Voluntarism versus regulation

Emerald - Tập 5 Số 4 - Trang 472-489 - 2009
EvenFallan1, LarsFallan2
1KPMG, Trondheim, Norway
2Trondheim Business School, Sør‐Trøndelag University College, Trondheim, Norway

Tóm tắt

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the development of environmental disclosure during periods of voluntarism and during periods with changed statutory requirements. More specific, the question is how volume and content variety of environmental disclosure in financial statements are immediately affected by statutory regulations.Design/methodology/approachIn order to compare the effects of such regulations with the development in environmental disclosure during periods without any changes in statutory requirements, a longitudinal study is conducted to test five specific hypotheses. A quasi‐experiment with pre‐ and post‐testing of disclosure volume and content variety is carried out to test the effects of the statutory changes.FindingsThe most important lesson from this paper is the significance of the voluntary approach to improve the variety of environmental disclosure. The present paper supports the claim of voluntarism that companies will meet the heterogeneous requirements of their stakeholders without any governmental regulations. No statutory regulations are needed to make the companies increase and adapt their environmental disclosure to the demand from their stakeholders and legitimate their existence towards society. The present paper has revealed that the regulation approach has a significant, immediate effect on mandatory environmental disclosure only, and that companies do not fully comply with such statutory regulations.Research limitations/implicationsThere is no universal notion of voluntarism. Different countries and societies have different legal requirements and political cultures regarding voluntarism. That is, voluntary reporting in Norway is affected by the national statutory requirements and may be underpinned by a certain set of societal responsibilities that may or may not exist elsewhere. Further research is needed to see whether these findings are readily generalized or whether they should only be interpreted in light of local considerations.Originality/valueThis is the first comprehensive study of the development of environmental disclosure in Norwegian companies. A total of 822 financial statements and annual reports, during the period between 1987 and 2005, are analysed.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Adams, C.A. and Frost, G.R. (2006), “The internet and change in corporate stakeholder engagement and communication strategies on social and environmental performance”, Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 281‐303.

Adams, C.A., Coutts, A. and Harte, G. (1995), “Corporate equal opportunities (non‐) disclosure”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 25, pp. 87‐108.

Adams, C.A., Hill, W.‐Y. and Roberts, C.B. (1998), “Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe: legitimating corporate behaviour?”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1‐21.

Campbell, D. (2004), “A longitudinal and cross‐sectional analysis of environmental disclosure in UK companies – a research note”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 36, pp. 107‐17.

Campbell, D., Craven, B. and Shrives, P. (2003), “Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE sectors: a comment on perception and legitimacy”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 558‐81.

Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979), Quasi‐Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.

Criado‐Jiménez, I., Fernández‐Chulián, M., Husillos‐Carqués, F.J. and Larrinaga‐González, C. (2007), “Compliance with mandatory environmental reporting in financial statements: the case of Spain (2001‐2003)”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 79, pp. 245‐62.

Deegan, C. and Rankin, M. (1996), “Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively?”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 50‐67.

Deegan, C., Rankin, M. and Voght, P. (2000), “Firms' disclosure reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 101‐30.

Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. (1995), “The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implications”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 65‐91.

Elkington, J., Kreander, N. and Stibbard, H. (1998), “Hitting the higher ground – the 1997 benchmark results”, Tomorrow, Vol. 8, pp. 56‐9.

Epstein, M.J. and Freedman, M. (1994), “Social disclosure and the individual investor”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 94‐104.

Fallan, E. (2007), Miljørapportering i norske selskaper 1987‐2005. En empirisk undersøkelse av rapporteringspraksis i et innovasjonsteoretisk perspektiv, HAS‐utredning, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Bergen (in Norwegian).

Fallan, E. and Fallan, L. (2007), “A longitudinal and cross‐sectional analysis of volume and content of corporate environmental disclosure in Norwegian companies: a research note on innovativeness and adoption”, working paper, TØH‐serien No. 5/2007, Trondheim Business School, Trondheim.

Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), “Methodological themes: constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 78‐101.

Hutchins, H.R. (1994), “Annual reports … who reads them?”, Communication World, Vol. 11, pp. 18‐21.

Jaffe, A.B., Peterson, S.R., Portney, P.R. and Stavins, R.N. (1995), “Environmental regulation and the competiveness of US manufacturing: what does the evidence tell us?”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 33, pp. 132‐63.

Larrinaga, C., Carracasco, F., Correa, C., Llena, F. and Moneva, J.M. (2002), “Accountability and accounting regulation: the case of the Spanish environmental disclosure standard”, The European Accounting Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 723‐40.

Ljungdahl, F. (1999), Utveckling av miljöredovisning i svenska börsbolag – praxis, begrepp, orsaker, Lund Studies in Economics and Management, No. 50, The Institute of Economic Research, Lund University, Lund University Press, Lund (in Swedish).

Maltby, J. (1997), “Setting its own standards and meeting those standards: voluntarism versus regulation in environmental reporting”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 6, pp. 83‐92.

Milne, M.J. and Adler, R.W. (1999), “Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 237‐56.

Milne, M.J. and Patten, D.M. (2002), “Securing organizational legitimacy: an experimental decision case examining the impact of environmental disclosures”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 372‐405.

Mobus, J.L. (2005), “Mandatory environmental disclosures in a legitimacy theory context”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 492‐517.

Nau, D., Warsame, H. and Pedwell, K. (1998), “Managing public impressions: environmental disclosures in annual reports”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 265‐82.

Niskanen, J. and Nieminen, T. (2001), “The objectivity of corporate environmental reporting: a study of Finnish listed firms' environmental disclosures”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 10, pp. 29‐37.

Norsk Regnskaps Stiftelse (1999), Foreløpig Norsk Regnskaps Standard for Årsberetning, Bedriftsøkonomens Forlag, Oslo.

Nyquist, S. (2003), “The legislation of environmental disclosures in three Nordic countries – a comparison”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 12, pp. 12‐25.

O'Donovan, G. (2002), “Environmental disclosures in the annual report: extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 344‐71.

Ot. prp. nr. 42 (1997‐1998), Om lov om årsregnskap, Government Bill, Oslo.

Ot. prp. nr. 75 (1997‐1998), Generelt om regulering av revisorer og revisjon, Government Bill, Oslo.

Patten, D.M. (1992), “Intra‐industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: a note on legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 17, pp. 471‐5.

Patten, D.M. (2005), “The accuracy of financial report projections of future environmental capital expenditures: a research note”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 30, pp. 457‐68.

Porter, M. and van der Linde, C. (1995a), “Green and competitive”, Harvard Business Review, September/October, pp. 120‐34.

Porter, M. and van der Linde, C. (1995b), “Toward a new conception of the environment – competitiveness relationship”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, pp. 97‐118.

Tietenberg, T. (1998), “Disclosure strategies for pollution control”, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 11, pp. 587‐602.

United Nations Commission on Transnational Corporations (1991), “Accounting for environmental protection measures”, Report of the Secretary‐General: Document E/C.10/AC.3/1991/5, United Nations Commission on Transnational Corporations, Geneva.

Walden, W.D. and Schwartz, B.N. (1997), “Environmental disclosures and public policy pressure”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 16, pp. 125‐54.

Wilmhurst, T.D. and Frost, G.R. (2000), “Corporate environmental reporting: a test of legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 10‐21.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Emerald

Tập 5 Số 4

472-489

Thông tin tác giả