Environmental disclosure in annual reports: A legitimacy theory perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, corporations have increasingly used their annual reports to voluntarily disclose information relating to their social actions, particularly those concerning the natural environment. The conventional accounting framework, with its emphasis on decision-usefulness, has largely proved unsatisfactory in explaining this practice, as have various economic theories. This paper uses a legitimacy theory framework to explain why companies engage in this type of voluntary reporting. This research contributes to the accounting literature by advancing legitimacy theory as a framework for examining environmental reporting and applying this in an effort to understand the environmental disclosure practices of two Canadian pulp and paper companies.This paper stems from the lead author's doctoral thesis at the University of Port Elizabeth. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Accounting Association. We thank Nola Buhr, William Cenker, three anonymous reviewers, and research forum participants at Windsor University, Canada; Oakland University, USA; California State University—Bakersfield, USA; Gonzaga University, USA; Cleveland State University, USA; University of New Brunswick—Saint John, Canada; and University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa for their comments on earlier drafts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".