Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Methodological issues - Reflections on quantifi...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Methodological issues - Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Methodological issues - Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. / Unerman, J.

In: Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 13, No. 5, 2000, p. 667-681.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Unerman, J. / Methodological issues - Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. In: Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. 2000 ; Vol. 13, No. 5. pp. 667-681.

Bibtex

@article{f94e0efc9ead4d2c88e8e0a0d09c400a,
title = "Methodological issues - Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis",
abstract = "A key assumption underlying many corporate social reporting content analysis studies is that volume of disclosure signifies the relative importance of disclosures. Most of these studies have only quantified disclosures in annual reports, and there is disagreement within the literature regarding the best way to measure each individual disclosure. Based on observations made during the conduct of a 100-year content analysis study, which examined a broad range of Shell's corporate reports, this paper argues that an exclusive focus on annual reports is likely to result in an incomplete picture of reporting practices. It also contributes further insights to the debate on measurement techniques, arguing that while measurement in sentences may be carried out with greater accuracy than measurement in proportions of a page, the former is likely to give less relevant results than the latter. {\textcopyright} 2000, MCB UP Limited",
keywords = "Company reports, Disclosure, Environmental management, Social responsibility",
author = "J. Unerman",
year = "2000",
doi = "10.1108/09513570010353756",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "667--681",
journal = "Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal",
issn = "0951-3574",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methodological issues - Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis

AU - Unerman, J.

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - A key assumption underlying many corporate social reporting content analysis studies is that volume of disclosure signifies the relative importance of disclosures. Most of these studies have only quantified disclosures in annual reports, and there is disagreement within the literature regarding the best way to measure each individual disclosure. Based on observations made during the conduct of a 100-year content analysis study, which examined a broad range of Shell's corporate reports, this paper argues that an exclusive focus on annual reports is likely to result in an incomplete picture of reporting practices. It also contributes further insights to the debate on measurement techniques, arguing that while measurement in sentences may be carried out with greater accuracy than measurement in proportions of a page, the former is likely to give less relevant results than the latter. © 2000, MCB UP Limited

AB - A key assumption underlying many corporate social reporting content analysis studies is that volume of disclosure signifies the relative importance of disclosures. Most of these studies have only quantified disclosures in annual reports, and there is disagreement within the literature regarding the best way to measure each individual disclosure. Based on observations made during the conduct of a 100-year content analysis study, which examined a broad range of Shell's corporate reports, this paper argues that an exclusive focus on annual reports is likely to result in an incomplete picture of reporting practices. It also contributes further insights to the debate on measurement techniques, arguing that while measurement in sentences may be carried out with greater accuracy than measurement in proportions of a page, the former is likely to give less relevant results than the latter. © 2000, MCB UP Limited

KW - Company reports

KW - Disclosure

KW - Environmental management

KW - Social responsibility

U2 - 10.1108/09513570010353756

DO - 10.1108/09513570010353756

M3 - Journal article

VL - 13

SP - 667

EP - 681

JO - Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal

JF - Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal

SN - 0951-3574

IS - 5

ER -