IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/accfor/v24y2000i1p80-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Legitimacy Theory or Managerial Reality Construction? Corporate Social Disclosure in Marks and Spencer Plc Corporate Reports, 1969–1997

Author

Listed:
  • David J. Campbell

Abstract

This paper sets out to make some comment on the debate surrounding explanatory theories for the phenomenon of voluntary social disclosure. It notes that two explanations appear from the literature to be most prominent: legitimacy theory and political‐economy of accounting explanations, both of which are consistent with a stakeholder understanding of the organization‐society relationship. The published annual corporate reports of the British retailer Marks and Spencer Plc are analyzed over the period 1969–1997 inclusive with a view to providing insight into the causes of variability in the volume of social disclosure. The scope of sample selection in previous empirical studies is discussed and commented upon. Methods of data capture used in this empirical analysis are discussed. The paper finds that whilst the expected upward trend in CSR is notable, the more interesting feature in the longitudinal analysis is the variability in disclosure between chairmen’s terms in office. It is argued that marginal variability of disclosure can be explained by the varying perceptions of reality of the successive chairmen. The limitations of existing theories as explicators of the observed phenomenon are briefly discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • David J. Campbell, 2000. "Legitimacy Theory or Managerial Reality Construction? Corporate Social Disclosure in Marks and Spencer Plc Corporate Reports, 1969–1997," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 80-100, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:24:y:2000:i:1:p:80-100
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-6303.00030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-6303.00030
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-6303.00030?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:24:y:2000:i:1:p:80-100. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/racc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.