcnamara, R.1987. Researching the Information Content of Social Responsibility Disclosure,British Accounting Review,Vol·19:35-51
82. Bowman, E. H.& Haire, M.1975. A Strategic Posture toward Corporate Social Responsibility. California Management Review,18(2):58-69.
83.Berman, S. L.& Wicks, A. C.1999.Does Stakeholder Orientation Matter? The Relationship between Stakeholder Management Models and Firm Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal,42(5):488-508.
84.Berger, Philip G, Eli Ofek.1995. Diversification's effect on firm value.Journal of financial economics,37:39-65.
85.Bragdgon J.H., Marlin J.1972.Is pollution profitable?.Risk Management, (4):9-18
86.Cornell and Shapiro.1987. Corporate Stakeholders and Corporate Finance. Financial Management, (Spring).
87.Carroll B.1979.A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance, Academy of Management Review,10:99-113.
88.Colson,E.1974. Tradition and Contract:The Problem of Order.Chicago:Academic Press.p.51.
89.Cambridge Medieval History 1969.Cambridge University Press.,vol.Ⅷ.
90.Coase, R.H.1937. The Nature of the Firm. Economics,14:386-405.
91.Cheung, S.N.S.1983. The Contractual Nature of the Firm. Journal of Law and Economics,26:1-21.
92.Charkham,J.1992.Corporate Governance:Lessons from Abroad. European Business Journal, 4(2):8-16.
93.Clarkson, M.1995. Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance.Academy of Management Review,20(1):92-117.
94.Freeman, R.Edward.1984.Strategic Management:A stakeholder approach. Boston:Pitman.
95.Freeman et al.1991. Corporate Social Responsibility:A Critical Approach. Business Horizons,(7-8).
96.Frederick J. Boehmke.2005. The Indirect Effect of Direct Legislation:How Institutions Shape Interest Group Systems. Columbus:The Ohio State University Press.
97.Grossman, G. and Hart, O.(1986) The Costs and Benefits of Ownership:A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration, Journal of Political Economy,vol.94,p.691-719.
98.Griffin, Jennifer J. Mahon, John R.1997. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate. Business & Society,36(1):5-27.
99.Grossman,S.J.and J.E.1980. Stiglitz, On the impossibility of informationally efficient markets, American Economic Review,70,393-408.
100.Homer H. Johnson.2003. Does It Pay to Be Good? Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Business Horizons,11-12.
101.Hillman, A. J.& Keim, G. D.2001. Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues:Whats, the Bottom Line?. Strategic Management Journal,22:125-139.
102.Haniffa, R.M. and T.E. Cooke.(2005.The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting[J] Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, Sep, Vol.24, Issue5:291-430.
103.Henry.W.S.A.2000.Capital structure, business risk and investor retuns for agribusinesses.Ph.D dissertation, Ohio:The Ohio State University.
104.Igalens, J.& Gond, J. P.2005. Measuring Corporate Social Performance in France:A Critical and Empirical Analysis of Arese Data. Journal of Business Ethics,56(2):131-148.
105.Jones, T.M.1995.Instrumental Stakeholder Theory:Asynthesis of Ethics and Economics", Academy of Management Review (J),20(2),pp.404-437.
106.James E. post, Anne T.2005. Lawrencejames Weber:企业与社会：公司战略、公共政策与伦理,北京：中国人民大学出版.
107.Jovanovic, B.1982. Truthful disclosure of information, Bell Journal of Economics, vol.13,36-44.
108.Keith Davis and Robert 1.1975. Blomstrom, Business and Society:Environment and Responsibility(3rd ed), New York:McGraw-Hill.
109.Laurent Leduc.2001社会责任会计.北京：中国对外翻译出版社.
110.Leftwich, Richard, Watts, Ross L., and Zimmerman, Jerold L.1981. Voluntary corporate disclosure:The case of interim reporting. Journal of Accounting Research, Supp.19:50-77.
111.Lang-L.H.P and R.E. Stulz.1994.Corporate diversification and firm erformance.Journal of Political Economy,102:1248-1280
112.Milton Friedman,1988. "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits",in T.Beauchamp and N.Bowie,Ethical and Business, NJ:Englewood Cliffs.
113.Michele Sutton.2004. Between a Rock and a Judicial Hard Place:Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting and Potential Legal Liability Under Kasky v. Nike, UMKC Law Review, Summer,72 UMKCL.Rev.1159.
114.McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., and Schneeweis, T.1988. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance Academy of Management Journa,l Vo.l 31 (4):854-872.
115.Oliver Sheldon, The philosophy of Management 1924), p74.(转引自刘俊海：《公司的社会责任》,法律出版社1999年).
116.Oshionebo, Evaristus Akhaboke.,LL. M.1998.Enhancing corporate social responsibility in Nigeria's, oil and gas producing communities:a contextual analysis[J]. Masters Abstracts International, (41):87.
117.Orlitzky, Marc, and Benjamin, John D.2001. Corporate social performance and firm risk:A meta-analytic review. Business and Society, Vo.l 40 (4):369-396.
118.Preston, Lee E., and O'Bannon, Douglasp.1997. The corporate social-financial performance relationship:A typology and analysis. Business and Society, Vo.l 36 (4):419-429.
119.Patten,D.M,1992.Intra-industry Environmental Disclosures in Response to the Alaskan Oil Spill: Anode on Legitimacy Theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society,17,471-475.
120.Patten,D.M.,1991.Exposure,Legitimacy,and Social Disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,10,297-308.
121.Stephen P.Robbins,Mary Coulter(美).2004.管理学(第七版).北京：经济管理出版社出版社.
122.Stone.1975.Where the law ends.
123.Stephen P.Robbins,Mary Coulter(美).2004.管理学(第七版).北京：经济管理出版社出版社.
124.Trotman et al.1981.Associations between Social Responsibility Disclosure and Characteristics of Companies [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society, volume6.
125.Votaw.1975.Genius becomes rare.The Corporate Dilemma:Traditional Value sand Contemporary Problem.
126.Williamson, O.E.(1979).Transaction Cost Economics:The Governance of Contracual Relations, Journal of Law and Economis,vol.22.
127.Williamson OE.1975. Markets and hierarehies:analysis and antitrust implication.New York:Free Press.
128.Williamson OE.1980.Organization of work a comparative institutional assessment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(1):5-38..
129.Wokutch, R.E.& McKinney,E.w.1991.Behavioral and Perceptual Measures of Corprorate Social Performance, in J.E.Post(ed.),Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy,12,309-330.
130.Watts, Ross L., and Zimmerman, Jerold L.1986. Positive Accounting Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:Prentice-Hil.l
131.Waddock, Sandra A., Samuel B.1997.Graves:The Social Performance Financial Perfomance Link[J], Strategic Management Journal,(1):44-47.
[1]Colson, E. (1974) Tradition and Contract:The Problem of Order. Chicago:Academic Press, p.51.
1.陈留彬.2006.中国企业社会责任理论与实证研究-以山东省企业为例.山东大学：山东大学博士学位论文.
2.陈玉清,马丽丽.2005.我国上市公司社会责任会计信息市场反映实证分析.会计研究,(11)：76-81.
3.陈梅.2008.我国上市公司社会责任信息市场反应产生动因的研究.广州：暨南大学硕士学位论文.
4.陈宏辉.2003.企业利益相关者理论与实证研究.杭州：浙江大学博士学位论文.
5.戴蓬军,董淑兰.基于因子聚类分析的农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露评价,Proceedings of 2010 International Conference on Semiconductor Laser and Photonics (ICSLP 2010),2010 (10):190-198.
6.戴蓬军,董淑兰.上市公司社会责任会计信息披露影响因素研究.财会通讯,2010(12)：75-78.
7.董淑兰,戴蓬军.农业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露意愿研究.财会月刊,2010(10)：92-95.
8.董菊红.2006.我国农业上市公司“背农投资”问题及治理研究.武汉：华中农业大学硕士学位论文.
9.恩德勒.2002.面向行动的经济伦理学仁.上海：上海社会科学院,276.
10.菲利普·科特勒(Philip Kotler),南希·李(Nancy Lee)2006.企业的社会责任(姜文波等译).北京：机械工程出版社.
11.葛永波.2005.中国农业上市公司投资问题研究.北京：中国经济出版社.
12.郭锐,张东栩,许冰.2006.辽宁上市公司社会责任会计信息的实证研究.理论界,(7)：266-267.
13.郭红玲.2006.基于消费者需求的企业社会责任供给与财务绩效的关联性研究,成都：西南交通大学博士学位论文.
14.顾祝.2004.辩论企业社会责任.中国石油企业,(12)：3.
15.何怀宏.1993.契约论理与社会正义.北京：中国人民大学出版社,17.
16.姜俊.2009.我国农业企业的社会责任、创新与财务绩效的互动影响.自然辩证法研究,(11)：96-101.
17.詹森和麦克林.1998.上海：上海人民出版社.
18.卢代富.2002.企业社会责任的经济学与法学分析.北京：法律出版社.
19.里奇.W.格里芬.1989.实用管理学(杨洪兰等译).上海：复旦大学出版社,73.
20.李立清,李燕凌著.2005.企业社会责任研究.北京：人民出版社年版,25.
21.李正.2006.企业社会责任与企业价值的相关性研究.中国工业经济,(2)：77-83.
22.李正,向锐.2007.中国企业社会责任会计信息披露的内容界定-计量方法和现状研究.会计研究,(7)：3-11.
23.李正.2006.企业社会责任信息披露影响因素实证研究.特区经济,(8)：324-325.
24.李纪明.2009.资源观视角下企业社会责任与企业绩效研究.杭州：浙江工商大学博士学位论文.
25.李莎,游嘉悦.2009.上市公司社会责任会计信息披露的实证研究.湖北工业大学学报,(12)：82-96.
26.李政义.1990.企业社会责任论.台湾：巨流图书公司,198.
27.李冬生,阳秋林.2006.关于社会责任会计涵义综述.财会研究,(2)：24-26.
28.刘俊海.1999.公司的社会责任.北京路：法律出版社,6-7.
29.刘连煜.2001.公司治理与公司社会责任.北京：中国政法大学出版社,67.
30.刘雪飞.2008.农业上市公司价值评估研究.重庆：西南大学硕士学位论文.
31.刘长翠,孔晓婷.2006.社会责任会计信息披露的实证研究.会计研究,(10)：36-43.
32.刘展铭.2008.中国企业履行社会责任的影响因素及与经营绩效关系的实证研究.上海：复旦大学硕士学位论文.
33.刘伟,李凤圣.1998.产权通论.北京：北京出版社.
34.刘建红,杨亚娥.2004.西方国家社会责任会计信息披露及其对我国的启示.西安财经学院学报,(2)：65-67.
35.刘新东.2010.上市公司社会责任信息披露研究.长春：吉林大学博士学位论文.
36.雷良海,杜小娟.2003.上市公司多角化经营程度与经营绩效关系的实证研究.上海理工大学学报,25(4)：341-346.
37.洛克.1983.政府论(下).北京：商务印书馆,77.
38.马连福,赵颖.2007.上市公司社会责任信息披露影响因素研究.证券市场导报,(3)：3-9.
39.马洪伟,蓝海林.2001.多元化战略、组织结构和绩效.南方经济,8：25-286.
40.梅因.1984.古代法.北京：商务印书馆,177.
41.麦影.2010.企业社会责任对竞争优势影响的实证研究.广州：暨南大学博十学位论文.
42.彭熠.2006.我国农业上市公司经营绩效研究----基于转型经济背景的分析.浙江：杭州：浙江大学博十学位论文.
43.裘丽娅,徐植.2006.企业社会责任会计信息披露体系的构建——基于会计信息披露现状的分析.技术经济,(10)：118-121.
44.沈洪涛.2007.公司特征与公司社会责任会计信息披露-来自我国上市公司的经验数据.会计研究,(3)：9-16.
45.宋献中.1997.论社会责任会计的目标.财会通讯,(7)：14.
46.宋献中,龚明晓.2007.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.会计研究,(2)：37-44.
47.田虹.2006.企业社会责任及其推进机制.北京：经济管理出版社.
48.滕光进,杜文中.2000.契约理论与企业本质的再思考.清华大学学报,(6)：45-50.
49.王红一.2002.公司法功能与结构法社会学分析—公司立法问题研究.北京：北京大学出版社,129.
50.王辉.2003.从“企业依存”到“动态演化”——一个利益相关者理论文献的回顾与综述.经济管理,(2)：29-35.
51.王果.2007.企业社会责任理论研究综述及发展建议.湖北经济学院学报,(5)：108-112.
52.汪炜.2005.信息披露-透明度与资本市场效率关于中国上市公司的理论与实证研究.杭州：浙江大学博十论文.
53.王启亮.2009利益相关者导向与企业绩效的关系研究——企业文化的影响.厦门：厦门大学博士学位论文.
54.吴丹红,王章渊.2009.我国企业首份社会责任报告解析.财会通讯,(9)：21-23.
55.邬娟.2009.社会责任会计信息披露研究的新视角——利益相关者理论.经济体制改革,(3)：79-81.
56.谢良安.2007.社会责任会计理论研究：回顾、综述与思考.财会通讯,(7)：111-113.
57.姚琼.2003.农业上市公司资本结构影响因素研究[D].武汉：华中农业大学博士论文.
58.杨亚娥,刘建红.2007.我国企业社会责任会计信息披露现状分析.财会通讯,(7)：78-81.
59.阳秋林.2002.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.南华大学学报,(3)：16-20.
60.阳秋林.2000.知识经济将推动我国尽快建立社会责任会计.东北财经大学学报,(9)：52-54.
61.约翰·B·库伦著.2000.全国管理——战略要经(邱立成译).北京：机械工业出版社,406.
62.袁蕴,牟涛.2007.企业社会责任信息披露研究综述.财会月刊,(9)：72-72.
63.赵璐.2008.董事会特征对企业社会责任表现的影响-基于利益相关者理论.成都：西南交通大学研究生学位论文.
64.约翰·B·库伦著.2000.全国管理——战略要经(邱立成译).北京：机械工业出版社,406.
65.约翰逊,金屈莱.1989.斐内—米勒会计学原理.上海：上海人民出版社,20.
66.周国银,张少标.2002.SA8000：2001—社会责任国际标准实施指南.深圳：海天出版社.
67.周其仁.1996.市场里的企业：一个人力资本与非人力资本的特别合约.经济研究,6：71-80.
68.周祖城.2005.企业伦理学.北京：清华大学出版社.
69.周祖城等.2007.中国企业社会责任信息披露的现状分析与对策思考.软科学,(8)：85-90.
70.周燕,廉莲.2008.契约理论综述.管理观察,(12)：256-257.
71.张黎.2008.我国农业上市公司财务危机预警模型研究.四川：四川农业大学硕十学位论文.
72.朱慈蕴.1998.公司法人格否认法理与公司社会责任.法学研究,(5)：82-99.
73.赵万一.2004.公司治理法律问题研究.北京：法律出版社,347.
74.张十元.2001.论公司的社会责任.法商研究,(6)：107.
75.张明.2007.入世后中国企业社会责任研究-基于和谐的观点.上海：复旦大学博士学位论文.
76.张娟,郑晓旭.2008.从经济学角度分析社会责任会计.中国管理信息化,(5)：44-45.
77.张进发.2009.基于利益相关者理论的企业社会责任管理研究.天津：南开大学博士学位论文.
78.钟成武.2008.我国企业社会责任会计信息披露的实证检验.法制与经济,(7)：101-102.
79.Archie B.2004.Carroll&AnnK.Buchholtz.北京:机械工业出版社.
80.Abbott, W-F. and M onsen, R. J.1979. on the measurement of corporate social responsibility: self-reported disclosures asamethod of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journa,lVol·22 No·3:501-515.
81.Booth, P., Moores, K., Mcnamara, R.1987. Researching the Information Content of Social Responsibility Disclosure,British Accounting Review,Vol·19:35-51
82. Bowman, E. H.& Haire, M.1975. A Strategic Posture toward Corporate Social Responsibility. California Management Review,18(2):58-69.
83.Berman, S. L.& Wicks, A. C.1999.Does Stakeholder Orientation Matter? The Relationship between Stakeholder Management Models and Firm Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal,42(5):488-508.
84.Berger, Philip G, Eli Ofek.1995. Diversification's effect on firm value.Journal of financial economics,37:39-65.
85.Bragdgon J.H., Marlin J.1972.Is pollution profitable?.Risk Management, (4):9-18
86.Cornell and Shapiro.1987. Corporate Stakeholders and Corporate Finance. Financial Management, (Spring).
87.Carroll B.1979.A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance, Academy of Management Review,10:99-113.
88.Colson,E.1974. Tradition and Contract:The Problem of Order.Chicago:Academic Press.p.51.
89.Cambridge Medieval History 1969.Cambridge University Press.,vol.Ⅷ.
90.Coase, R.H.1937. The Nature of the Firm. Economics,14:386-405.
91.Cheung, S.N.S.1983. The Contractual Nature of the Firm. Journal of Law and Economics,26:1-21.
92.Charkham,J.1992.Corporate Governance:Lessons from Abroad. European Business Journal, 4(2):8-16.
93.Clarkson, M.1995. Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance.Academy of Management Review,20(1):92-117.
94.Freeman, R.Edward.1984.Strategic Management:A stakeholder approach. Boston:Pitman.
95.Freeman et al.1991. Corporate Social Responsibility:A Critical Approach. Business Horizons,(7-8).
96.Frederick J. Boehmke.2005. The Indirect Effect of Direct Legislation:How Institutions Shape Interest Group Systems. Columbus:The Ohio State University Press.
97.Grossman, G. and Hart, O.(1986) The Costs and Benefits of Ownership:A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration, Journal of Political Economy,vol.94,p.691-719.
98.Griffin, Jennifer J. Mahon, John R.1997. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate. Business & Society,36(1):5-27.
99.Grossman,S.J.and J.E.1980. Stiglitz, On the impossibility of informationally efficient markets, American Economic Review,70,393-408.
100.Homer H. Johnson.2003. Does It Pay to Be Good? Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Business Horizons,11-12.
101.Hillman, A. J.& Keim, G. D.2001. Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues:Whats, the Bottom Line?. Strategic Management Journal,22:125-139.
102.Haniffa, R.M. and T.E. Cooke.(2005.The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting[J] Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, Sep, Vol.24, Issue5:291-430.
103.Henry.W.S.A.2000.Capital structure, business risk and investor retuns for agribusinesses.Ph.D dissertation, Ohio:The Ohio State University.
104.Igalens, J.& Gond, J. P.2005. Measuring Corporate Social Performance in France:A Critical and Empirical Analysis of Arese Data. Journal of Business Ethics,56(2):131-148.
105.Jones, T.M.1995.Instrumental Stakeholder Theory:Asynthesis of Ethics and Economics", Academy of Management Review (J),20(2),pp.404-437.
106.James E. post, Anne T.2005. Lawrencejames Weber:企业与社会：公司战略、公共政策与伦理,北京：中国人民大学出版.
107.Jovanovic, B.1982. Truthful disclosure of information, Bell Journal of Economics, vol.13,36-44.
108.Keith Davis and Robert 1.1975. Blomstrom, Business and Society:Environment and Responsibility(3rd ed), New York:McGraw-Hill.
109.Laurent Leduc.2001社会责任会计.北京：中国对外翻译出版社.
110.Leftwich, Richard, Watts, Ross L., and Zimmerman, Jerold L.1981. Voluntary corporate disclosure:The case of interim reporting. Journal of Accounting Research, Supp.19:50-77.
111.Lang-L.H.P and R.E. Stulz.1994.Corporate diversification and firm erformance.Journal of Political Economy,102:1248-1280
112.Milton Friedman,1988. "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits",in T.Beauchamp and N.Bowie,Ethical and Business, NJ:Englewood Cliffs.
113.Michele Sutton.2004. Between a Rock and a Judicial Hard Place:Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting and Potential Legal Liability Under Kasky v. Nike, UMKC Law Review, Summer,72 UMKCL.Rev.1159.
114.McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., and Schneeweis, T.1988. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance Academy of Management Journa,l Vo.l 31 (4):854-872.
115.Oliver Sheldon, The philosophy of Management 1924), p74.(转引自刘俊海：《公司的社会责任》,法律出版社1999年).
116.Oshionebo, Evaristus Akhaboke.,LL. M.1998.Enhancing corporate social responsibility in Nigeria's, oil and gas producing communities:a contextual analysis[J]. Masters Abstracts International, (41):87.
117.Orlitzky, Marc, and Benjamin, John D.2001. Corporate social performance and firm risk:A meta-analytic review. Business and Society, Vo.l 40 (4):369-396.
118.Preston, Lee E., and O'Bannon, Douglasp.1997. The corporate social-financial performance relationship:A typology and analysis. Business and Society, Vo.l 36 (4):419-429.
119.Patten,D.M,1992.Intra-industry Environmental Disclosures in Response to the Alaskan Oil Spill: Anode on Legitimacy Theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society,17,471-475.
120.Patten,D.M.,1991.Exposure,Legitimacy,and Social Disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,10,297-308.
121.Stephen P.Robbins,Mary Coulter(美).2004.管理学(第七版).北京：经济管理出版社出版社.
122.Stone.1975.Where the law ends.
123.Stephen P.Robbins,Mary Coulter(美).2004.管理学(第七版).北京：经济管理出版社出版社.
124.Trotman et al.1981.Associations between Social Responsibility Disclosure and Characteristics of Companies [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society, volume6.
125.Votaw.1975.Genius becomes rare.The Corporate Dilemma:Traditional Value sand Contemporary Problem.
126.Williamson, O.E.(1979).Transaction Cost Economics:The Governance of Contracual Relations, Journal of Law and Economis,vol.22.
127.Williamson OE.1975. Markets and hierarehies:analysis and antitrust implication.New York:Free Press.
128.Williamson OE.1980.Organization of work a comparative institutional assessment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(1):5-38..
129.Wokutch, R.E.& McKinney,E.w.1991.Behavioral and Perceptual Measures of Corprorate Social Performance, in J.E.Post(ed.),Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy,12,309-330.
130.Watts, Ross L., and Zimmerman, Jerold L.1986. Positive Accounting Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:Prentice-Hil.l
131.Waddock, Sandra A., Samuel B.1997.Graves:The Social Performance Financial Perfomance Link[J], Strategic Management Journal,(1):44-47.