Management Commitment and the Extent of Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting among Companies Listed on Nairobi Securities Exchange in Kenya
Agnes Mutiso
Kirinyaga University
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to assess whether management commitment determines the extent of corporate social responsibility reporting of companies listed in Nairobi Securities Exchange in Kenya. Descriptive survey research design was employed to survey whether the identified variable is true and significant determinant of the extent of corporate social responsibility reporting among the companies. A sample of 148 respondents was selected using proportional stratified sampling method. Document analysis was used to collect primary data from the companies’ annual reports on the extent of corporate social responsibility reporting, while structured questionnaires were used to collect primary data from the identified respondents on their perception with regard to management commitment. Secondary data pertaining to literature review was collected from online journals and selected text books. The collected data was edited, tabulated and analyzed using statistical package for social sciences (SPSS version 20). The descriptive statistics revealed that the management of the samples companies on average are committed to CSR reporting in terms of adequacy of holding CSR meetings and conduciveness of the reporting environment but were less committed to investing in having innovative methods of CSR reporting. The hypotheses testing revealed that management commitment has a significant and positive influence on the extent of corporate social responsibility reporting. The study recommends that the management should align their corporate strategy in such a way that will achieve the required profits and at the same time engage in social and environmental activities. These will improve transparency and accountability in reporting CSR activities.
Key words: Corporate social responsibility, reporting, management commitment, reporting environment
Introduction
Background of the Study
The accounting profession has not been left behind with the new boom in the global sustainable development research. Sustainability in the accountancy profession proves to be the new trend in research with many focusing on the content of sustainability reports. Research on the determinants of sustainability reports is still minimal. Accountability and transparency has been considered key components in achieving the economic goals of the Kenya’s Vision 2030. To achieve these economic goals, companies are expected to be more transparent and accountable on how they utilize stakeholder’s resources at their disposal. Due to the massive company failures experienced in the 21th century stakeholders are becoming more proactive in demanding for more comprehensive information from the managers about the performance of their organizations. Preparation of financial reports has been the used as a tool for communicating, monitoring and evaluating the management’s stewardship, accountability and transparency. The financial reports focus mainly on reporting the economic aspect of performance which makes them limited because the social and environmental aspects are left out hence the need for more comprehensive reports which focus on all areas of business performance including the economic, environmental, employee welfare, community involvement, product or service quality as well as corporate governance. Many stakeholders are considering sustainability as a major factor when evaluating investment decisions; it is becoming clear that communicating effectively with stakeholders on the progress towards economic prosperity, environmental quality and social justice will become the defining characteristic of corporate responsibility in the 21st century (Wheeler & Elkington, 2001). As sustainability takes effect it is expected to have fundamental effect on business value (KPMG, 2012) as the management will be expected to put every issue and opportunity into business context with enough details for stakeholders to understand the potential implication for the business value.
Sustainability reporting which takes into consideration corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been cited as a common practice among the developed economies. According to KPMG (2011) survey on G250 companies 71% of European countries reported on CSR activities with American companies at 69%. A number of important markets in developing and emerging economies still show low levels of CSR reporting with only 20% of Indian companies adopting the practice 37% in Taiwan. Though Kenya was not included in the survey the research by Baroko, Dulacha and Brown (2008) indicated a very low level (15%) of CSR reporting in the banking sector and also similar results were reported by Okoth and Ponnu (2009) and Kalunda (2012). Current studies are showing signs of improvements year after year with Kipruto (2013) indicating that 18% of the sampled companies in the banking sector had some sort of CSR reporting.
In Kenya sustainability reporting is done on voluntary basis but the full disclosure principle requires that the companies provide detailed information on all transactions and events which take place within a given period of time. Runji (2014) asserts that completeness of information allows stakeholders to understand companies’ activities, policies, performance as well as providing a competitive edge). Incomplete information on the other hand may encourage unethical behavior such as fraud, loss of company resources as well as increased cost of capital (Rory, 2011). In many organizations a considerable amount of resources are being used in funding corporate social responsibility activities. According to Ufadhili trust (2010) 12% of Kenya’s companies spent between Ksh20M and Ksh150M on CSR activities in one year, but the level of disclosure on CSR activities is very low compared to most developed countries ( Kalunda, 2012). Due to these massive investments in CSR activities, stakeholders are demanding to be provided with clear, complete and up to date information about the resources used in CSR activities to be able to evaluate the returns on such investments. The success of sustainability and its related activities is evident with the support of the chief executive officer (CEO) and the top management. The top managers are the driving force behind the CSR programs, CSR policies as well as communicating these efforts to required stakeholders (Crespin & Boudrie, 2011). It is on this basis that this study sought to assess the role played by management commitment in determining the extent to which company management is willing to disclose corporate social responsibility information with particular focus on listed companies in Kenya.
Objective and Hypothesis
The objective of the study was to examine extent to which Management commitment determines the level of corporate social responsibility reporting of companies listed in Nairobi Securities Exchange in Kenya. The following hypothesis was generated and tested.
H01: Management commitment does not determine the extent of corporate social responsibility reporting of companies listed in Nairobi Securities Exchange in Kenya.
Literature Review
Theoretical Review
The study was based on stakeholder theory which focuses on individual stakeholders expectations from the organization by considering the different stakeholders within the society and identifying how they can be managed to meet specific group’s expectations. A stakeholder is defined as any group or individual who is affected and can affect the achievement of the organization’s objectives (Freeman, 1984). Based on the ethical perspective of stakeholder theory, each of these groups has different interests which conflict with those of others and so it is the responsibility of the entities to manage the business in such a way that balances the interests of all these stakeholder groups (Deegan, 2002). Accounting is concerned with managing the relationship between the business entities and the different stakeholder groups through provision of information concerning what the entity is doing to safeguard their interest. With regard to CSR each of these stakeholders requires knowing how the organization is meeting their corporate social responsibility expectation which is achieved through CSR reporting. Nakabiito and Udechukwu (2007) identified that the major stakeholders have an influence on the level of CSR disclosures among Swedish public companies based on the Global reporting initiative (GRI) guidelines. The management of businesses in the 21 century is increasingly recognizing the importance of CSR and much more disclosing their CSR efforts to stakeholders. The management of these organizations have the sole responsibility of determining the content, quality and quantity of information provided to the specific stakeholder. The motivation to provide more than the legal requirement will depend on the attitude of the manager and on the benefits accrued to the organization.
Empirical Review and Research Gaps
Management commitment and extent of corporate social responsibility reporting
In addition to the company characteristics discussed above as having an impact on the level of CSR disclosure, internal contextual factors may also have an influence on the extent of CSR reporting. Nakabiito and Udechukwu (2007) identified that the major stakeholders have an influence on the level of CSR disclosures among Swedish public companies based on the GRI guidelines. The current trend in business has seen stakeholders’ engagement becoming a key concern for managers as the investors are becoming more aware about sustainability. Many stakeholders are considering sustainability as a major factor when evaluating investment decisions; it is becoming clear that communicating effectively with stakeholders on the progress towards economic prosperity, environmental quality and social justice will become the defining characteristic of corporate responsibility in the 21st century (Wheeler & Elkington, 2001).
The ability of a business to continue as a going concern requires the legitimacy to operate from the government, community and other stakeholders (Epstein, 2008). Failure to manage this critical stakeholder engagement may have negative impact to the business inters of damage to company image and reputation. As companies acknowledge the importance of stakeholder engagement and the value associated with it, the use of CSR reporting has showed considerable improvement as indicated by a U.S survey (2012) where the number of companies which disclose CSR information increased from 20% in 2010 to 53% in 2012 among the sampled S&P 500 companies.
The success of sustainability and its related activities is evident with the support of the CEO and the top management. The top managers are the driving force behind the CSR programs, CSR policies as well as communicating these efforts to required stakeholders (Crespin & Boudrie, 2011). The boards of directors are great influencers of determining to what extent they are willing to balance the desire for short term profitability against the pressure for sustainability. Developing sustainability strategies as well as their implementation is often a big challenge for most top managers (Epstein, 2008). The managers are pressured to deliver profits for the corporation and their performance is typically measured on how successful they deliver that profit. This brings in the dilemma of aligning the corporate strategy so as to achieve the required profits and at the same time engage in social and environmental activities so as to obtain legitimacy, royalty and trust from stakeholders. The managers in the level of board of directors have a responsibility of providing direction to the organization with regard to the content and mode of communication with stakeholders. Krongkaew & Setthasakko (2013) focused on management attitude towards CSR disclosures as factors influencing sustainability reporting and made a conclusion that the managers can greatly influence the content of the reports they publish to stakeholders. The managers are in a position to sieve the content of the report as indicated by Kalunda (2012) who assessed the content of CSR report among public companies in Kenya and identified that those who reported only focused on reporting the good news with the aim of painting a positive picture of their companies in order to be considered good corporate citizen and be given the legitimacy to continue operating.
Epstein (2008) noted that the management of businesses in the 21 century is increasingly recognizing the importance of CSR and much more disclosing their CSR efforts to stakeholders. The impetus for implementing corporate strategy to integrate social and environmental information into the economic impact information can be driven by the management commitment to sustainability reporting. Not unless the managers are committed to sustainability they may not recognize that sustainability can create financial value for the corporation through enhanced revenues and reduced costs Due to increased management commitment the size of corporate social and environmental expenditures is increasing rapidly and the necessity to improve reporting of these impacts have become critical because of the pressure from the general public, government and activist NGO’s who are increasingly becoming aware of sustainability and the impact that corporations have on the society and the environment. Thus it is the responsibility of the managers to determine the social and environmental issues that are important to the key stakeholders and take the necessary steps to foster the relationship with such stakeholders by communicating to them the efforts they have undertaken to improve sustainability through the use of CSR report.
The review of literature has provided evidence that CSR reporting is widely accepted practice among the developed countries with a lot of consistency in their reporting. In developing countries disclosure practices are done on ad-hoc manner, inconsistent, incomplete and lack the reliability and objectivity required to be used to provide the much needed information by stakeholders about the CSR activities in the organizations. Most of the information disclosed is focusing on the positive results making CSR to be used as a marketing tool hence increasing the cost of asymmetry where the stakeholders are not accessing the much needed information to facilitate informed decision making.
In Kenya, literature on the determinants of CSR reporting is still minimal, majority of the researchers have focused on assessing the extent of CSR disclosures which provide conflicting results as to the extent of CSR reporting in Kenya using content analysis and company websites to collect the required data. Current studies have shown that the concept of CSR reporting is gaining recognition with several companies demonstrating the interest to report on their CSR activities on their annual reports with the majority using narrative forms of disclosure mainly as disclosure notes. Those who have CSR activities are concerned with the non-monetary form of disclosures which pose a challenge of accounting. Several determinants have been identified in literature which may be used to explain the reason behind CSR reporting among many companies. The current study sought to extent knowledge on the determinants of CSR reporting in Kenya, by focusing management commitment and assesses the extent to which it can be used to explain the extent of CSR reporting based on the Kenyan context.
Methodology
This study adopted a descriptive survey design which involved the collection of data, analysis and test of hypotheses with the aim of answering questions under study. According to cooper and Schindler (2011) descriptive studies are concerned with finding out ‘whether’, and they aim at addressing the concerns of a particular population in a specific time or over a period of time. Surveys are most used methods in business research since they provide an accurate and valid representation of the variables under study (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2003). Descriptive studies require a specific form of data collection such as a survey or a case study and also offer a unique means of collecting confidential information such as content analysis. Descriptive survey research design presents an opportunity to fuse both qualitative and quantitative research. Quantitative research is a systematic investigation of quantitative properties of data to provide meaningful insight into the quantitative characteristics of the data and any statistical association between the variables of study (Cooper & Schindler, 2011).
The population comprised of all the 60 companies listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange, from which a sample of 37 companies were selected using proportional stratified sampling method where four respondents (company CEO, the Accountant, the Assistant Accountant and the chief internal auditor) were purposively selected from each sampled company to form the sample size of 148 respondents. Self-administered questionnaires were used to collect primary data concerning management commitment while secondary data was collected from review of literature from journals as well as selected books. Document analysis of the 2013/2014 annual reports from the company’s websites was used to collect data pertaining to the extent of CSR reporting among the sampled companies.
Findings and Discussion
Descriptive findings on Management commitment
The management commitment in this study was measured in terms of adequacy of company meetings, conduciveness of the reporting environment, and the level innovation in CSR reporting. The descriptive results (table 4.13) reveal that the managers of the sampled companies have a moderately above average level of satisfaction with regard to the number of CSR meetings (mean, 3.45) in a scale of five, as well as with the percentage of the number of CSR meetings (3.33) in relation to other types of company meetings. With regard to having a supportive and conducive environment for reporting the findings indicate a high level of supportive environment with regard to setting up specific department for CSR activities (mean, 3.47) as well as having a clear policy (mean, 3.46) which is understood by those concerned with CSR activities. With regard to rewarding best performing employees on CSR activities, the results reveal that on average the companies are performing well (mean, 3.5) and a standard deviation of 0.73.implying that the companies are not significantly different with relation to the way they reward those who perform well in CSR activities. In addition to having adequate meetings, and conducive environment for reporting; management commitment was also measured in terms of innovativeness in reporting. Innovation into new technology has enhanced the speed with which organization perform their tasks. To measure the level of innovativeness towards CSR reporting this study sought to identify whether the companies had software which was used in recording the CSR data as well as whether they had alternative methods of publishing their CSR report in their websites or newsletters. The findings of the study (table 4.13) reveal that with regard to using a software to record CSR data the performance was below average (mean, 2.39) as well as low performance (mean, 2.45) with regard to publishing their CSR information in their websites. The results on management commitment are found in table 1.
Table 1: Descriptive statistics on Management commitment
|
|
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
|
Satisfaction with the number of CSR meetings held in a week |
3.45 |
.84 |
|
The % number of CSR meeting compares well with other types of company meetings |
3.33 |
.84 |
|
The CSR activities are carried out by a specific department |
3.47 |
.81 |
|
The management rewards best performing employees in CSR activities |
3.50 |
.73 |
|
The company has a clear CSR reporting policy |
3.46 |
.79 |
|
The company has software for recording CSR data |
2.39 |
.65 |
|
The company publishes CSR information in its website |
2.45 |
.75 |
|
Valid N (list wise) |
|
|
The success of sustainability and its related activities is evident with the support of top management (Crespin & Boudrie, 2011). Management commitment towards CSR can be determined by the priority the top managers give with regard to the CSR meetings. It is in such meetings where they are expected to develop sustainability strategies as well as their implementation (Epstein, 2008). When managers are committed to the best performance of CSR activities they have the motivation to inform their principals of the steps they are taking to ensure sustainability. Reporting on CSR information gives the management an opportunity to prove to the stakeholders that they are socially responsible in their steward’s role. A conducive and supportive environment is a key determinant of management commitment towards CSR reporting. In this study the conduciveness of the environment was measured by assessing whether the company has set aside a specific department to deal with CSR activities, having a clear CSR reporting policy and whether the management rewards the best performing employees in matters of CSR. The descriptive findings reveal that the managers of the sampled companies are doing well with regard to specific department for CSR activities as well as having a clear which is understood by those concerned with CSR activities. The management commitment was also supported by the high level of rewarding best performing employees on CSR activities.
These findings imply that the top management provides support to the departments with the aim of encouraging the practice of CSR reporting. Having a specific department to deal with CSR matters provides the required environment for the managers to develop strategies and ensure effective implementation as it brings a level of accountability and transparency which is necessary for improving reporting by the organizations (Epstein, 2008). This can then ensure that CSR strategies are integrated with other strategic decisions of the whole organization. The management commitment is demonstrated when a company takes issues of concern with utmost level of importance. This has been evidenced by the high level of performance with regard to having a clear policy on CSR reporting. When a policy is in place and it is understood by those concerned with CSR activities it is indicative that they will take the responsibility with utmost level of importance since the policy provides guidelines on how to communicate CSR information to the respective recipients. The managers in the level of directors have the responsibility of providing direction to the organization with regards to the content and the mode of communication with stakeholders (Krongkaew & Setthasakko, 2013) which should be guided by the reporting policy. This was in line with the findings by Runji (2014) who asserts that when an organization fails to consider CSR issues as of strategic importance puts the organization at a strategic and competitive disadvantage. Having a clear CSR policy enables the organization to deal with the challenges of adopting the new practice of CSR as well as their disclosures. Innovation into new technology has enhanced the speed with which organization perform their tasks. The current mode of annual reports are in print media which has a varied of challenges as indicated by Barako et al (2006). Print media is considered inadequate in terms of low speed of distribution where some of the annual reports do not reach the recipients or if they do they are too late to be reliable for decision making. The advent of the internet and the web sites has provided companies with new stage to communicate with the wide and ever increasing group of information users. With this benefit the current study reveal that with regard to using a software to record CSR data the performance was below average (mean, 2.39) as well as low performance (mean, 2.45) with regard to publishing their CSR information in their websites. This implies that these companies have not adopted the use of technology in CSR reporting despite the level of benefits documented through research.
The public availability of data regarding how companies perceive and project CSR activities provide an opportunity for the public to examine the scope as well as the force driving CSR activities within the company (Tello & Yoou, 2014). Effective engagement and communication with stakeholders needs to take place on a more frequent basis than just once a year in an annual report. In order to reduce the costs associated with reporting to diverse stakeholders the use of company web site can ease the distribution of information targeting specific needs both in content and frequency. Data collection and recording was cited as a major challenge facing the listed companies in recording CSR information (fig 4.2 in the appendix). With the advent of modern technology, the use of software has been a key boost towards quality, efficiency and effectiveness of data management. Having no software to ease the process of data collection and recording can limit the content and timeliness of CSR reports. The use of technology has been cited as a boost even to reducing the costs associated with data collection and recording hence it is paramount that business organizations should be willing to incur such costs which may have a positive effect on the overall performance of the organization. While there has been debate about the accuracy of self-reporting (porter & crammer, 2006), the emergency of formal guidelines and standards such as those of GRI (2011) suggests that CSR information will become increasingly accessible to stakeholder who rely on such information as a basis of purchasing and investment decision, hence such information should be collected, summarized and distributed in the most cost effective and efficient way on timely basis. This has contributed to the advocacy for the concept of sustainable innovation which can produce solutions to the environmental problems while improving business efficiency.
Regression analysis and hypotheses testing
The objective of the study sought to examine whether Management commitment determines the extent of corporate social responsibility reporting of companies listed in Nairobi Securities Exchange in Kenya. To achieve this objective the Null hypothesis was tested;
H01: Management commitment does not determine the extent of corporate social responsibility reporting of companies listed in Nairobi Securities Exchange in Kenya. The regression model to test the hypothesis was; CSRDI= β0 + β1X1+ e Where;
CSRDI= Corporate social responsibility disclosure index
β0= Intercept
β1= regression coefficients
X1– management commitment
e = error term
The model summary results reveal that there was a positive relationship (R2 = 0.12 and R=0.34) between management commitment and the extent of CSR reporting among the sampled companies. The coefficient of determination (R2) revealed that management commitment contributes to 12% of the extent of CSR reporting while the remaining 88% can be explained by other factors.
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the Estimate |
|
1 |
.34a |
.12 |
.09 |
19.68 |
|
a. Predictors: (Constant), management commitment |
||||
Table 2: Management commitment Model summary
To test the significance of the overall linear relationship of the model (goodness of fit) the F-test was carried out based on the analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The F-test results show that the model was significant (F (1, 35) = 4.625 and a P-value of 0.038) at 5% level of significance as depicted on table 3.
Table 3: Management commitment ANOVAa
|
ANOVAa |
||||||
|
Model |
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression |
1790.56 |
1 |
1790.56 |
4.63 |
.038b |
|
Residual |
13549.25 |
35 |
387.12 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
15339.81 |
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
a. Dependent Variable: reporting. Index |
||||||
|
b. Predictors: (Constant), management commitment |
||||||
The regression model was used to test the second hypothesis, the Beta coefficient results show that management commitment significantly influence the level of CSR reporting among the companies (t= 2.15, p= 0.038) at 5% significant level. Hence the Null hypothesis that management commitment does not significantly determinant the extent of CSR reporting was rejected based on the results on table 4. Similar results were reported by Krongkaew & Setthasakko (2013) who concluded that management commitment has great influence on reporting decisions.
Table 4: Management commitment regression coefficients
Coefficients
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
T |
Sig. |
|
|||||||||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
(Constant) |
12.02 |
18.66 |
|
.64 |
.524 |
|
||||||
|
|
Management commitment |
11.51 |
5.35 |
.34 |
2.15 |
.038 |
|
|||||||
Discussion of findings
The findings of the study reveal that management commitment contributed to 11.7% of the extent of CSR reporting among the companies. The regression analysis reveal that management commitment had a positive (R=34%) and significant influence (p=0.038) on the extent of CSR reporting. Several studies found a positive relationship between management commitment and the extent of CSR reporting (Epstein, 2008; Crespin & Boudrie, 2011 and Krongkaew & Setthasakko, 2013). According to the stakeholder theory managers are at a position to determine the content and the mode of communication with their stakeholders as they have sole discretion to prepare reports to the stakeholders and as such they can determine to what extent they would want to report to the stakeholders. The managers in the position of board of directors have the key responsibility of developing policies which govern the operations of the entities. They have the mandate of determining to what extent they are to carry out voluntary activities based on whether they have positive impact on the operations. Engaging on CSR activities is part of the voluntary activities which the management can determine the extent including their reporting. Legitimacy and institutional pressures exerted on the management to ensure transparency and accountability to the stakeholders has seen many companies engage in voluntary activities beyond what is required by the regulators (KPMG, 2011). These findings support those which were identified by Epstein (2008), Kalunda (2012) and Krongkaew & Setthasakko (2013) who support the notion that management commitment towards reporting influence the extent of the reporting. Management commitment can be demonstrated by the managers setting aside a specific department to deal with CSR issues, such department are expected to spend their time and resources allocated to them on CSR related issues such as training and organizing seminars on CSR reporting. Among the challenges of CSR reporting according to the qualitative findings of this study was lack of guidance on the policies and the framework to be followed as a guide in CSR reporting. Having a clear CSR policy can act as a guide to all CSR activities including their reporting. In addition to policies, conduciveness of the environment is an important determinant of the management commitment to CSR reporting. This can be achieved when the management provide the required resources for CSR reporting, support the implementers’ of the CSR policies by providing training were necessary as well as developing mechanisms of evaluating their performance and rewarding best performing employees. Hence it is the responsibility of the management to support the practice of CSR reporting by developing the guidelines to support the accountants in the process of collecting, summarizing and reporting on sustainability issues.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The objective of the study was aimed at examining the extent to which management commitment determines the extent of CSR reporting of companies listed in NSE in Kenya. The descriptive statistics reveal that the management of the samples companies on average are committed to CSR reporting in terms of adequacy of holding CSR meeting and conduciveness of the reporting environment but were less committed to investing in having innovative methods of CSR reporting. The Null hypothesis was tested to examine the relationship between management commitment and extent of CSR reporting. The linear regression results reveal a significant p-value=0.038) and positive (R= 0.43) relationship between management commitment and extent of CSR reporting among the companies. The results further reveal that management commitment contributes to 11.5% (R2=0.115) of the level of CSR reporting among the companies, based on these findings the Null hypothesis was rejected which indicated that management commitment does not determine the extent of CSR reporting, thus the conclusion that management commitment is a significant contributor towards the extent of CSR reporting among the companies.
The findings of the study reveal that management commitment has a significant positive relationship with CSR reporting. The management should align the corporate strategy in such a way that will achieve the required profits and at the same time engage in social and environmental activities. The study further recommends that the management should set a specific department to deal with CSR activities such as setting up CSR policies, ensuring their implementation as well as their effectiveness. These will improve transparency and accountability in reporting CSR activities. Another study could be carried out on the private sector who are not controlled by the CMA to ascertain if similar findings would be established.
References
Barako, D., Hancock, P. & Izan, Y. (2006). Factors influencing voluntary corporate disclosure by Kenyan companies’, Corporate Governance: International Review, 14 (2), pp. 107-125.
Cooper, S. M., Dan, D. & Owen, L. (2007). Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link, Accounting, Organization, and Society, 32, pp. 649-667.
Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimizing effect of social and environmental reporting: A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15 (3), pp. 282-311
Gall, M. (2007). Educational Research: An Introduction. (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Global Reporting Initiative (2006). A common framework for sustainability reporting, CSR Conference Jakarta 28 February 2007, CD-ROM.
Jasper, V. & Semeijn, J. (2001), Defining and Measuring Competencies: An application Graduate Surveys. Maastricht University
Hooks, J. & Van-Staden, C.J. (2011). Evaluating Environmental Disclosures: the Relationship Between Quality and Extent Measures. British Accounting Review, 43. PP. 200-213.
Kalunda, E. (2012) Corporate Social Reports of Firms Listed in the Nairobi Securities Exchange, Kenya, European Journal of Business and Management, 4 (8).
Kothari, C. R. (2007). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques (2nd ed.). New Delhi: New Age International Publishers.
Krongkaew-arreya, N. & Setthasakko, W. (2013) Influence Factors to Develop Sustainability Report: A Case Study of Thailand. Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference Imperial College, London, UK.
Maina, J. N. (2014). Analysis of the effect of voluntary corporate disclosures on company’s financial performance: A survey of listed companies in Nairobi Stock exchange (un-published MBA research university of Nairobi Kenya).
Mugenda, O. & Mugenda, A. (2003). Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Nairobi: Acts Press.
Nkaiwatei, A. O. (2011). Relationship between Social Accounting Practices and Profitability: The case of oil industry in Kenya, Unpublished MBA Thesis, University of Nairobi.
Owen, D. (2008). Chronicles of wasted time? A personal reflection on the current state of, and future prospects for social and environmental accounting research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21 (2), pp. 240-267.
Parker, L.D. (2005). Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 18 (6), pp. 842-860.
Ponnu, C. & Okoth, M. (2009). Corporate social responsibility disclosure in Kenya: The Nairobi Stock Exchange. African Journal of Business Management, 3 (10), pp. 601-608.
Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84 (12), pp. 78-92.
Runji, N. (2014). The impact of corporate social responsibility on the strategic intent in the banking industry in Kenya: a case study of standard chartered bank. (Unpublished MBA project) University of Nairobi, Kenya.
Samaha, K. & Dahawy, K. (2010).Factors influencing voluntary corporate disclosure by the actively traded Egyptian firm. Research in Accounting in Emerging Economies, 10, pp.119- 125.
Roberts, R.W. (1992). Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: An Application of Stakeholder Theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17 (6), pp. 595-612.
Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84 (12), pp. 78-92.
