Author:
Bebbington Jan,Larrinaga‐González Carlos,Moneva‐Abadía Jose M.
Abstract
PurposeThe aim of this paper is to respond to commentaries on Bebbington, Larrinaga‐Gonzales and Moneva, by Unerman and by Adams, published in Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3.Design/methodology/approachThe paper reviews and discusses the points suggested/contested by the commentary papers.FindingsThat given the current state of our understanding of corporate social responsibility reporting in stand alone (and other) formats, openness to a multitude of theoretical perspectives is appropriate. Further, that concepts of legitimacy and reputation can and should be distinguished from one another.Originality/valueThe authors put forward their views, beliefs and reservations.
Subject
Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous),Accounting
Reference19 articles.
1. Adams, C. (2008), “A commentary on: corporate social responsibility reporting and reputation risk management”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 366‐71.
2. Adams, C. and Larrinaga‐González, C. (2007), “Engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 333‐55.
3. Bebbington, J., Kirk, E. and Larrinaga, C. (2003), “A regime theory perspective on regulating environmental reporting”, Accountability Quarterly, pp. 15‐19, second quarter/September.
4. Bebbington, J., Larrinaga‐González, C. and Moneva‐Abadía, J.M. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility reporting and reputation risk management”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 337‐62.
5. Benoit, W.L. (1995), Accounts, Excuses and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies, State University of New York Press, New York, NY.
Cited by
96 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献