Content area
Full Text
Introduction
Over the last ten years, the programme of research by Guthrie, Mathews and Parker has significantly developed our understanding of the practice of social and environmental reporting and disclosure[1] by companies (see, for example, Cowen et a, 1987; Guthrie and Mathews, 1985; Guthrie and Parker, 1989, 1990; Mathews, 1993). Along with the theoretical issues they raise (see Gray et a, 1995), the Guthrie, Mathews and Parker project has illustrated several methodological issues which arise in attempts to research the phenomenon of social and environmental reporting (CSR hereafter). More specifically, the Guthrie et al. project has illustrated, inter alia; problems with defining and identifying CSR; a lack of easily accessible data; difficulties of data capture; the need for longitudinal studies; the difficulties of inter-temporal and inter-country comparison; differences in research approach; and the difficulties in identifying -- and seeking to reconcile -- these differences in method.
It was a concern to try to address these methodological issues that motivated the development of the social and environmental disclosure database project reported here. The principal intention was for the project to provide a (publicly available) computer-readable database of UK social disclosure through time.
It seemed that there were two essential characteristics that the database must possess if it was to be usable on a wide basis. These were:
(1) the definitions, frameworks and methods must conform as closely as possible with the mainstream CSR literature;
(2) the research instrument, method and methodology must be as transparent and replicable as possible.
In addition, the database should have a useful sample; be accessible; and respond to the apparent concerns voiced from time to time in the CSR literature. This last point also, in effect, counsels that the database should be flexible. Finally, the data should provide a reasonable run of years for researchers once it is publicly available.
For these reasons, it appeared that the best strategy was: to follow the approach taken by Guthrie[2] as closely as possible (see below); to develop the research instrument and method in much greater detail than has previously been the case, in terms of publicly available information at least; and to maintain the database in the simplest, most common computer software.
In 1986 an approach was made to the ICAEW Research Board...