Corporate social Responsibility in Malaysia

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) INFORMATION DISCLOSURE AND FIRM SUSTAINABILITY: AN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH OF THAI-LISTED FIRMSSuttinee Prachsriphum, Mahasarakham University, Thailand Phapruke Ussahawanitchakit, Mahasarakham University, Thailand ABSTRACT This study attempts to integrate the key components of corporate social responsibility information disclosure in the new model. The primary objective of this study is to test a theoretical framework relating antecedents and consequences of corporate social responsibility information disclosure provided by listed firms in Thailand. Questionnaire is used as a tool. Regression analysis is used to analyze the relationship between these variables. Data are collected from a sample of 98 Thailand Companies. Overall the results indicate that there are both direct and indirect effects among variables. Contributions and suggestions are also provided for future research. Keywords: Organizational Citizenship Orientation, Corporate Governance Awareness, Perceived Public Requirement, Corporate Social Responsibility Information Disclosure, Accounting Information Advantage, Stakeholder Creditability, Corporate Reputation, Firm Sustainability. 1. INTRODUCTION Over the last several years, The USA introduced the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 and had influenced changes to the New York Stock Exchange Listing Rules. Later, some of the initiatives in the USA were stimulated for by the respective regulators and motivation of initiatives in the Asian region by the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Corporation and Development (OECD). The OECD Principles identified many elements while disclosure and transparency are the one important factor of this opinion. In the context of Thailand, financial information reporting has lacked of sufficient disclosure (Williams, 1999; Haniffa and cooke, 2002). The Thai Government has since introduced a reform strategy which focuses on improvement institutional arrangements, enhancing reliability of financial information and disclosure. For example, The Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) has required all listed firms emphasize not only to shareholders but also to stakeholder groups and needed firms to provide greater disclosure and more transparent explanations for usefulness decision making. Thus, the concept of corporate social responsibility (henceforth CSR) information disclosure is involved. The notion of CSR is related to ethical and moral issues concerning corporate decisionmaking and behavior (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006). It encompasses environmental protection, human resources management, health and safety at work, relations with local communities and relations with suppliers and consumer. Likewise, reporting on environmental and social matters has been prevalent for several decades with further growth over the past decade (Deegan, 2002). CSR information disclosure is a key tool for communication with stakeholders about an organization’s activities (Bolob and Barlett, 2007). The basic of “public-information model” (Grunig and Hunt, 1984) suggests that the firms should communicate to the public what the organization has done to be responsible and should explain lapse into irresponsibility”. Therefore, information in the corporate reports could be separated into two groups including to mandatory and voluntary (Van der Laan, 2004). Mandatory information disclosures believe that reporting should be regulating by the state in order to protect the citizens and also to ensure provide the appropriate information (Boane, 2002). Voluntary disclosure is the demand for information issued by a particular stakeholder group (Van der Laan, 2004). Notwithstanding, the CSR information disclosure is the one kind of voluntary which varies among firms. It depends on cost and benefit and inducement (Wong, 2001). The incentive of firm to voluntary disclosure information has been of interest to both analytical and empirical researcher in accounting. Analytical research has examined issues such as how competition affects disclosure (Stoughton, 2000) and the use of disclosure as a signal of firm value. Empirical research on voluntary disclosure has a much longer history, with a stream of subsequent studies documenting the impact of firm characteristics such as size, listing, leverage and managerial ownership on disclosure. JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009 40 Nevertheless, most of voluntary CSR information disclosures are a recognized form of corporate reporting which has important impact on proprietary costs (Verrecchia, 1983). Competition (e.g. image, competitiveness, reputation, and trustworthiness etc.) is one factor affecting proprietary cost. Moreover, proprietary costs could still be incurred in nondisclosure circumstance because an opponent may take an adverse action based on the information conveyed by non-disclosure (Wagenhofer, 1990). Thus, competition through threat of entry encourages voluntary disclosure (Darrough and Stoughton, 1990). On the other hand, the probabilities of disclosure have tended to decreasing (Clinch and Verrecchia, 1997). In contrast, disclosure of formation on a company’s behaviors and outcomes regarding social responsibility helps to build a positive image with stakeholder (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006, 2008). It might be considered a signal of improved social and environment conduct and hence reputation in those fields because disclosure influences the external perception of reputation. It will be difficult for companies to invest in social responsibility activities, likely to create positive reputation, to realize the value of such reputation without making associated disclosure (Hasselding et al., 2005). This is the reason leading to the motivation of this research which probably the most important weakness of the study about the factor which conveys to report especially about CSR practice. And also, this is why this study focuses on consequences (corporate reputation, stakeholder creditability, accounting information advantage and firm sustainability) and driven-factors of CSR information disclosure (organizational citizenship orientation, corporate governance awareness and perceived public requirement). The main purpose of this article is to examine the relationship between antecedents and consequences of CSR information disclosure. The aim is to enhance understanding of influence that helps explain CSR information disclosure in development country as Thailand while controlling for firm-specific factors. Underlying both the legitimacy theory and resource-based views (RBV) are fundamental when examining the extent and nature of the CSR information disclosure. The legitimacy theory is one influential theories in CSR information disclosure (Deegan, 2002; Pattern and Crampton, 2004). This theory mentions the company’s acceptance form social environment and external constituents. Most of the firms engage CSR activities in reporting because of external pressures. Despite, social responsibility activities and disclosure constitute mainly a legitimacy instrument used by a company to explain what companies make voluntary CSR information disclosure and how companies work with the fulfilling of these social norms and acceptable behavior. Resource-Based view (RBV) addresses firms that will achieve a competitive advantage form specific resource and capability including to four characteristics as valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable (Barney; 1991).A good social responsibility reputation is able to improve relations with external actors such as shareholders, consumers, investors , suppliers and competitors. And it also stimulates employees by enhance about moral as well as their commitment and loyalty to the company which is important to financial outcomes. It could be sources of competitive advantage because such assets could differentiate a company from their competitors (Branco and Rodrigues, 2008). The main point of this theory is to discuss about how the firms could use CSR information disclosure to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. The remains of the paper are organized as follows. Section 2 reviews existing relevant literature. Section 3 presents the data set used in this research and research methodology. Section 4 presents a discussion of the empirical results. Section 5 proposes theoretical contributions, managerial implications for future research. And section 6 provides conclusions. Research questions The primary research question of this work is to investigate the effect of the antecedents and consequences of variables on CSR information disclosure via accounting information advantage, stakeholder creditability and corporate reputation as mediators. The antecedent variables are identified: organizational citizenship orientation, corporate governance awareness, perceived public requirement while firm sustainability is the consequence of conceptual model as a whole. Specifically, research questions are as follows: Does CSR information disclosure affect the firm sustainability? How does CSR information disclosure affect accounting information advantage, stakeholder creditability and corporate reputation? How do accounting information advantage, stakeholder creditability JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009 41 inimitable. rare. and to maximize the legitimate area (O’Donovan. In other words. 2009 42 . This study applies RBV into corporate social responsibility (CSR) information disclosure. 2002). Galbreaths’ (2005) can be classified into two groups. The first group is tangible resource which includes financial assets and physical assets. 2003. and non-substitutable. 2008). proper... 1998). In the areas where the companies’ actions do not conform to the social norms. 2007). Resource-based View is relevant in explaining how the firms can use CSR information disclosure to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. the legitimacy is a social judgment of appropriateness.. Volume 9. or generate services” (Mathew. the aim of organization is to attempt to establish congruence between the social values associated with or implied by their operations and the social norms or acceptable behavior in the larger social system they are part of (Deegan. organizational assets and reputational assets. Barney (1991) explained RBV of the firm that competitive advantage is obtained from resources and capability that is controlled to be valuable. LITERATURE REVIEW The theoretical framework (see Fig 1.. 1995. CSR is defined as the economic. corporate governance awareness. 2. moral and philanthropic actions of firms that influence the quality of life of relevant stakeholders (Barnea et al. acceptance and desirability (Zimmerman and Zeitz. those actions represent a legitimacy gap. 2002). 2007) Finally. The companies seek to constantly minimize or reduce that gap. Disclosure of information on a company’s behaviors and outcomes regarding social responsibility helps to build a positive image with stakeholders. legal. 2005.1. Resources are the means through which firms accomplish their activities. Hill et al. The second is intangible resource and capabilities which include intellectual property assets. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Information Disclosure In recent year. 1995. or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms. JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS.Some researchers define to conduct the business in accordance with shareholders’ desires. the legitimacy theory will explain “why companies make voluntary CSR information disclosure” or “how companies work with the fulfilling of these social norms and acceptable behavior” (Walden and Schwartz. The specific firms’ resource is a key word of this theory which is important characteristics leading to their performance. As issues are brought to the attention of society. 1970). Mostly. Number 4. They are seen as the “basic constitutive elements out of which firms transform inputs into outputs. 2007) CSR reporting is a way for organizations to provide information for different stakeholder regarding social and environmental issue (Golob and Bartkett. beliefs and definitions” (Suchman..A potential issue with applying legitimacy theory to CSR activity is social norms and values are largely a function of temporal matters. is applied the theory inside the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR) information disclosure. (2008) mentioned that firms having good relations with their stakeholders will lead to increased financial returns by assisting in developing valuable intangible assets (resource and capabilities) which can be sources of competitive advantage. Branco et al. which generally will make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of society. 2002). p.. Cambell et al. Moreover. 1997). global the concept of CSR has become an interesting research issue and researchers have developed and examined about it. Moreover. Some studies discuss CSR as a universal ethical norm (Esrock et al. First.. the Legitimacy theory is defined as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of any entity are desirable. values. both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom (Friedman.574). Corporate social responsibility disclosure (SRD) is particularly important in enhancing the effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on corporate reputation (Branco et al. Bird et al. they seem to replace others of prior focus (Gray et al. 2002). and corporate reputation affect firm sustainability? Does stakeholder creditability affect accounting information advantage and corporate reputation? How do antecedents (Organizational citizenship orientation.) explained by both theories encompassing the legitimacy theories and Resource-Based View (RBV) are fundamental with the purpose to accomplish an understanding what CSR is and why companies chooses to make voluntary CSR information disclosure. In this case. perceived public requirement) affect CSR information disclosure? 2. . Some firms use CSR information disclosure as a strategy to legitimize their activities and also to be the communication media. 2004). (1996) define corporate social responsibility information disclosure as the process of communicating the social and environmental effect of organizations’ economic actions to particular interest groups within society and to society at large. Volume 9. community involvement. The societal or stakeholder expectations are the rationale for assessing the interactions of different publics and engaging in the reporting practice (Whetten et al. a publicinformation model should communicate to the public what the organization has done to be responsible and should explain lapses into irresponsibility (Grunig and Hunt.Some companies expect that having good relations with their stakeholders will lead to increased financial returns by assisting in developing valuable intangible assets such as resources and capability (Branco and Rodrigues. product and service innovation. From abroad perspective. Reports can be mandatory or voluntary (Van der Laan.2. Therefore. Branco and Rodrigues (2008) suggest that some companies will engage CSR information disclosure which be some kinds of voluntary reporting because they believe that being seen as socially responsible will bring them a competitive advantage and allowing them to achieve better economic result. consumer attention and competition tendency will have greater firm sustainability. 2. Number 4. 2009 43 . Gray et al. 2004). environment consideration. 2008) which these assets could be competitive advantage because they could differentiate among firms in the economic. The mandatory information reporting believes that reporting should be regulating by the state in order to protect the citizens and ensuring to provide the appropriate information while voluntary reporting is the demand for information issued by a particular stakeholder group (Van der Lann. 2001). 1984). in this dissertation assumes that the higher corporate social responsibility information disclosure encompasses human development. CSR Information Disclosure and Firm Sustainability The definition of corporate social responsibility information disclosure differs depending on one’s view of the world.FIGURE 1 Corporate social responsibility (CSR) information disclosure and firm sustainability: An empirical research of Thai-Listed firms Control Variables: Firm Size Industry Type Profitability Leverage Antecedents H1a-f (+) Consequence Accounting Information Advantage Organizational Citizenship Orientation Corporate Governance Awareness Perceived Public Requirement H11 (+) H8a (+) H12 (+) H13 (+) CSR Information Disclosure: Human Development Environment Consideration Community Involvement Product &Service Innovation Consumer Attention Competition Tendency H8b (+) Stakeholder Creditability H9 (+) Firm Sustainability H10b (+) H10a (+) Corporate Reputation H2 a-c (+) H3 a-c (+) H4 a-c (+) H5 a-c (+) H6 a-c (+) H7 a-c (+) In a social responsibility boundary. this leads to the hypotheses as follows: JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS. Hence. community and society JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS. firm will be adopting environment consideration practice which depends on legislation. skills and ability of the employees which vary form firm to firm though it is an important factor leading to firm success and sustains competitive advantage. Therefore. H2b: A firm with greater level of human development information disclosure will achieve better stakeholder creditability. According to investments in human resources. H2c: A firm with greater level of human development information discloses re will achieve better corporate reputation. 2. training project for development skill of employee.2. H1b: A firm with greater level of environment consideration information disclosure will achieve better firm sustainability. However. Gray and Milne. Thus. accountability and transparency to stakeholder groups (Belal. H1d: A firm with greater level of product and service innovation information disclosure will achieve better firm sustainability. H1f: A firm with greater level of competition tendency information disclosure will achieve better firm sustainability. economic activities. customers. research and development.3. this study assumes that the information disclosures are impulse to the level of simultaneous tensions between firms and constituents. supplier. awards.. 2002. and advertising have become essential in order to maintain the firms’ competitive position to ensure its future (Canibano et al. this leads to the hypotheses as follows: H2a: A firm with greater level of human development information disclosure will achieve better accounting information advantage. this leads to the hypotheses as follows: H3a: A firm with greater level of environment consideration information disclosure will achieve better accounting information advantage. activities of pressure groups. Community Involvement Information Disclosure Community involvement refers to the effect of firms’ activity with stockholders. and corporate reputation.. The environment management practice is the techniques. societal awareness and politics (Haniffa et a. H1e: A firm with greater level of consumer attention information disclosure will achieve better firm sustainability. this study assumes the positive relationship between level of environment consideration information disclosure and outcome as accounting information advantage. Hence. 2. Number 4. H1c: A firm with greater level of community involvement information disclosure will achieve better firm sustainability. 2008) to facilitate their capital accumulation and to enhance firm value by use information disclosure.1 Human Development Information Disclosure Human development is defined as the important activity for increase the new knowledge. specific events.H1a: A firm with greater level of human development information disclosure will achieve better firm sustainability. 2000). Hence. Owen et al. employees.2. 2009 44 . H3b: A firm with greater level of environment consideration information disclosure will achieve better stakeholder creditability. The whole firms attempt to win the support of the social constituents (Abeysekera. Several firms have set upon human development policy to be as the core framework which includes employees’ training budgetary. the human development is presently under unregulated and allowing firms to choose what. provisions for reuse and refurbishment.2 Environment Consideration Information disclosure Environment consideration is defined as the voluntary compliance practice depending on circumstances of each firm such as inspections. as perceived by the firms. stakeholder creditability. However. 2. information technology. 2005). some firms attempt to perceive the benefits from environment policy until they become environmental proactive for expectation of resource’s efficient utilization and to improve corporate image. Volume 9. H3c: A firm with greater level of environment consideration information disclosure will achieve better corporate reputation. policies and procedures a firm uses that are specifically aimed at monitoring and controlling the impact of its operations on the natural environment (Montabon et al. ethical investors.2. 2000). media interest. 2007).. when and where to disclosure this information.. risk. 2002. Moreover. better reputation. JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS..5. Number 4. High consumer satisfaction benefits the pursuing firms a lot such as increased consumer loyalty. O’wyer and Owen. this leads to the hypotheses as follows: H4a: A firm with greater level of community involvement disclosure will achieve better accounting information advantage. Structural social capital described through social networks. Caru and Cugini. radical and revolutionary changes in though as products. several firms have participated with their community because would be as a good resident for increasing confident as well as enhancing to social capital.is well believed to be linked to behavioral and economic consequences are beneficial to firms in the long-run (Johnson and Gustafsson. this leads to the hypotheses as follows: H5a: A firm with greater level of product and service innovation disclosure will achieve better accounting information advantage. Product and Service Innovation Information Disclosure Product and service innovation is defined as the incremental. 2. H4b: A firm with greater level of community involvement information disclosure will achieve better stakeholder creditability. 2003). Volume 9. and beliefs. Recently. processes. H6c: A firm with greater level of consumer attention information disclosure will achieve better corporate reputation.. political. 1999. Several firms need to have full innovation and quality on new product and service access to sufficient benefit from the markets. Rust and Oliver. or organizations. Hence. all of the firms have awareness to make a good relationship by emphasizing on responsibility activity more than maximizing profit such as customer satisfaction which could lead to repeat purchase while the profit become less important. 2000. firms attempt to have research development to achieve standard of product or service quality by setting up management policy through communication information to their customers. He et al.. Rust et al. 2005.. 2006. trust. Therefore. this leads to the hypotheses as follows: H6a: A firm with greater level of consumer attention disclosure will achieve better accounting information advantage. 1994). H4c: A firm with greater level of community involvement information disclosure will achieve better corporate reputation. 2000. Cognitive social capital consists of the norms.. H5b: A firm with greater level of product and service innovation information disclosure will achieve better stakeholder creditability. Szreter et al. 2007. 2000. values. H5c: A firm with greater level of product and service innovation information disclosure will achieve better corporate reputation. 2. Consumer Attention Information Disclosure Consumer attention refers to firms’ behavior after sale or service (customer satisfaction and concentrating the same equal right of client after purchase) to achieve a long –term connection with their customers. this study assumes if firms focus on consumer attention. Thomson and Bebbington. attitudes. H6b: A firm with greater level of consumer attention information disclosure will achieve better stakeholder creditability. Cooper and Owen. Several prior researches suggested that the higher superior quality or higher consumer satisfactions are more likely to make economic return (Berhardt et al. reduced price elasticity. lower future transaction cost (Anderson et al. Therefore. the consumer satisfaction-overall quality of the outputs as perceived by consumer. the term innovation has been important leading to sustain firm success because it is increasing productivity and quality of the product.2. Hence. is intrinsic to the social organization of communities. 2007) Therefore.4. 2005).. Moreover. The innovation is the key point to received advantage because most of customers will be satisfied with it which is the factor leading to reliability and reputation after using. stakeholder credibility and corporate reputation of the firms. creditability which important intangible assets have led to firm sustainability (Shen et al.2. Nowadays. 2000. the preferences of customer have influenced on firm survival. Many researchers agree upon the social capital that may include the reputation. they will be greater on outcomes as information accounting advantage. Therefore. Hence.such as sponsoring education. 2002). culture etc Underlying community-based concept is important to firms to sustain corporate success because it relates to social capital encompasses structural social capital and cognitive social capital (Hawe et al. 2009 45 . honesty and information disclosure (Ho and Wong. The financial reporting should provide information useful to present potential investors. Hence. this leads to the hypotheses as follows: H7a: A firm with greater level of competition tendency information disclosure will achieve better accounting information advantage. Stakeholder Creditability Stakeholder creditability is defined as the reliability and acceptability from the public such as shareholders. financial growth. trend of firms’ competitive and forecast date) while also vary among firms. However. transparency. and similar decision. Hence. H7b: A firm with greater level of competition tendency information disclosure will achieve better stakeholder creditability. 2.2. Hence. its future prospects. the objective on accounting statement does not only provide the usefulness to decision making but also provides the resource and operational of entrepreneurs because several users have been interesting to the financial report including shareholder. Competition Tendency Information Disclosure Competition tendency is one of the most important elements necessary for understanding a firms’ performance and future prospects which excessively require mandate information form general (e. WorldCom) where ethic was neglected causing the financial crisis to all around the world. Nevertheless. Lucent. this leads to the hypothesis as follows: H8a: A firm with greater level of accounting information advantage will achieve better firm sustainability. Number 4. Underlying the purpose of accounting has evolved to provide information relevant to entity’s financial performance which could measure by accounting profit and cash flow. 2. the more likely that the stakeholder creditability will achieve firm sustainability. employees. Therefore. creditors and other users in making rational investment. Volume 9.g.To reform code of conduct to increasing trust. Moreover. trend of share price information. firms needs improve not only in the reliable financial reporting process but also in conducting their business in an ethical and legal politeness. Accordingly.2. 2005). According to The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Special Committee on Financial Reporting (AICPA. Thus. if firms focus on report about future industry trend.2.7. they will assist their stakeholder usefulness from this information which is one important factor leading to increasing accounting information advantage. this leads to the hypotheses as follows: JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS. H7c: A firm with greater level of competition tendency information disclosure will achieve better corporate reputation.2. customers etc which without error and bias to companies. Most of the financial reporting requirements mandate full disclosure of real which could support useful decision making for their stakeholder. reporting of the firms could be a good communication to create reliability and creditability of their stakeholder which are instrumental to ensuring the survival of the firm. the information disclosure should be sufficient about the operations of the company. stakeholder acceptant will influence profession accounting behavior because it will be important thing to have concern in business and also bring about firms sustainability. Lacking of transparency. employee. H8b: A firm with greater level of accounting information advantage will achieve better stakeholder creditability. the reason to disclosing this information is general. the whole companies have attention to moral practice on operation.8. the East Asian Economics (including Thailand) have been actively reviewing and improving their regulatory frameworks in particular.g. trend of economic. This study assumes that the higher accounting information advantages. integrity and reliability of the financial reporting process are the result of a loss in investor confidence. stock exchanges where shares are traded.6. Accounting Information Advantage Accounting Information advantage is defined as the financial and non-financial information in annual report which reflects to real economic of the firms and correctly used to predict the future cash flow. and also the entity’s financial position has been measured by the balance sheet (Lamberton. Disclosing in Thailand has been neglected to competition tendency information or appears only in chairman’s report a few. credit. Enron Corporation. creditor. 2001). The evidence is clear as in the case of large companies ( e. 1994) which suggested that corporate annual reports should include more forward-looking information and discussions of the non-financial performance factors that create longer-term value. However. consumer and social. Therefore. credibility of stakeholder and also reputation of firms. and responsibility to stakeholder for the determination of their decisions making. 2009 46 . trend of volume of shares traded. This study assumes firm emphasis on good citizenship which is more likely to the whole activities includes in information disclosure that corporate social responsibility.3. corporate governance practice secures that all major stakeholders receive reliable information about the value of the firm and it motivates managers to maximize firm value instead of pursuing personal objectives (Lue. Therefore. the prior events from US such as the case of Enron. accurately. 2005. 2. Perceived Public Requirement This study has defined perceived public requirement that the level perceive force form public as institute.. 2004). 2. 2009 47 . this leads to the hypothesis as follows: H12: A firm with greater level of corporate governance awareness will achieve better corporate social responsibility information disclosure. Therefore. vision. the activities are different among firms which depend on policy. integrity and accountability. this study assumes that firms with higher reputation affects not only firm sustainability but also creditability of its stakeholder. H10b: A firm with greater level of corporate reputation will achieve better stakeholder creditability. 2002). Volume 9. the reputation is one of intangible assets which quite hard to imitate by competitors. 2005).3. And also the reputation could be more efficient due to reduced contracting costs and increased opportunity sets (Stevens et al. culture. Hence. Corporate Governance Awareness Corporate governance is the firms’ system to direct and control business practice which emphases on rights and responsibility of their stakeholder including securing reliable of information disclosure that will fully have transparency.. 2002.2. Corporate citizenship is the extent of the economic. Antecedent of Corporate Social Responsibility Information Disclosure 2. several prior researches illustrate the positive relationship between corporate governance and information disclosure (Haniffa and Cooke. Moreover. protecting the benefits and enhancing participation of their stakeholder underlie the purpose of good moral practice which is the main point of corporate governance. This focuses on information disclosure especially on CSR information disclosure because most of stakeholders used this information to decision making such as investment or consider credit. Hence. 2006). Worldcom.Therefore. legal. Ho and Worng.1. Organizational Citizenship Orientation Corporate citizenship orientation is defined as a good behavior of firms which it emphases not only on participation but also on responsibility to social such as focusing on attention to their community and also being aware of social requirements which the firms have to conform with. this leads to the hypothesis as follows: H11: A firm with greater level of organizational citizenship orientation will achieve better corporate social responsibility information disclosure.9. 2002). this leads to the hypothesis as follows: H10a: A firm with greater level of corporate reputation will achieve better firm sustainability. On the other hand.3. based on the review of part studied as above. firms realize on good citizenship which will have responsibility for their operational practice. 2003. and mission. Number 4. law and social to operate some activity while it has a direct or indirect effect on firm’s practices in the future which some force is likely to be influenced to firm’s movement action. the study assumes that firm’s awareness to corporate governance is more likely to gain high level of CSR information disclosure. allowing firm to maintain its superior position. Corporate Reputation This study defined corporate reputation as the one kind of complexity resource that is some part of capability such as image and identity of the firms which these assets could be the sources of competitive advantage because it varies among firms. Eng and Mak. 2001) to involve in the strategies and operating practices a company develops in operationalizing its relationships with and impact on stakeholder and natural environment (Waddock. Nazli et al. 2. 2001. Hence. Ahold and HealthSouth Imply that their operations were neglected JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS. For example.3. several firms attempt to increase the reputation which enhances the stakeholder trustworthiness though sustained financial outcomes (Roberts and Dowling.3. the financial information will have completely. Mostly.Therefore. Consequently. ethical and discretionary responsibilities imposed on them by their stakeholders (Maignan et al.. Adelphia.H9: A firm with greater level of stakeholder creditability will achieve better firm sustainability.2. Accordingly. legal. timely and openly. 2. Thus.42%.924 0. In addition.865 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS.880-0. to legitimize their actions. That is.2 Reliability and Validity Constructs..912-0.60 (Nunally.918 0. After two weeks 82 questionnaires were received.936 0. and accordingly it is adjusted in its contents.821-0.8220.938 0. Reliability was tested by Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of all constructs to make sure that the items of the questionnaire are consist with each concept.5.900 Alpha Coefficient 0. (Hair et al. Number 4.772-0.05) between those companies who responded earlier and those who responded later.947 0.956 0.925 0.793-0.824-0. particularly construct validity which is commented by accounting manager. were tested by Cronbarch Alpha to measure reliability of data. Table 1 shows an alpha coefficient higher than .933 0. wording. Therefore. This resulted in 98 responses or a response rate of 18. the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is aware of improving in accounting framework and improve ethic inside the firms’ practice as well as introspection in information disclosure and increased transparency through enhanced integrity and accountability.822 0.889 0. Hence. 3.919 0.872 0.972. the responses to all Likert-scale questions from the last 20 questionnaires returned were compared to the results of the first 20 questionnaires returned in order to check for any non-response bias. It is pre-tested with managers to overview the validity and reliability.964 0.892 0-722-0. Thus.887 0.806-0.885 0.820-0. Volume 9.943 0.860 0. internal consistency of the measures used in this study can be considered good for all constructs. there was no indication of a visible non-response bias in the data. 3. 547 questionnaires were sent to accounting managers to provide data for this study via mail. The purpose of this survey was to determine users’ perceptions of the operational for empirical studies.907 0.972 0. 1978) Alpha coefficients of constructs have values ranging from 0.933-0. as theorized. indicated no significant difference (alpha=0. introduced by Oppenheim (1966).4. assuming that the later respondents were similar to the non-respondents. Thus.663-0. 2006) TABLE 1 FACTOR LOADIGN AND ALPHA COEFFICIENTS OF CONSTRUCTS Constructs Organizational citizenship orientation Corporate governance awareness Perceived public requirement Human development information disclosure Environment consideration information disclosure Community involvement information disclosure Product and service innovation information disclosure Consumer attention information disclosure Competition tendency information disclosure Accounting information advantage Stakeholder creditability Corporate reputation Firm sustainability Factor Loading 0. factor loading of each construct should not be less than . the lowest coefficient for environment complexity and the highest coefficient for corporate governance. actor analysis is employed to test the validity of data in the questionnaire. To further confirm any non-response bias.917 0.914 0.1 Data collection The samples were randomly drawn from 547 companies of all listed firms in Thailand. so they were returned.751-0. Table1 shows factor loading of each construct that presents a value higher than . That is. Items are used to measure each construct that is extracted to be one only principal component. and item ordering. METHODS 3. 15 questionnaires were undeliverable. multi-item scale. Subsequently.firm’s disclosure quality.970 0. This technique. additional t-test showed that there was an insignificant difference in all continuousscale independent variables and the dependent variable between early and late respondents. this leads to the hypotheses as follows: H13: A firm with greater level of perceived public requirement will achieve better corporate social responsibility information disclosure.944 0.821-0. firms should react to increase pressure to firms on changing the organization practice such as information disclosure. 2009 48 . construct validity of this study is tapped by items in the measure. CR is corporate reputation. CI is community involvement. government.1. The fourth part of the measure is about product and service quality. ASS is firm size. The fifth part of the measure. 3. Number 4. The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which their perceived practice. Profitability is profitability. environment consideration requires respondents to assess their perceived practice about environment policy. environment management concern. TYP is industry type. The respondents were obliged about theirs’ perceived firm’s product and service information. AR is accounting resource advantage. 3. The third part of the measure. The last part of JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) information disclosure.4 Measurements All variables in Table 1 use the 5-point Likert scale excluding control variables and show numbers of items in order to tap each variable. CG is corporate governance awareness. The second part of the measure. Variables were measured using the six-part newly developed from the definition which each part encompasses four items of Likert scale ranging form 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. CT is competition tendency. human development was developed with four items. Then the model variables and parameters are presented in various tables. Equation1: FS1 = β01+ β2HD+ β3EC+ β4CI+ β5IN+ β6CA+ β7CT+ β8ASS+ β9TYP+ β10PRO+ β11LEV + ε Equation2: SC1 = β02+ β12HD+ β13EC+ β14CI+ β15IN+ β16CA+ β17CT+ β18ASS+ β19TYP+ β20PRO+ Β21LEV + ε Equation3: AI = β03+ β22HD+ β23EC+ β24CI+ β25IN+ β26CA+ β27CT+ β28ASS+ β29TYP+ β30PRO+ Β31LEV + ε Equation4: CR = β04+ β32HD+ β33EC+ β34CI+ β35IN+ β36CA+ β37CT+ β38ASS+ β39TYP+ β40PRO+ β41LEV + ε Equation5: FS2 = β05+ β42AI+ β43SC+ β44CR+ β45ASS+ β46TYP+ β47PRO+ β48LEV + ε Equation6: SC2 = β06+ β49AI+ β50CR+ β51ASS+ β52TYP+ β53PRO+ β54LEV + ε Equation7: CSRD = β07+ β55OC+ β56CG+ β57PP+ β58ASS+ β59TYP+ β60PRO+ β61LEV + ε Equation8: HD = β08+ β62OC+ β63CG+ β64PR+ β65ASS+ β66TYP+ β67PRO+ β68LEV + ε Equation9: EC = β09+ β69OC+ β70CG+ β71PR+ β72ASS+ β73TYP+ β74PRO+ β75LEV + ε Equation10: CI = β10+ β76OC+ β77CG+ β78PR+ β79ASS+ β80TYP+ β81PRO+ β82LEV + ε Equation11: IN = β11+ β83OC+ β84CG+ β85PR+ β86ASS+ β87TYP+ β88PRO+ β89LEV + ε Equation12: CA = β12+ β90OC+ β91CG+ β92PR+ β93ASS+ β94TYP+ β95PRO+ β96LEV + ε Equation13: CT = β13+ β97OC+ β98CG+ β99PR+ β100ASS+ β101TYP+ β102PRO+ β103LEV + ε Where: OC is organizational citizenship orientation. From the relation model and the hypotheses the following three equation models are formulated. The respondents were asked about their perceived practice. welfare. PQ is product and service quality. third-party recognition for the quality. LEV is Leverage. These regression equations are employed to estimate inferred parameters whether the hypotheses are substantiated and fit overall model (F value) or not. Volume 9. CA is consumer attention. PP is perceived public requirement. the relation with union. community involvement insists on perceived operate disclosure of respondent related to patronize as education. HD is human development. reward and rating. 2009 49 . consumer attention was the process following production such as customer complaints and satisfaction. EC is environment consideration. These items were training. The first part of measure. SC is stakeholder creditability. R&D.3. ε is error term.3 Statistic Technique OLS regression analysis is employed to estimate parameters in hypothesis testing. FS is firm sustainability.4. integrity and honesty which are the main point of corporate government concept. Stakeholder creditability requires respondents to indicate the extent to which they perceived practice of a newly question. growth of sale or revenue and growth of competitive position. manufacturing and those that are highly regulated. economy. As with other questions in this survey. Perceived Public Requirement focused on the extent to which each firm perceived practice. 3. Higher disclosure may be expected by companies in politically sensitive industries such as oil and gas (Whittred and Zimmer. Size has been found to be a significant variable in previous research studies (Courtis 1998). Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived practice.point Likert scale ranging from1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. Number 4. The four items measured aspect of respect and consciousness to law.al (2005). regulation. and community. Industry Type: Levels of disclosure may vary according to industry type. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for all variables. Each element was rated on an five.4.2 Antecedents of CSR Information Disclosure Organizational citizenship orientation. pressure from shareholders themselves and investment analysts for greater disclosure. The questionnaires use five-point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. Courtis (1997) suggests that structural complexity requires a firm to have an effective management information system for monitoring purposes and the availability of such a system helps to reduce the cost of information production per unit and thus. four new items are developed to measure the stakeholder creditability.the measure. Leverage has been suggested as significant in explaining variability in the extent of voluntary disclosure. Items included the local community about firms’ operation. The area of the questionnaires consists of moral. 1999). Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to their perception in the practice on a scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. ethic. previous research has tended to find a positive association between profitability and voluntary disclosure. identity and image. Corporate governance awareness requires respondents to indicate the extent to which they perceived and emphasized on practice. closer monitoring by regulatory authorities.4. 2009 50 .17. Consequence of CSR Information Disclosure Accounting information advantage includes a list of four items based on new from several literatures. complexly and timely. Corporate reputation was based on the new instrument.4. higher disclosure. We use total assets as a measure of firm size which has been adopted in several studies. the complexity of the business structure. Therefore. The measurement unducted in accordance with Flamholtz et.00-2. forecasting of data in the web site and in annual report. firms respect in the community for maintaining plant appearance and complying with environment standard. The fivepoint Likert scale ranged from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The questionnaires use five-point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. Profitability. Variance inflation factors (VIF) were used to check multi-collinearity problems among independent variables that VIFs range from 1. well JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS. and greater demands to provide information to various user groups for entities of economic significance. Volume 9. accounting manager’s perceptions were relied to measure corporate reputation. Firm Sustainability used five items that developed form the definitions. Using five-point Likert scale ranged from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The questionnaires use five-point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree.4. The items were derived form the measure developed by Ussahawanitchakit and Prachsriphum (2008). 3. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived on the items of information for decision making. justice and respect. The area of the questionnaires consists of information from growth of market share. Managers are motivated to disclose more detailed information to support the continuance of their positions and remuneration and to signal institutional confidence. Control Variables Firm size is a control variable which was also probable to influence the hypothesized relationship because of the following: the need to raise capital at the lowest cost.3. 4. competition tendency requires measure respondents’ perceived investment. 3. These items showed transparency. These items developed from the definition which it was a newly scale. Items included acceptance. 456 .623** . consumer attention .040) -.302** .070) .220* (.105) -.676** .10 .274** (.142) 2:SC -.476** .564** .628** .623** .823** .561*** (.342** (.407 (.731** .683** .121) -. human development. 2009 51 .643** . TABLE 2 CORRELATION MATRIX FOR ALL CONSTRUCTS Constructs CSRD HD EC CI IN CA CT AI CR SC FS OC CG PP CSRD HD EC CI IN CA CT AI CR SC FS OC CG PP .128) .491** .498** .117) . corporate reputation) which are following by hypotheses 1-10.805** .440** .688** .10 .055) -.707** .019) .634** . indicating that the independent variables are not correlated with each other. Beta coefficients with standard errors in parenthesis.037) .032) . Table 3 summarizes the result analysis of the relationship between CSR information disclosures encompasses six dimension.033 (.115 (.119) .595** .148) .018 (.045 (. accounting information advantage.198*** (.620 (.190*** (.112 .028) -.335** .703** .055) -.900** TABLE 3 EFFECT OF CONSEQUENCE ON CSR INFORMATIN DISCLSOURE Independent Variables 1:FS1 -281* (.620*** (.099) .010 (.586** . **P < .707** .744** . ***P < .346** .711** .595** .026 (.082) . product and service innovation. there are no significant multi-collinerairy problems confronted in this study.425** .535** .900** . JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS.927** .813** .01 .064) .134** (.784** .881** . Thus.128) .631** .324** .002 (. .824 *P < .147) 458*** (. (2006).031) .082) .073 (.056 (.052 (.491** .155) .624** .397*** (.100 (.391 (.125) -.580** .05 .811** .464** .009 (.037) .268** (.127) .015 (. environment consideration.123) .115 (.545 . Number 4.156) .162** (.748** .391** .130) -. **P < .833** .676** .094** (.059) -.107) .770** .469** .567** .591** .114) .818** .001 (.120) .142) .005 (.383** *P < .208 (.119) 5:FS 6:SC CSR Information Disclosure (CSRD): Human Development (HD) Environment Consideration (EC) Community Involvements (CI) Product and Service Innovation (IN) Consumer Attention (CA) Competition Tendency (CT) Accounting Information Advantage(AI) Corporate Reputation (CR) Stakeholder Creditability (SC) Control Variable: Firm Size (ASS) Industry Type (TYP) Profitability (PRO) Leverage (LEV) Adjusted R 2 .751** .064) .598** a.124) Models 3:AI 4:CR -.032 (.741** .051 (.518** . stakeholder creditability.754** .626 .756** .412*** (.134) -.742** .182* (.621** .086 (.631** .579** .099 (.138) .357** .067) .below that cut-off value of 10 recommended by Hair et al.562** .699** .169) .726** .587** .486** .107) .898** .634** .077 (.057) -.132) .660** .104) .05 .641** .769** .617 -.717** .155** (.802** .203*** (.676** .548** . Beta coefficients with standard errors in parenthesis.145) . .076) -.698** .109) -.186 (.340*** .725*** (. competition tendency and four consequences (firm sustainability.065) -.064 (.059) -175*** (.727** .615** .576** .749** .425** .011 (.752** .290** (.01 a. community involvement.166 (.652** .256** (.352** .241** .714** . Volume 9.582 -.108) .748** .638** . ***P < .710) .540** .140 (-. consumer attention and competition tendency have positive influence on accounting information advantage (β23 = 0. most of the direction of the signs in the regression model agree with the hypotheses (β3 = 0. integrity and accountability in the report because most of the business is accused of lack of responsibility to their stakeholders and also neglecting aspect of good moral attention to operational practice which is the main point led to crisis. any firms have more concern in these events while also improve about transparency by increasing voluntary information in annual report. In addition.01 level in the regression model. H7 (c) are supported. financial reporting should provide information useful to present and potential investors and creditors and other users in making rational investment. 2006. Any firms would like to receive reliability form their stakeholder by communication what the firms has practice about responsibility though the reason of irresponsibility (Hunt. H5(c). Consequence. shareholders. creditors. p<0. consumer attention (β16 = 0.05) are significantly and positively associated with stakeholder creditability. Thus. Firms attempt to enhance transparency. The result found that three dimensions includes. That is.10) and competition tendency (β17 = 0. H3 (a). Similarly. β26 = 0. Accordingly.256.Surprisingly.10.620.220. β37 =0. developing and maintaining a reputation should say for honesty and fairness which could allow the agent to earn an above average rate of return (Roberts and JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS.456). Pinkse. government and social) is the important resource which could be as a capability that brings them to firm success.01 respectively). the information of CSR especially about environment consideration and product & service innovation appear as mechanisms the companies use to practice and be acting to achieve firm survival (sustainability). p<0. p<0. Therefore.05 and 0. information disclosure especially on voluntary practice has effect on proprietary cost which is the reason to avoid in the annual report (Verrecchia. 2009 52 . the regression model shows the positive effect of product & service innovation and competition tendency (β35 = 0. stakeholder creditability and corporate reputation.274. Financial reporting is the way to communicate. Volume 9.458 respectively). Therefore. 2005). The models 2. van der Veen.6% (Adjusted R2 = 0.. Similarly. credit. Corporate social responsibility disclosure is particularly important in enhancing the effects of CSR on corporate reputation. β27 = 0. firms with more human development information disclosure will have less competitiveness and might be nonsustainability. Creditability of stakeholder (investors. 1984). H1 (b). H6 (b).The model1 shows that a moderate percentage of the variation in firm sustainability could be explained by variation in the whole set of CSR information disclosure 45. Recently. H1 (d) are supported. Possibly. 2005. β5 =0. three dimensions of CSR information disclosure which include product & service innovation (β15 = 0. Number 4. Thus. It might be considered a signal of improved social and environmental conduct and reputation in those fields because disclosure influences the external perception of reputation (Branco and Rodrigues. Toms. 2006) Accordingly.342. 2008). 1987) Moreover. 3 and 4 explains about the relationship between six dimensions of CSR information disclosure and consequence variables which encompasses accounting information advantage. Hence. 1983). p<0. It wil be difficult for companies to invest in social responsibility activities and likely to create positive reputation fore realize the value of reputation without making associated discourse (Hasseldine et al.397. H5 (b).290 respectively.05.182.05) on corporate reputation. CSR practice have integrated into information disclosure to enhance the usefulness of decision making especially about social and environment (Branco and Rodrigues. 2008). p<0.01). employees. p<0. In addition. p<0. environment consideration. and similar decision (FASB . The KPMG 2005 international survey shows that voluntary CSR reporting has risen significantly since 2002 (Kolk.268. the result of the association between human developments and firm sustainability on H1 (a) appears negatively significant relationship among variables. and Fortanier. H7 (b) are supported. the companies will engage in CSR information disclosure because they believe that being seen as socially responsible will lead them to a competitive advantage and allowing them to achieve better economic result though accrue to sustain business (Branco and Rodrigues. H6 (a) and H7 (a) are supported. Moreover. The two dimensions (environment consideration and product & service innovation) entered the equation with a regression coefficient that were different significant at the 0. 2002). the information about human resource and development has influence to firm’s competition which is an important kind of proprietary cost. Accordingly.053 (. JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS.183) (. The result reveals that only one factor (stakeholder creditability) is positive and significant on firms sustainability (β43 = 0.524*** (. For example.195** (. and nonsubstitutable (Barney.127 (. p<0.068 (. respectively.130) (. stakeholder creditability is one kind of specific resources which convey to firm survival.680 8:HD .052) -. 2002). **P < .Dowling.046 (. corporate reputation and stakeholder creditability on firm sustainability. Volume 9.292** (. The model 5 tests the influence of thee factors surrounding to accounting information advantage.528*** (.068) .220** (.428 9:EC -.060 (. Result shows that both accounting information advantage and corporate β50 =0.324* (. 2006).044 .. p<0.700 *P < . inimitable.605*** (.260*** (. rare. Table 4 presents the results of OLS regression analysis to inference H11.528*** (.188*** (. p<0.022 (.131* (.203. CSR is related to ethical and moral issues concerning corporate decision making and behavior (Branco and Rodrigues.149) .725 reputation (β49 = 0.151) -.145) .10 .090 (. TABLE 4 EFFECT OF ANTECEDENCE ON CSR INFORMATION DISCLSOURE Independent Variables Organizational Citizenship Orientation (OC) Corporate Governance Awareness (CG) Perceived Public Requirement (PP) Control Variable: Firm Size (ASS) Industry Type (TYP) Profitability (PRO) Leverage (LEV) Adjusted R 2 7:CSRD . 2002). Any firms attempt to pay more attention to their stakeholder.646 12:CA .054) .041) -.213) . In this time.418*** (.072) -.095) .035) -.236*** (. Number 4.01) are significant and positive with stakeholder creditability are following the H8 (b) and H10 (b).010 (. 2002). 1990).120) .111) .061 (.190) .278*** (. sustainable competitive advantage obtained form resource and capability controlled to be valuable.037) -.131** (. reputations are important factors that bring about acceptant as well as ability of the firms.195*** (.063) -.01) are positively and significantly associated with CSR information disclosure.270 .050 (. Therefore. respectively.108) .092) .010 (.383** .151** (.05 .049 (.078 (. 1991). Hence.488 . Beta coefficients with standard errors in parenthesis.140) .415* (. Moreover.313*** (.83** (.072 (.127) .180) (.072) -. both hypotheses are supported.211* (.056) . corporate reputation could be more efficient due to reduce contracting costs and increased opportunity sets (stevens et al. H11 and H13 are supported. Accordingly.312.027) -. Thus.193) .562 13:CT .172** (.028) -. 2009 53 . Stakeholder confidence is important to going-concern as well as the firm preferential. H12. Radebaugh and Roberts.079) . corporate governance awareness and perceived public requirement as antecedent variables on CSR information disclosure.103) -. Accounting information advantage relates to accounting policy choice and the quality of accounting disclosure which have communication between firms and users of accounting information (Gray.312*** (.914*** (.155*** (.099) -. In this case.029) -1.054) .140) .166) .080) . H13 that these are proposed about effect of organization citizenship orientation.307 Models 10:CI 11:IN . The results indicate that both organization citizenship orientation and perceived public β58 =0.152) . most of companies use CSR information to portray their reputation or image (Stittle.100) .489*** (.057) .086 (.561.01 a.033) -.137) -.222*** (.137) .063) ..121) .013 (. Hence. having the quality of information and reflecting to real economic will bring to reliability of users.169) . ***P < .216** (.142) . the key point leading to sustainability of the firms. the stakeholder reliability is very important after the crisis events because any firms have lost confidence.300** (.068) .052) -.605 requirement (β56 = 0.094 (. firms could make the customer’s satisfaction until become to loyalty which is the core to sustain corporate success. The model 6 investigates the influence of accounting information advantage and corporate reputation on stakeholder creditability. Model 7 presents overall perspectives while the models 8-13 separately explain the relationship of each dimension.01).209) . 2009 54 .2 Managerial Contribution Corporate social responsibility will increase on corporate reputation and creditability from their stakeholder because it is an operational practice that shows to transparency. In the H13. astonishingly in the result of the relationship between corporate governance awareness and CSR information disclosure is insignificant (β56 = -0. CONTRIBUTIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH 5. this reason makes the variables mighty noneffect of corporate governance awareness on CSR information disclosure. employment of minorities or woman and trade union information.046. environment Initiatives relate to environmental policies. Some researchers consider the organization citizenship orientation as one dimension of culture (Flamholts et al. environmental management system and environmental awards. 5. the result inference is positive and significant between perceived public requirement and CSR information disclosure.1 Theoretical Contribution Several studies have examined the relationship between firm characteristics and voluntary CSR disclosure perspectives but no research has attempted to link relationship between antecedents and consequences. 2001). and responsibility. the environmental impacts of products and processes. relatively slow to change and the strongest influence for an increase in information disclosure will be the demand for information which should arise from a growing stock market. However. employee share ownership. 2002) but neglected other persons who have the relationship with the firms such as government. the main CSR issues can be categorized into four main areas. 6. this research is one of the first known studies to link among antecedents and consequences of CSR information disclosure in Thai-Listed Company’s perspective. felling and acting (Harries. 2004) which is related to the learned. socially acquired traditions and life styles of the member of a society including their patterned. training and education. Number 4. firms have high perceived public force to operate some activities which have influence factors lead to firms’ movement practice. H12 is not supported. this work attempts to integrate the key dimensions of CSR information disclosure in the new model. guideline and reporting but to find a middle way to hold companies accountable for their action (Hopins.In the H11. human resource development covers such issues as employee numbers and remuneration. 2002). These are drivers for some governments as well as other institutions to introduce different accreditation mechanisms. CSR notions are wider than corporate governance concept which covers all of stakeholders. the result shows relationship between organization citizenship orientation and CSR information disclosure. external regulatory regimes have an effect on internal practice (Devis and McConnell. However. the environment benefits of products. After Thai crisis. environment-related expenditures. Second. work outputs focus on the effect and the impact of their work in the marketplace and that they undertake ethical work practices. Stittle. not only all of the firms concern about it but mandatory information disclosure should be regulatorily imposed also. Moreover.That is. Thus. Likewise. Volume 9. The Thai Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the SET promote good corporate governance practice by emphasis fairness.10) resulting. 5. In other words. For preceding the field theoretically. In general. These four factors have been incorporated in most of the legal instruments by the government.. integrity and honestly which is the main point of ethic concept. p<0. employee consultation. these concepts are emphasized to protect and enhance the interests of only shareholder (Baker and Owen. the public pressure could develop CSR policies arising form the failure of voluntary reporting (Ariel Aaronson &Reeves. 2002). accountability. consumer and communities. the SEC and the SET. several factors make the JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS.Moreover. Some firms use the corporate responsibility information disclosure as a strategy to achieve competitive advantage. Finally. The expectations are the rationale for assessing the interaction of different publics and engaging in the reporting practice (Whetten et al. Third. However. CONCLUSTION Corporate responsibility information disclosure has received increasing emphasis both on practice and academic research. transparency. repetitious way thinking. 1997). conservation of natural resources and recycling activities. The future search should provide on insight effect of firm-specific. First. 2002). That is.. community involvements include sponsorship as well as charitable donations and activities. 2003. Accordingly. and disclosures concerning energy efficiency. 1. 165-174. International Journal of Service Industry Management 10(2). Owen (2005). J. The result following the theoretical framework that firms make voluntary CSR information disclosure for achieve the legitimacy gap and also increase the competitive advantage which is the core factors lead to the sustainability. Connecticut. The concept of CSR information disclosure becomes of central important when dealing with the interactions and relationships between company and stakeholder. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. Barney. The recognition that companies interact with stakeholders and not just shareholder has brought to the widening of the concept of corporate performance and the relevance of the accountability problem. P. How does CSR information disclosure affect accounting information advantage. Barnea. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. W. Brendan O’Dwyer and David L. Caru. Corporate Social Responsibility. Does CSR information disclosure affect the firm sustainability? 2. 132-156. Barney. Does stakeholder creditability affect accounting information advantage and corporate reputation? 5. Corporate Social Responsibility as a Conflict Between Shareholders’ Working paper. Greenwood Press. d.information vary from firm to firm depending on vision of each individual organization.. Lehmann.1-21. Increasing the role of auditing in corporate governance.A. Fornell. 99-120. and A.. (1996). The Accounting Review 71(4). Journal of Business Ethics 83. 10: 1231-1241.685-701. Profitability and customer satisfaction in services: An integrated perspective between marketing and cost management analysis. 2009 55 . Journal of Business Research 47 (2).Cugini.L. Bhimani and Soonawalla. How do accounting information advantage. Beasley. Journal of Marketing 58 (3). This relationship are analyzed and reviewed according to two of the most widely spread theories in the analysis of voluntary disclosure: legitimacy theory and resource-based view. Baker and Owsen (2002).443-465.17. 205-229. E. K.. British Accounting Review 30. corporate governance awareness.. and business strategy. An empirical analysis of the relation between the board of directors composition and financial statement fraud. 534-566. Donthu. Rubin (2005). A.W. 161.. Stakeholder accountability or stakeholder management?: a review of UK firms’ social and ethical accounting. Number 4. Kennett. perceived public requirement) affect CSR information disclosure?.. REFERENCES: Anderson J. Bernhardt. (2000). (1999).. stakeholder creditability and corporate reputation? 3. N. M. (1994). and profitability: Findings from Sweden. (2005). Therefore. Corporate Social Reporting Practices in Western Europe: Legitimating Corporate Behaviur? . J. B.171. C. stakeholder creditability and corporate reputation affect firms sustainability? 4.. A. The British Accounting Review 37. B. Customer satisfaction. Branco and Rodrigues (2008). Management Science. Auditing and reporting (SEAAR) practices. luck. The results show that most of variables have significant effect on each variable. (1986). (2002). (1989). (1991). Strategic factor markets: Expectations. social and sustainability reporting: a critical evaluation. Assurance statement practice in environmental.How do factors.. JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS. this papers investigates five questions namely.. Belal. (1998). Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 8-25. Wan-Ying Hill and Clare B. Factors Influencing Social Responsibility Disclosure by Portuguese Companies.. Anderson. Carol A.R. market share. Adams. Roberts. (Organizational citizenship orientation. A longitudinal analysis of satisfaction and profitability. Volume 9. A. 53-66. A. From conformance to performance: The corporate responsibilities continuum. University of Texas at Austin. Journal of Management.R. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 9(1). Journal Accounting and Public Policy . D. Roberts.B. 597-622. Eng. No. 797-987. Galbreath. 351-379.. 247-265. Corporate reporting on the Internet by German companies. Board leadership. Hemel Hempstead.. M. 10711094. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy . (1995). R. Demei Shen. Amacom. Sidney J. Introduction: The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosure-A theoretical foundation. Technovation 25. Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure.H. 66-70. Gray.A. Journal of International Business Studies. H. G. Y. outside directors’expertise and voluntary corporate disclosures. Business and Social Reputation: Exploring the Concept and Main JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS. An examination of corporate reporting.1. 2009 56 .. 270282. Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal. Milne. The ROI of Human Capital. New York. Sustainability reporting: Who’s kidding whom? Chartered Accountants Journal of New Zealand 81(6). James Laffey. The use of Web sites as a disclosure platform for corporate performance. Fitz-enz. Meek and C.M. Eugence C. (1990). Gray (2002). Prentice Hall.(2003). Kouhy. Money and Income: Comment on Tobin. Ownership structure and corporate voluntary disclosure in Hong Kong and Singapore. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting.. Yimei Lin.D. Denis Cormier.P. Radebaugh. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems. Stephen M.B.. Frank Montabon. Vol 6. Gray. Sidney Leung (2004). Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 22. Mak. C. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy . J (2005). 47-77. family control and financial disclosures in Hong Kong.. Release of information by firms. Owen. (2000). R. (1996). Gray. (2002). R. Gerald K. K. Accounting and Accountability: Change and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting.1-24. Marie-Josee Ledoux and Michel Magnan (2008). Friedman.H. Lavers. Journal of Finance. regulatory regime and voluntary disclosure. 318-327. Bikki Jaggi (2000).W. Which Resource Matter the Most to Firm Success? An Exploratory Study of Resource Based Theory.Charles J. Association between independent nonexecutive director. 285-310. Gul . Number 4. and Xinxin Huang (2006). (1995). S. Gray. Journal of Operations Management 25. C. Auditing and Accountability Journal. Accounting. Robert Sroufe and Ram Narasimhan (2007). International Journal of Accounting Information Systems. S. R.J.Chen. Jose Emilio Navas Lopez and Pedro Lopez Saez (2006). Chau. Courtenay (2006). j.. Volume 9.S. International Capital Market Pressures and Voluntary Annual Report Disclosure by US and UK multinational companies. Social Influence for perceived Usefulness and Ease-of Use of Course Delivery System. (2002). L. Deegan.J. 262-289. 998-1014. C.. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 5. 40. Cheng. 282-311.: (1970). environmental management practices and firm performance. The International Journal of Accounting.. Gray. Claire Marston and Annika Polei (2004). (1985). Ferdinand A. Board composition. Measuring the Economic Value of Employee Performance. Gregorio Martin de Castro. & Roberts. Quarterly journal of Economic 84(2)... Fourth Quarter. 285-311.International perceptions of cost constraints on voluntary information disclosure: a comparative study of UK & US multinationals. M.325345.L. & Adams. Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure. Diamond. and organizations across nations.L. Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings. Journal of Economic Psychology 23(6).P. The new global accounting community: Rationale for dialogue to establish its accountability? Critical Perspectives on Accounting.D. Journal of Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management . and Profit: An Integrated Measurement and Management system. Journal of Business Ethics. Isabelle Maignan and O. Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspectives. International journal of accounting information systems.T. Rosario Babio Arcay and M. Geert H. Determinants and consequences of voluntary disclosure in an emerging market: Evidence form China. New York. 285-311. J. Corporate Social Responsibility and Socially Responsible Investing: A Global Perspective.. Y. No. Ferrell (2001). Harvard Business Review (1). Jossey-Bass. Kleinmuntz. D. 1992. Flora Muino Vazquez (2005).N.. and Tatham R. Beyond greening: strategic for a sustainable world. J. Kathryn Bewley and Yue Li (2000).. Healy. 105-123. R. Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian manufacturing companies: A voluntary disclosure perspective. Manullang (2007). Gustafsson.. A. 299-331. 749-769. M. 111-140. M. K. NY: McGraw-Hill. Gustafsson. Prevost. Jean Raar (2008). Inc. P.(2002).E. M. Johnson. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 12. M. institutions. Ian Thomson and Jan Bebbington (2005). Culture’s cosequences: Comparing values. Abacus. M. Improving Customer Satisfaction.35.L. Corporate Characteristics. M. Number 4.K.&Peecher. A. T. CA: Sage Publications. (2001). 507533.. (2004). 2009 57 .. Antecedents and benefits of corporate citizenship: an investigation of French business. Journal of Advances in Accounting . Mathews. The British Accounting Review 37 (2) 231-248. Johnson. Hossain. Vol. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy . Corporate reporting on the internet by German companies. (1995). J. Swon O. Hill. Hasseldine.. Determinants of the justifiability of performance in ill-structured audit tasks. Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure.S.R. 38. I. Salama and J. Quantity Versus Quality: The Impact of Environmental Disclosure on the Reputation of UK PLCS. (2000).Eng.Dimensions of Corporate Reputation. Governance Rules and the Extent of Voluntary Disclosure in Spain. A resource-based view of Schumpeterian Economic Dynamics’. Ainscough. Journal of Business Research. The challenges of investor communication: the case of CUC International. Comparing customer satisfaction across industries and countries. T.R (2001) Corporate governance in New Zealand: The effect information content of voluntary corporate disclosure. Volume 9. Journal of Financial Economic. Manuel Castelo Branco and Lucia Lima Rodrigues (2006). Hair J. L. 2nd ed. (2002). Journal of International Accounting Auditing & Taxation (17) 14-30. Loyalty.. R. Toms: 2005.&Rao . 201-226. 138-162. 325-345.2. Shank and D.. Thousand Oaks. San Francisco.Mak (2003).16. 165-174. A..& Palepu. M. Herrmann. Kennedy. behaviors. A. G. JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS.D.. 111-132. Kun Wang. Cathy Claiborne (2008). Journal of Accounting Research. Social and environmental reporting in the UK: a pedagogic evaluation. (1997). A. Journal of Business Ethics 70.29-54.C. Hart S (1997). 37-51. Anderson R. Journal of Business Ethics. 361-370. 66-76. Critical Perspectives on Accounting.. Hofstede. 1-19. Marston and Polei. A.. . Nually. (1998). H. Siegel (2001).. R. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies.Haniffa .265-282.. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. A. Neu. New York Oppenheim. Murty.. European Accounting Review 9(1). and J. Pacific Accounting Review 12(2). Stanton (2002). Owen. 1-36. cost reduction. and G. 93660. P. Academy of Management Review. McWilliams. K. corporate governance and financial performance: Lessons form finance. Cooke (2005). C. 649-667. Rajesh Kumar Singh. 101-133. Competitive Dynamics and Economic Learning: An Extended Resource-Based View. 37. Stanton. 603-609. S. 15 (4).A. Neu. J. 724. Pedwell (1998). Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance: Correlation or Misspecification. A and D. 391-430. Journal of International Accounting Auditing & Taxation . 189-212. C.R. M. Corporate Reputation and Sustained Superior Financial Performance. R. Rust. Tower... Moorman. Accounting Organizations and Society 32. 797823. Warsame. Dikshit (2009). D.M. Volume 9.T. Phillips. Pesqueux (2005). Auditor attention to and judgments of aggressive financial reporting. Ecological Indicators. Dowling (2002). Exploring the influences and constraints on creative accounting in the United Kingdom. Abacus. Critical Perspective on Accounting.K. 1077-1093. A study of the relationship between corporate governance structures and the extent of voluntary disclosure. 265-82.L. 1996. Mohd Ghazali.M.. D. Simon S.. Determinants of corporate social reporting practices of listed Singapore companies. Journal of International Accounting Auditing & Taxation . 139-156. Pedwell. Warsame. Swift. Cooper and David L. Kar Shun Wong (2001). Owen (2007). Accounting Organizations and Society. 535-540. Perpetuating traditional influences: Voluntary disclosure in Malaysia following the economic crisis. 23(3). Neal and Cochran. Dickson. Corporate governance and accounting systems: critical perspective. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal. The European Accounting Review. Psychometric Theory. J. JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS. Business Horizons. (2000).N. Strategic Management Journal. Shah. 478-500.K.. (1998). 81-98. and K. Accounting Organizations and Society 23(3). Shrivastava P.T. 317-349. or both?. Number 4.R. Cooke (2002). McGraw-Hill.. T.. Managing Public impressions: environmental disclosure in annual reports. Haniffa and T.K. Corporate Annual Reports: Research Perspectives Used. Pauline Weetman (2006).A (2003). H. B. R. 1978. The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Corporate social responsibility.A.Mathews. Industrial and Corporate Change. H. D. (2008).R. F. Getting return on quality: Revenue expansion.M. (1999). Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link. Strategic Management Journal 21.167. (1995)... 2009 58 . Hancock. M. Purushothaman. Corporate Governance and Disclosure in Malaysian Corporations . 83-104. (2000). Culture. 115-145. 7. Roberts. The new social audits: accountability managerial capture of the agenda of social champions?.. P. Stuart m.E. R. Journal of Marketing 696(4). Journal of accounting research.E. Ho. New York: Basic Books. Nazli A. P. (2002).. Managing Public Impressions: Environment Disclosure in Annual Reports. Taplin. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy . Humphrey. Gupta and A. Bowerman. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Social Responsibility and Corporate Web Pages: Self-Presentation of Agenda-Setting. Thailand. Whetten. Mahasarakham University. S. D. Number 4.Sturart L. Handbook of strategy and management (pp. et. Company Resources. G. Currently she is a Ph. AUTHOR PROFILES: Ms.. Pettigrew. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy.N. The International Journal of Accounting. Tom.. Walden. What are the responsibilities of business to society? In A. S. (2001). Public Relations Review 24(3). &Godfrey. Lai-Kow Chan. Phapruke Ussahawanitchakit earned his Ph. The British Accounting Review 34(3). at Mahasarakhm University University. J.al (Eds. (1999). Academy of Management Review 20 (3). Currently he is an associate professor of accounting and Dean at Faculty of Accountancy and Management. Balancing productivity and consumer satisfaction for profitability: Statistical and fuzzy regression analysis. 252-263. JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS. 305-319. Esrock and Greg B.Acc. P.London: Sage. Voluntary Environment and Social Accounting Disclosure Practices in the Asia Pacific Region: An International Empirical Test of Political Economy Theory”. 2009 59 . (1997).373-408. Quality Signals and the Determinants of Corporate Environmental Reputation: Some UK Evidence. European Journal of Operational Research (176). Ming-Lu We (2007). Rands. 125-154.. 571-610. Vol 34. M. B. Thailand. Mahasarakham University. at Washington State University in 2002. (2002). Williams. Thailand in 2005.2. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. M. Volume 9.(1995).C. 257-282. (1998). & Schwartz. Dr. W. student in Accounting at Faculty of Accountancy and Management.A. Leichty.).D. Suttinee Prachsriphum earned her M. Yan-Qun He. Suchman. No. Environmental disclosure and public policy pressure.D.).D. Copyright of Journal of International Business & Economics is the property of International Academy of Business & Economics (IABE) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. . users may print. However. download. or email articles for individual use.