英语论文网

them and why did they choose the “environment” as an area they should include? Consider the underlying assumptions and arguments of legitimacy theory which you discussed in part (a) to help explain this phenomenon. Also discuss why the companies may have provided the quantity, level of detail and nature of the disclosures in this section with reference to any differences in these areas between your two companies.
Presentation:
• The assignment should be prepared in a general essay style. Within the business/accounting disciplines it is commonly accepted (and often recommended) to use headings throughout. I recommend the following headings for this assignment: Introduction; Part (a) – legitimacy theory; Part (b) OR you may prefer to discuss and compare under the three areas that need to be examined; part (c); conclusion. These should be followed by your reference list and appendix or appendices. You are not required to include a table of contents.
• Refer to the Guide for students for information on correct referencing style.
General hints:
• Use the resources available at the CQUniversity library website.
• Use the CLC or Learning Network for assistance in writing and referencing this assignment.
• Refer to the assessment criteria in the Course Profile.
• Always keep a copy of your assignment, preferably in electronic format.
• If you have any questions, seek assistance.

留学生论文https://www.51lunwen.org/

The outline of the answer for this assignment

Part A Discussion of legitimacy theory

Part B Compare the voluntary environmental disclosures of two companies

Part C Explain why the companies provided voluntary environmental disclosures using legitimacy theory.

References:
[1] Ashford, B. E. and B. W. Gibbs (1990) “The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation”, Organization Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 177 - 194.
[2] Caudill, E. (1997) Darwinian Myths: The Legends and Misuses of a Theory, Knoxville, University of Tennessee Press.
[3] Deegan, C., M. Rankin and J. Tobin (2002) “An Examination of the Corporate Social and Environmental Disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997: A Test of Legitimacy Theory”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 312 - 343.
[4] Deegan, C., M. Rankin and P. Voght (2000) “Firms’ Disclosure Reactions to Major Social Incidents: Australian Evidence”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 101 - 130.
[5] Hearit, K. M. (1995) “‘Mistakes Were Made’: Organizations, Apologia, and Crises of Social Legitimacy”, Communication Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1-2, pp. 1 - 17.
[6] Hybels, R. C. (1995) “On Legitimacy, Legitimation, and Organizations: A Critical Review and Integrative Theoretical Model”, Academy of Management Journal, Special Issue: Best Papers Proceedings, 1995, pp. 241 - 245.
[7] Kaplan, S. E. and R. G. Ruland (1991) “Positive Theory, Rationality and Accounting Regulation”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 361 - 374.
[8] Lindblom, C. K. (1994), “The Implications of Organizational Legitimacy for Corporate Social Performance and Disclosure”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York.