The Role of the Stakeholders in the Institutionalization of the CSR Reporting In Romania

Gușe, Raluca Gina; Almășan, Alina; Circa, Cristina; Dumitru, Mădălina Article The Role of the Stakeholders in the Institutionalization of the CSR Reporting In Romania Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems (JAMIS) Provided in Cooperation with: The Bucharest University of Economic Studies Suggested Citation: Gușe, Raluca Gina; Almășan, Alina; Circa, Cristina; Dumitru, Mădălina (2016) : The Role of the Stakeholders in the Institutionalization of the CSR Reporting In Romania, Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems (JAMIS), ISSN 2559-6004, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Vol. 15, Iss. 2, pp. 304-340 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/310625 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Accounting and Management Information Systems Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 304-340, 2016 The role of the stakeholders in the institutionalization of the CSR reporting in Romania Raluca Gina Gușea, Alina Almășanb, Cristina Circab and Mădălina Dumitrua, 1 aBucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania bWest University of Timișoara, Romania Abstract: Social and environmental aspects are increasingly included in the different types of reports prepared by the Romanian companies. Our research question is which are the forces that drive the institutionalization of the CSR reporting in Romania. We consider the stakeholders as the primary responsible parties for how CSR reporting is implemented. We find that the main initiatives regarding the CSR in Romania belong to the government. Also, the European institutions, through the directives approved, play a major role in CSR reporting in Romania. Our results also show that other stakeholders (companies, the academic environment or Big Four companies) play active roles in the institutionalization of CSR practices and there is an apparent need for more coordinated efforts. Evidence was found with respect to coercive and mimetic isomorphism. Keywords: CSR, Romania, stakeholders, institutionalization. JEL codes: M40 1. Introduction The entities have to rely in their activity not only on economic criteria, but also on social and environmental ones. This reality led to the publication of an increasing number of CSR reports by the organisations, to the analysis of the non-financial information by the stakeholders, and to the development of standards and regulations in the area etc. 1 Corresponding author: Madalina Dumitru, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 6 Piata Romana, Bucharest, E-mail: [email protected] The role of the stakeholders in the institutionalization of the CSR reporting in Romania Vol. 15, No. 2 305 We consider that it is important to study the institutional context in which the CSR reporting in Romania developed and the initiatives of different stakeholder groups regarding the social and environmental reporting. Studying the interactions between companies and the interactions between companies and other parties interested in the CSR process can provide an image of the way in which the CSR practices and opinions are crystalized. It can also outline the way in which CSR practices favour one social group at the expense of another. These are unanswered questions which still capture the researchers’ attention. In the context of the implementation of the European Directive 2014/95/EU on non-financial reporting, Romania represents a good setting for such a research. Becoming a member of the European Union (EU) eight years ago, the country does not yet display the ability to easily adapt to the new requirements associated with its position. The new non-financial reporting directive will take effect in the national regulations starting with 2016, and will be used in corporate reporting starting with 2017. Only 31 out of 31,960 CSR reports included in the GRI database were published by companies operating in Romania and none of them had the highest application level A+ (GRI, 2016). This provides a (narrow) picture of the level of experience and success Romanian companies have in terms of CSR reporting. Also, previous studies (Albu et al., 2011a) show that the CSR competencies are not among the ones required by an employer from a future accountant. Our aim is to identify the forces which drive the entities to produce CSR reports in Romania. We rely on an empirical research of the processes through which the CSR reporting (and all other reporting practices associated with CSR, sustainability, or social and environmental reporting) was institutionalized in a national context. We explored the way in which the national regulations in the area were filtered by various actors and rearranged to generate the CSR practices applied in Romania nowadays. We use the institutional theory to build the theoretical framework of the research. The existence and usefulness of the corporate social responsibility (CSR), sustainability or integrated reporting are frequently analysed in the context of the institutional theory, within which the company’s interactions with third parties are commented (Jennings & Zandbergen, 1995; Delmas, 2002; Bartlett et al., 2007; Pollach, 2012). We find information on the institutionalization of CSR initiatives in the United States, France (Avetisyan & Ferrary, 2013), Switzerland (Daub, 2007), Australia (Farneti & Guthrie, 2009), Estonia (Gurvitsh & Sidorova, 2012), the United Kingdom (Holton et al., 2010), Spain (Husted & Allen, 2007), Lithuania (Leitoniene et al., 2015) etc. In the context of this research, one of the first relevant aspects is related to the stakeholders who have an impact on the CSR reporting. We are interested in Accounting and Management Information Systems 306 Vol. 15, No. 2 determining who are the most important stakeholders of CSR reporting in Romania. We see the stakeholders not only as passive beneficiaries of the companies’ reporting systems, but also as an engine which leads to the institutionalization of the CSR reporting practices. The CSR reporting in Romania is characterised by increasing global influence. Therefore, one of the specific stakeholders addressed in this research is the EU. Other stakeholders are the government (including all the State’s institutions and their respective tools), the companies, the academic environment, the professional bodies, the Big Four, and the NGOs. An original part of this research is the macroeconomic approach, which entails looking at the reporting from the point of view of all of the stakeholders and not only from the companies’ point of view (which is the case of most of the studies published so far). The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. We present the literature review with a specific emphasis on the stakeholders and on the way they are reflected in the literature. We describe the theoretical framework on which the study was built. The research methodology follows. In the results section we describe the main findings on categories of stakeholders. The paper ends with conclusions, which synthesize the main initiatives and the main outcomes regarding the CSR reporting in Romania, the potential impact on CSR practices and directions for future research. 2. The stakeholders: incentives and motivations for the voluntary and mandatory reporting The leading factors of the voluntary disclosure of information have been extensively investigated (Berger, 2011; Beyer et al., 2010; Einhorn, 2007; Guidry & Patten, 2012; Heitzman et al., 2010; Langberg & Sivaramakrishnan, 2008; Lo, 2010; Schaltegger & Burrit, 2010). As such, Heitzman et al. (2010) refer to Verrechia (1983, 2001), who summarizes the voluntary disclosure theories with the conclusion that “managers disclose information when the benefits exceed the costs.” Velte (2014) links the voluntary publication of information to “the increasing application of capital market-orientated corporate management concepts”, i.e. the desire to reduce “value gaps, which are formed between corporate management and the investor, due to the asymmetrical information brokerage and the lack of capital market efficiency.” Maignan & Ralston (2002) found three reasons for the companies’ responsible behaviour: “(1) managers valued such behaviour in its own right, (2) managers believed that this behaviour enhanced the financial performance of their firms, and (3) stakeholders (notably, The role of the stakeholders in the institutionalization of the CSR reporting in Romania Vol. 15, No. 2 307 community groups, customers, and regulators) pressured firms to behave in socially responsible ways.” Berman et al. (1999) introduce two perspectives on a company’s motivation to act in a sustainable manner: an instrumental and a normative one. In the instrumental perspective, the company is interested in the welfare of its stakeholders because this will have a positive effect on its own financial performance. In the normative perspective, the company protects the interests of its stakeholders because it has a moral obligation to do so. It results that previous studies acknowledge that the stakeholders represent one of the forces which drive the CSR reporting institutionalization. According to Freeman (1984, p. 46) cited by Eccles & Krzus (2010) “a stakeholder in an organization is (by definition) any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives.” Stakeholder groups are discussed and often classified in terms of their information needs or their influence on CSR reporting. 2.1 Categories of stakeholders influencing the company’s responsible behaviour In the beginning, having a voluntary character, the CSR reporting was determined by the stakeholders, other than the State. In time, however, the situation changed and the governments started to ask the entities to present various reports, indicators or statements with respect to social and environmental-related matters. Regulators (both governments and stock exchanges) tend to focus on the information needs of shareholders (Deegan, 2004). We will take into consideration this apparent “shift” from the general influence of different stakeholders’ groups to the specific regulatory power of the State, as we examine the main factors which influence the institutionalization of CSR reporting practices in Romania. Following the publications by Freedman & Stagliano (1992), O’Dwyer et al. (2005), Smith et al. (2005) etc., we note that the results of the research concerning stakeholder influence vary considerably from one country to another, due to factors identified by Freeman et al. (2010) as social norms, political and economic systems, and government regulations. The differences between countries in terms of CSR reporting are determined by the expectations and pressures of the stakeholders (Clarkson, 1998, 250; Mitchell et al., 1998). Stakeholders can be compared with “transmission belts that translate cultural notions into concrete claims, and that convey them into corporate mind-sets” (Steurer & Konrad, 2009). The literature provides mixed results regarding stakeholders’ ability to influence CSR reporting practices. Bowen et al. (1992) used stakeholder theory to explain Accounting and Management Information Systems 308 Vol. 15, No. 2 how stakeholders influence financial reporting, Winston & Sharp (2005) studied the influence of different stakeholders’ groups on international standard setting, while Darnall et al. (2009) studied the association between the use of environmental audits and differences in stakeholder influences. The stakeholders identified by Maignan & Ralston (2002) as determining the companies’ responsible behaviour were: community groups, customers and regulations. For Delmas & Toffel (2004) the companies’ institutional pressures in terms of CSR come from: government; customers and competition; community and CSR interest groups; industry; interactions; the firm characteristics. According to Avetisyan & Ferrary (2013) the CSR reporting stakeholders are: CSR rating agencies; institutional entrepreneurs; standard setters; regulatory agents; global and local stakeholders, such as the EU, the United Nations, the International Organizations for Standardization, government and their interactions. For Habek & Wolniak (2013) the stakeholders who drive the development of the CSR reporting are the companies, the European institutions, governments, civil society and the investor community. The Big Four entities represent another important stakeholder for accounting. They are interested in the uniformity of the reporting practices at international level (Albu et al., 2011b). EU is the world’s region in which the companies are the most active in terms of CSR reporting. For instance, 47% of the reports included in the GRI database in 2011 came from Europe. Also, in terms of our research, this leads us to the analysis of a specific stakeholder: the EU. According to Doh & Guay (2006) the EU has become a significant international actor in its own right over the past three decades. The same author presents the interest groups as an important stakeholder which influences the CSR reporting. The European Commission considers that the “primary actors in CSR” are the businesses (EC, 2006). The European Parliament also recognizes the importance of the investors and asks for their “full participation as stakeholders in the CSR debate at the EU level” (EP, 2007). In the IIRF, along with the providers of financial capital, are mentioned the following stakeholders: employees, customers, suppliers, business partners, local communities, legislators, regulators and policy-makers (IIRC, 2013). Among the drivers of CSR concerns, Avetisyan and Ferrary (2013) point to the CSR rating agencies as essential actors, since the “emergent nature of the CSR field stems from the rising worldwide interest in this concept, and the sudden appearance of CSR rating agencies in the late 1980s”. In Romania, Apostol (2015) identified the civil society as one of the stakeholders which enable societal debates. Authors consider that the quality of CSR reporting increased during the last years (Ienciu et al., 2011; Budeanu & Thidell, 2006; The role of the stakeholders in the institutionalization of the CSR reporting in Romania Vol. 15, No. 2 309 Obrad et al., 2011; Albu et al., 2011b). The stakeholders who determined this change were the EU (Ienciu et al., 2011) (as Romania became a member of the EU in 2007) and the multinational companies. The companies acted on two levels: some of them influenced the CSR reporting practices of the privatised companies (Bogdan et al., 2007), while others implemented the CSR reporting pattern of the group in their subsidiaries (Dumitru et al., 2014). Most of the CSR practices in Romania were imported and are used as impression management techniques rather than to improve the transparency. 2.2 Information needs of the groups of stakeholders Our hypothesis is that each category of stakeholders has its own information needs. As such, we assume that it exerts pressure on the companies to disclose the information it wants which leads to the institutionalization of specific practices. This is why in this section of the paper we present the information needs of specific stakeholders. In respect of providers of financial capital, Epstein and Freedman (1994) find that between 67% and 85% of “individual investors” wanted disclosure on employee relations, ethics, community involvement, product quality and environmental activities. These serve as support for investment decision-making (Solomon & Solomon, 2006). Rockness and Williams (1988) surveyed ethical mutual funds’ directors and found a strong demand for many types of social information. Sustainability information is used by employees (Dawkins & Lewis, 2003) and suppliers (McInnes et al., 2007) to understand the social and environmental policies of the entities. NGOs seek evidence that a company complied with all relevant legislation and required information to assess the performance of a company over time (Kolk, 2003; O’Dwyer & Owen, 2005). They also support the introduction of some standardization of the reporting process in order to enhance comparability, since different reporting formats are currently used to report to different target groups. Empirical evidence shows a widespread demand among non-managerial stakeholders for mandated, externally verified sustainability reporting (O’Dwyer et al., 2005). However, any information which can be used by external stakeholders to control management has an incentive effect and alters management’s internal decision-making (Eierle & Schultze, 2013). Management may decide to disclose certain information based on the reaction expected from the stakeholders, in search of legitimacy. Voluntary sustainability reporting is perceived as a transitional stage and dependent on the convergence of factors that support its development such as regulation, increased education and communication (Joseph, 2012). Yet, “change may require Accounting and Management Information Systems 310 Vol. 15, No. 2 harnessing external factors in addition to the internal voluntarism to bring about the necessary cohesion to bear on the implementation of sustainability” (Joseph, 2012). In a classification of stakeholders towards which the companies are accountable, Cormier et al. (2004) suggests that there are three levels. On the first level are situated the shareholders and debtors; they are asking from the management for relevant information which minimizes the cost of capital. On the second level are placed the “social” stakeholders: the employees, suppliers, customers, governments and the public; the CSR reporting addresses first their information needs in the entities’ search for legitimacy. The quality of the disclosures is put, however, by Cormier et al. (2005) under the sign of the institutional theory. For qualitative reporting entities tend to imitate others in the same domain or country, what they did in the past and observe the laws and regulations in force. Thus, on the third level are the other companies and the State. This study approaches the role of stakeholders from a country-level perspective. By examining the main stakeholder groups in the Romanian setting, we contribute to the existing literature on stakeholder influence on CSR practices. 3. The institutional theory Institutionalization is the process whereby practices are developed and learned (Dillard et al., 2004). It refers to a shared set of meanings, beliefs, practices and values which, combined, tend towards the relative homogenisation of organisations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). Organizations and their strategies are substantially influenced by the broader institutional settings in which they operate, and shaped by the institutional legacies that reflect the culture, history, and policy of the particular country or region (Doh, 2006). The tools with which the institutional theory operates are the rules, habits, routines, norms and culture. CSR studies in which the institutional theory was used suggest that CSR reporting is practiced either by passive firms pressured by stakeholders, or because it improves profitability. There are many examples of the institutionalization of CSR as a society-wide concept. For instance, accidents and incidents, fraud, scandals and even problems with the existing global economic system have all been linked back to the wider responsibilities of business to society. CSR has become a highly critical function for managing stakeholder relations, which has led to its institutionalization (Bartlett et al., 2007). Consequences of institutionalization of CSR can be: the development of trained professionals (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), changes in public opinion (e.g. actions on climate change), shareholder investment activities (e.g. Consolandi et al., 2009; Eccles & Krzus, 2010), modification of market tools such as the annual reports (e.g. Owen & O’Dwyer, 2008) and issuing laws or standards. For instance, some countries are The role of the stakeholders in the institutionalization of the CSR reporting in Romania Vol. 15, No. 2 311 issuing relevant legislation, the EU is adopting new directives, many entities, such as the International Integrated Reporting Council, the Global Reporting Initiative or the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board are issuing standards. Institutional theory has been adopted in the accounting literature to explain accounting choices, the change process or the inter-play between practices, routines, institutions, power and politics (Burns, 2000; Dillard et al., 2004; Mir & Rahaman, 2005). Therefore, the institutional theory represents a valuable framework to explain the country-specific factors affecting CSR reporting implementation in Romania. Differences in the CSR behaviour from one country to another might be explained by the specific political, cultural and other institutions (Maignan & Ralston, 2002). Yet, the most obvious explanation of CSR is the state’s regulatory sanctions (Campbell, 2007). The process by which an organization adopts an institutional practice is called isomorphism. DiMaggio & Powell (1983) (as used by Dillard et al., 2004; Mir & Rahaman, 2005; Tsamenyi et al., 2006) identify three types of isomorphism: coercive, normative and mimetic. The coercive isomorphism represents the pressures imposed by the government, the capital markets or the wider society. It determines the companies to adopt the regulations. For instance, in terms of CSR reporting in Romania, the companies listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange have to adopt the rules enacted by Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF). The coercive forces have been the main drivers for the environmental management practices, as a part of CSR (Jennings & Zandbergen, 1995). The coercive isomorphism was documented in the literature on two levels: the country and the activity domain. The national regulatory and cultural aspects determine different costs and potential benefits of the CSR practices from one country to another (Delmas, 2002). Different coercive forces exerted on the companies in different domains make them adopt different CSR practices (Milstein et al., 2002). The normative isomorphism represents the pressures exercised by the profession and non-regulatory organizations. For instance, regarding the CSR reporting, the norm for most of the companies is represented by the GRI guidelines. The mimetic isomorphism is the tendency of the companies to imitate the best practices. It helps entities to gain legitimacy. For instance, regarding the CSR reporting, one can notice that companies acting in the same domain tend to present comparable CSR reports. All three types of isomorphism are analysed in this study, based on the information collected for different stakeholder groups in a Romanian setting. The institutionalisation of CSR practices mainly refers to their assimilation within the companies’ reporting system. Therefore, special attention will be given to the Accounting and Management Information Systems 318 Vol. 15, No. 2 ASF issued Rule no. 39/2015 applicable to entities in the financial investments and instruments sector which use the IFRS. Public authorities are responsible for creating and preserving an environment that encourages the application of the CSR concept, given their relevance to the sustainable economic development of the society. The harmonization of the Romanian legislative framework was initiated at the moment of the EU adhesion; though it hasn’t been yet completed, remarkable progress can be observed, with regard to the regulation of environment protection, employee health and safety, skills development, social inclusion and fight against the corruption. 5.2 Companies CSR reporting in Romania is not mandatory for all the companies. As CSR reporting stakeholders, listed companies disclose CSR information as required by national regulations. Companies might also be interested in disclosing this type of information in order to ensure their legitimacy. We surveyed the management commentaries of the 20 companies included in the sample in terms of form, referential and content. The main content elements from the management commentary required by the CNVM regulations, which can be associated with CSR reporting are: risks (non-financial), number of trade union members, professional training, relationships between management and employees, litigations with employees, environmental impacts and environmental litigations. Therefore, we searched for these items in the management commentaries, to assess conformity with national regulations. We also searched for additional information in the reports, related to non-financial risks and social or environmental issues not covered by the national legislation to assess to what extent the companies manifest initiative by voluntarily including information in their management commentary. The results of our observations are synthesized in Table 1. Table 1. Number of companies who disclose CSR-related information Surveyed reporting aspect – extracted from national regulations No. of companies complying with CNVM regulation No. of companies making additional voluntary disclosures Report form (template) 13 7 Reporting standard for CSR information 20 0 Risks (financial) 20 10 Environment (impacts, litigations) 20 11 Employees and social (relationships, litigations, training, number of trade union members) 20 14 The role of the stakeholders in the institutionalization of the CSR reporting in Romania Vol. 15, No. 2 319 The form in which information was presented indicates that most companies (13 out of 20) used the content of the CNVM regulation as a template for their own management commentary. Seven companies integrated the information that answered the CNVM regulation into their annual reports. None of the companies indicated a CSR reporting standard as being used in their (CSR section of the) reports. However, in terms of content, not all entities chose to disclose additional information. Out of the 20 companies included in the sample, 10 provided information about the non-financial risks, 11 provided additional information about the environment and 14 provided additional information about the employees and community. We subsequently applied an evaluation grid to the information in the management commentary, which consisted of assigning scores of 0, for the absence from, or 1, for the presence in these reports of information required by the Directive ED 2014/95/EU. The studied items covered the business model and risks, environmental matters, social and employee-related matters and ethical issues. We correlated these items with the CNVM regulations, to make a more detailed determination of the reporting patterns which can be attributed to voluntary CSR practices, as opposed to those associated with the national legislation. The evaluation grid and correspondence between the CNVM and Directive reporting items is presented in Table 2, along with an average score for each reporting item based on the number of companies in the sample which report the item (Average score = Number of entities reporting the item/20). An average score of 1 indicates that all companies report a certain item, while a score of 0.3, for example, indicates that only 30% of companies report the item. Table 2. European Directive and CNVM Regulation Directive ED 2014/95/EU CNVM Regulation Reporting items Average score Reporting items Average score Business model, policies, risks related to CSR issues Business model 1.00 Business model 1.00 Policies 0.70 Risk management policies 0.85 Principal risks (social and environmental) 0.50 Risks (financial nature) 0.95 Non-financial KPIs 0.45 Environmental matters Impacts on the environment 1.00 Environmental impacts Environmental litigations 1.00 0.90 Impacts on health and safety 0.35 Use of renewable energy 0.10 Use of non-renewable energy 0.25 GHG emissions 0.40 Accounting and Management Information Systems 320 Vol. 15, No. 2 Directive ED 2014/95/EU CNVM Regulation Reporting items Average score Reporting items Average score Water 0.60 Air pollution 0.45 Social and employee related matters Actions taken to ensure gender equality 0.35 Implementation of fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organisation 0.10 Working conditions (including professional training and development) 0.90 Professional training (structure of employees) 0.85 Respect for the right of workers to be informed and consulted 1.00 Relationships between management and employees Litigations with employees 1.00 0.85 Respect for trade union rights 0.75 Number of trade union members 0.80 Health and safety at work 0.75 The dialogue with local communities 0.65 Actions taken to ensure the protection and the development of the local communities 0.60 Ethical matters Prevention of human rights abuses, instruments to fight corruption and bribery 0.35 As it can be noticed in Table 2, companies generally observe the CNVM regulations, as all the scores associated with reporting items extracted from the national regulations are above 0.8. Out of the 11 reporting items required by the Directive which were assigned scores higher than 0.50 (meaning that more than 50% of companies report on the related issue), seven items are directly linked with reporting provisions from the national legislation. Two other items (water, health and safety at work) are associated in the companies’ presentations with other specific legislative requirements, by frequent and explicit references to legal provisions which address the matter. Only nine companies provided information in the form of non-financial KPIs. The items which are not covered in the national reporting were less frequently disclosed in the reports prepared by the companies included in the sample. Only two of the higher scores were assigned to reporting items that are usually The role of the stakeholders in the institutionalization of the CSR reporting in Romania Vol. 15, No. 2 321 associated with voluntary CSR reporting: dialogue with local communities (0.65) and actions taken to ensure the protection and the development of the local communities (0.50). The scores for non-financial KPIs and air pollution were 0.45, and the score for GHC emissions was 0.40, meaning that more than 40% of companies disclosed information related to these matters. The lowest scores were assigned to the items which were not covered in the national reporting legislation: impacts on health and safety (0.35), use of renewable energy (0.10), use of nonrenewable energy (0.25), actions taken to ensure gender equality (0.35) and prevention of human rights abuses, instruments to fight corruption and bribery (0.35). Their disclosure may be related with the companies’ search for legitimacy or with the firms’ characteristics. Given the above considerations, it can be inferred that the reporting practices of Romanian companies included in the sample are shaped mainly by the national legislation, but they also display evidence of significant influences from the voluntary CSR reporting system. However, the fact that only two of the analysed reporting items (not covered by national legislation) were assimilated into the reporting practices of more than half of the companies in the sample suggests that, in Romania, voluntary CSR reporting is still in its initial stages of development. Therefore, coercive isomorphism was positively identified as the main mechanism behind the adoption of CSR practices in Romania. This leads us to the idea that the Romanian companies are not active stakeholders in the implementation of the CSR reporting practices. In order to determine to what degree the adoption of CSR practices can be attributed to mimetic isomorphism, a more in-depth analysis was performed, by correlating the score assigned to each company with the information about the sector in which each company activates. Out of the 20 reporting items from the European Directive we studied, nine can be considered as legislation-driven (seven by the CNVM regulation and two by other specific legislation regarding water and health & safety at work). 11 items are not covered by the legislation and therefore reporting on these issues can be attributed to other influences. Three scores can be determined for each company: a global score, a score for legislation-driven disclosures, and a score for voluntary disclosures, by adding up the 0/1 values assigned to each reporting item. We were able to make the following observations, based on the information in Table 3. Based on the scoring system presented above, we noticed that the best reporters in terms of voluntary items activate in three industries: oil and gas (three companies, both in production and distribution), electricity (two companies), and automobiles and parts (one company). Also, it can be noticed that the oil and gas and electricity industries are the best reporters (globally and also in terms of voluntary information), and also the best represented two industries in the sample. Accounting and Management Information Systems 322 Vol. 15, No. 2 Table 3. Disclosures: legislation-driven and voluntary Companies Sector Disclosure score Global Legislationdriven Voluntary OMV Oil and gas producers 20 9 11 TRANSLECTRICA Electricity 18 9 9 NUCLEARELECTRICA Electricity 16 9 7 COMPA Automobiles & Parts 15 9 6 CONPET Oil Equipment. Services & Distribution 14 7 7 ROMGAZ Oil and gas producers 14 7 7 ANTIBIOTICE Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology 13 8 5 TRANSGAZ Oil Equipment. Services & Distribution 13 9 4 ZENTIVA Pharmaceuticals & biotechnology 11 8 3 ROMCARBON General industrials 11 6 5 VRANCART Forestry & Paper 11 8 3 ELECTRICA Electricity 11 8 3 ARTEGO Construction & Materials 11 7 4 AEROSTAR Aerospace & Defence 10 8 2 OIL TERMINAL Oil Equipment. Services & Distribution 9 8 1 ELECTROARGES Electronic & electrical equipment 8 6 2 ROPHARMA Food & Drug Retailers 6 4 2 ELECTROMAGNETICA Electronic & electrical equipment 6 6 0 ALTUR Automobiles & Parts 5 5 0 ALBALACT Food producers 3 3 0 This suggests a manifestation of mimetic isomorphism. However, the small size of the sample does not yet allow for our conclusions to be generalized. We triangulated the data extracted from the sample with information from the GRI database and from specialized CSR websites in Romania. In this case, the companies under consideration are not required by the legislation to provide CSR information. Therefore, they illustrate the voluntary CSR-oriented behaviour and reporting practices in Romania, meaning they are active stakeholders who engage in proactive actions. The role of the stakeholders in the institutionalization of the CSR reporting in Romania Vol. 15, No. 2 323 The information in the GRI database was consulted for the years 2014 and 2015. We found that less than 1% of the reports in the GRI database originated from Romanian companies (7 in 2014 and 6 in 2015), and none of them from companies in our sample. The information is synthesized in Table 4. Table 4. Romanian corporate reports in the GRI database 2014 2015 No. of reports in GRI database 5,362 5,006 No. of reports from Romanian companies 7 (0.13%) 6 (0.12%) From Table 4 it can be noticed that the companies have different profiles from those included in the sample described above, in terms of sector and organization type. Most Romanian GRI reporters are multinational companies, visible on the consumer market. Their presence in the GRI database can be attributed to the influence of group-level reporting practices (which can be a form of mimetic isomorphism) and marketing strategy. With the exception of two reporters (Heineken and Raiffeisen Bank), companies did not submit consecutive reports to the GRI database. The GRI reporters in Romania are also present on the csrmedia.ro portal (eight companies out of 11). Of the 20 companies in the initial sample of 20 companies, only two (OMV and Romgaz) were mentioned on csrmedia.ro, OMV being included in the list of CSR Leaders. There is an apparent lack of correlation between the sample of companies which are required by the Romanian legislation to make CSR-related disclosures in their management commentary and the companies which are actively engaging in CSR initiatives (reporting and otherwise). This leads to the conclusion that the CSRrelated legislative requirements did not target the most active stakeholders in the business environment, and also that a significant amount of current CSR-related practices rely on voluntary mechanisms. Therefore, evidence was found to support the manifestation of coercive isomorphism. However, it can be considered that this mechanism does not cover all CSR-aware companies, since the most active companies in terms of CSR-behaviour and marketing communications are not incentivized or required to report on the matter. 5.3 Academic environment The quality and development of CSR reporting widely depends on the specific knowledge of its preparers. The development of trained professionals is regarded as a consequence of institutionalization of CSR practices (Albu et al., 2011a). Hence, what we investigate next is the extent to which the academic education in Romania provides students with the skills and knowledge required for CSR reporting. We firstly determined whether the academic curriculum includes CSR-related topics and then we investigated at what stage in their education process are the students exposed to CSR related information. Accounting and Management Information Systems 324 Vol. 15, No. 2 We analysed the most recent curricula and syllabi available on the websites of all bachelor and master programs run by the economics and business faculties of the largest four university centres from Romania: Bucharest, Iași, Cluj and Timișoara. The investigation included information from the bachelor programs with a duration of three years (46 programs) and master programs with a duration of two years (179 programs), starting in the 2014 and 2015 academic years. Our primary goal was to take stock of all disciplines that provide specific knowledge and skills required by the CSR communication. We then selected those relevant disciplines that were most frequently included in the curriculums and investigated the delivered content, based on their syllabus, in order to gain an overview of the information provided to the students. The knowledge provided by the disciplines included in the curriculum was considered to be CSR-relevant if it was associated to the social or the environmental pillar of sustainability, or if it approached the sustainability issue in an integrated manner. We considered being relevant for the CSR reporting those disciplines which:  build the basic understanding of sustainability issues; or  provide knowledge with regard to social responsibility/sustainability core disciplines, or  develop skills of responsible corporate communication; or  support a responsible corporate behaviour. Based on this rationale, we associated the relevant disciplines to several general topics, like: people (as the social pillar), planet (as the environmental pillar), ethics, sustainable development/CSR, communication, knowledge management. Subsequent to their identification, we investigated the distribution of the relevant disciplines on the duration of the bachelor and master programs. Our goal was to determine the prerequisites in terms of curriculum and skills, as established by the architects of the respective curricula. Thirdly, we followed the facultative, optional (elective) or mandatory character of the considered disciplines, gaining an overview on the perceived imperativeness of these disciplines in the students’ education. In light of the above, we remark that the educational offer of the four considered universities includes not only single CSR-relevant disciplines, but also certain CSR-relevant bachelor and master programs (e.g. the bachelor study program Agrifood and environmental economics, or the master study programs Ecological economics, Environmental economics, Sustainable regional development, Human resources management). As a general observation, we mention the fact that the social responsibility concept is approached in the bachelor and master curricula either as a stand-alone item, or associated to the ethics concept. We identified 298 CSR-related schedule entries, out of which 120 were found in the bachelor and 178 in the master curriculum, respectively. By CSR-related schedule entry we understand the inclusion of a CSR related discipline (as above described) in the The role of the stakeholders in the institutionalization of the CSR reporting in Romania Vol. 15, No. 2 325 schedule of a study program. Therefore, the academic environment contributes to the institutionalization of CSR practices in a significant manner, which is an important prerequisite for the institutionalization of CSR practices. However, the results indicate that students are less exposed to CSR-related information as they progress toward their status as accounting professionals. Out of the total number of 46 surveyed bachelor study programs, we found 22 programs whose curriculum included at least one CSR relevant discipline, and a total number of distinct CSR relevant disciplines of 63. Among these, the best represented topic was People, as presented in Table 5. Table 5. CSR-related topics in bachelor programs Topic No. of disciplines Selection of disciplines People 29 Human resources management, Motivational management, Social economics, Social entrepreneurship, Labour law, Employee rights, Sociology Environment 16 Environmental economics, Environmental policy, Environmental communication, Environmental audit, Eco-marketing, Environmental information management, Waste management Ethics 7 Business ethics, Professional deontology, Accounting deontology, Ethics in marketing Communication 6 Communication deontology, Corporate communication, Communication strategies and techniques in economics Sustainable development 5 Integrated sustainable development, Sustainable development strategies, Sustainable development and economic dynamics Out of the total number of 120 schedule entries for the bachelor programs, 58.33% have an optional character, while the remaining 41.67% are mandatory. CSR-relevant disciplines are most often scheduled in the last study year (56.66%), followed by the second year, with 37.50%. The first study year takes over merely 5.84% of the CSR relevant schedule entries, which refer mainly to the discipline Business ethics. The most frequently scheduled CSR-relevant disciplines for bachelor programs are Business ethics (included in the curriculum of 24 study programs, from 3 university centres), Environmental economics (8 programs, from 2 universities), Human resources management (12 programs, from all 4 universities) and Sociology (5 study programs, from 2 universities). Based on the syllabus analysis, we find that Business ethics, as one of the main CSR-related disciplines in the bachelor curriculum is concerned with individual and corporate morality, the explanation and illustration of the main concepts and Accounting and Management Information Systems 326 Vol. 15, No. 2 theories with regard to the ethics in business and, more specific, with the ethical aspects of the working relations (discrimination, harassment, good practices), as well as with issues like corruption and CSR. Environmental economics is focused on concepts like environmental assessment, ecological equilibrium, global environmental state, environmental conscience, eco-marketing, environmental accounting, environmental performance indicators or environmental externalities. Human resources management, as a bachelor discipline, provides information on basic labour issues, like HR recruitment, development, rewarding, motivation, while Sociology approaches the individual in the wider context of the social organization. Regarding the master programs, we identified 69 distinct programs with at least one CSR-relevant disciplines included in the curriculum, out of the total number of 179 surveyed programs. The number of different disciplines supporting the preparation of the CSR report is 121, whereas these can be found also within highly technical study programs, like Accounting expertise and auditing, or Taxation. The information about the disciplines included in the master programs curricula is presented in Table 6. Table 6. CSR-related topics in master programs Topic No. of disciplines Selection of disciplines People 42 Human resources management and coaching, Organizational and consumer behaviour, Career management, Labour psychology, Talent management, Conflict management and social dialogue Environment 38 Natural capital valuation, Ecological impact valuation, Ecological risk management, Renewable energy and climate change, Social responsibility and environmental reporting, Environmental pollution prevention, Environmental law Ethics 17 Governance, risk and ethics, Business ethics and social responsibility, Culture, ethics and social responsibility, Professional ethics and deontology CSR/ Sustainable development 15 Sustainable development and corporate social responsibility, Financial reporting, globalization and sustainable development, Sustainable economic growth, Corporate strategy and social responsibility, Sustainable development and economic progress Communication 6 Integrated reporting, Organizational communication, Organizational behaviour and communication, Critical reading of corporate discourse Knowledge management 3 Knowledge management, Knowledge management in organizations, Knowledge and information management The role of the stakeholders in the institutionalization of the CSR reporting in Romania Vol. 15, No. 2 327 It was further noticed that most CSR relevant disciplines from the curriculum of the master programs (nearly 80%) have a mandatory character. The distribution on study years is balanced: 55.61% in the first year of studies, and 44.39% in the second year. We noticed a general higher diversity of CSR-related disciplines in master programs as compared to bachelor programs, which means that the same discipline is not encountered in the curriculum of different master programs, as often as in the case of bachelor programs. This is justified by the master programs’ higher degree of specialization. However, remarkably high frequencies are associated to Business ethics (included in the curriculum of 7 master study programs, at 2 university centres), Business ethics and social responsibility (6 programs, at 2 universities), Organizational behaviour (8 programs, at 3 universities) and Organizational communication (5 programs, however at the same university). According to its syllabus, Business ethics and social responsibility aims to a pluralistic vision of work, life and honourable business, encouraging students to show an ethical behaviour in business. The discipline explains concepts like CSR and business ethics, shows the role of the management in integrating CSR into the organization, debates the CSR impact on the financial and social performance of the organization and presents the main standards on the CSR definition, implementation and assessment. Organizational behaviour focuses on attitudes and behaviours of individuals and groups in organizations, oriented to attaining a successful economic activity in a balanced organizational climate and therefore debates issues like work satisfaction, leadership or stress management. Specifically related to accounting programs, the only mandatory CSR-relevant disciplines included in the curriculum at bachelor level are Business ethics and Accounting deontology. Students can however choose to also study HR Management, Total quality management (with the variant Quality processes management), Sociology (with the variant Economic sociology), or Accounting in agriculture and environmental protection. At master level, the mandatory schedule entries are prevailing (i.e. Integrated reporting). Most disciplines are associated with Ethics, such as Accounting doctrine and professional deontology, Deontology and social responsibility, or Governance, risks and ethics. The environmental pillar is represented by the Environmental accounting and Environmental accounting and auditing, while the social pillar is approached within Strategic human resources management, or Business psychology and organizational behaviour We notice that university curricula provide students with information which can be later employed in CSR reporting. The surveyed programs deliver knowledge with regard to social responsibility/sustainability core disciplines, develop skills of responsible corporate communication, or support a responsible corporate behaviour. The amount of information delivered to students differs based on the Accounting and Management Information Systems 334 Vol. 15, No. 2 We also noticed a general lack of focus in the NGOs segment. In Romania, a large number of NGOs define CSR or sustainability as one of their core concerns. However, the amount of information available online does not reflect the same reality. While there are some recognized NGOs who engage in promoting the concept via their websites and initiatives, their number is significantly lower than the number of NGOs who declared CSR as a core concern upon their establishment. Overall, in terms of institutionalization, our findings indicate that, in Romania, CSR behaviour, CSR communication and CSR reporting were not assimilated in the same manner into corporate practice and that CSR-related regulations do not necessarily target CSR-aware companies. Moreover, while most stakeholders make significant contributions to the institutionalization of CSR-related practices, there are still needed efforts in terms of coordinating their efforts, as well as a more active involvement from the part of the accounting and audit professional organizations. References Albu, C.N., Albu, N., Fekete Pali-Pista, S. & Cuzdriorean Vladu, D. (2011b) “The power and the glory of Big 4: a research note on independence and competence in the context of IFRS implementation”, Accounting and Management Information Systems, vol. 10, no. 1: 43-54 Albu, N., Albu, C.N., Gîrbină, M.M. & Sandu, M.I. (2011a) “The implications of corporate social responsibility on the accounting profession: the case of Romania”, Amfiteatru Economic, vol. XIII, no. 29: 221-234 Anca, C., Aston, J., Stanciu, E. & Rusu, D. (2011) “Responsibilitate Socială (Corporativă) în România. Analiză situaţională şi recenzie a practicilor actuale. Focalizare asupra întreprinderilor mici şi mijlocii” [Corporate Social Responsibility in Romania. An analysis of current practices. A focus on the small and medium-sized entities], November 2011 Apostol, O.M. (2015) “A project for Romania? The role of the civil society’s counteraccounts in facilitating democratic change in society”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 28, no. 2: 210-241 Avetisyan, E. & Ferrary, M. (2013) “Dynamics of stakeholders’ implications in the institutionalization of the CSR field in France and in the United States”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 115, no. 1: 115-133 Bartlett, J., Tywoniak, S. & Hatcher, C. (2007) “Public relations professional practice and the institutionalization of CSR”, Journal of Communication Management, vol. 11, no. 4: 281-299 The role of the stakeholders in the institutionalization of the CSR reporting in Romania Vol. 15, No. 2 335 Berger, P.G. (2011) “Challenges and opportunities in disclosure research – A discussion of ‘the financial reporting environment: Review of the recent literature’”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 51: 204-218 Berman, S.L., Wicks, A.C., Kotha, S. & Jones, T.M. (1999) “Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 42, no. 5: 488-506 Beyer, A., Cohen, D.A., Lys, T.Z. & Walther B.R. (2010) “The financial reporting environment: Review of the recent literature”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 50: 296-343 Bogdan, A., Ioan, I. & Sandu, R. (2007) “Les rapports narratifs du management, sont ils équilibrés ? Etude de cas sur la reconnaissance du capital intellectuel dans les rapports annuels”, Accounting and Management Information Systems, vol. 20: 98-111 Bowen, R.M., Johnson, M.F., Shevlin, T. & Shores, D. (1992) “Determinants of the timing of quarterly earnings announcements”, Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, vol. 7, no. 4: 395-422 Budeanu, A. & Thidell, A. (2006) “Voluntary environmental reporting in Romania”, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, vol. 5, no. 3, 487-508 Burns, J. (2000) “The dynamics of accounting change inter-play between new practices, routines, institutions, power and politics”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 13, no. 5: 566-596 Campbell, J. (2007) “Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 32: 946-967 Clarkson, M.B.E. (1998) “A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 2: 92-117 CNVM (2006) Regulation no. 1/2006 regarding the issuers and the transactions with securities [Regulamentul nr. 1/2006 privind emitenții și operațiunile cu valori mobiliare], available on-line at: http://www.asfromania.ro/files/capital/ regulamente/2006/Regulamentul-01-2006.pdf, [Accessed March 25, 2016] Consolandi, C., Jaiswal-Dale, A., Poggiani, E. & Vercelli, A. (2009) “Global standards and ethical stock indexes: the case of the Dow Jones Sustainability Stoxx index”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 87: 185-197 Cormier, D., Gordon, I.M. & Magnan, M. (2004) “Corporate environmental disclosure: contrasting management’s perceptions with reality”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 49, no. 2: 143-165 Cormier, D., Magnan, M. & Van Velthoven, B. (2005) “Environmental disclosure quality in large German companies: Economic incentives, public pressures or institutional conditions?”, European Accounting Review, vol. 14, no. 1: 3-39 Accounting and Management Information Systems 336 Vol. 15, No. 2 Darnall, N., Seol, I. & Sarkis, J. (2009) “Perceived stakeholder influences and organizations’ use of environmental audits”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 34, no. 2: 170-187 Daub, C.-H. (2007) “Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: an alternative methodological approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 15: 75-85 Dawkins, J. & Lewis, S. (2003) “CSR in stakeholder expectations: and their implication for company strategy”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 44, no. 2-3: 185-193 Deegan, C. (2004) “Environmental disclosures and share prices – a discussion about efforts to study this relationship”, Accounting Forum, vol. 28, no. 1: 87-97 Delmas, M. & Toffel, M.W. (2004) “Stakeholder and environmental management practices: an institutional framework”, Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 13: 209-222 Delmas, M. (2002) “The diffusion of environmental management standards in Europe and the United States: an institutional perspective”, Policy Sciences, vol. 35: 91-119 Dillard, J.F., Rigsby, J.T. & Goodman, C. (2004) “The making and remaking of organization context. Duality and the institutionalization process”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 17, no. 4: 506-542 DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. (1983) “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, vol. 48, no. 2: 147-60. DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. (1991) “Introduction”. In Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds), New Institutionalism and Organizational Analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press Doh, J.P. & Guay, T.R. (2006) “Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: an institutional-stakeholder perspective”, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 43, no. 1: 22-2380. EC (2014) “Corporate Social Responsibility: National Public Policies in the European Union - Compendium 2014”, available on-line at: ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=7726 [Accessed March 25, 2016] EC (2006) “Implementing the Partnership for Growth and Jobs: Making Europe a Pole of Excellence on Corporate Social Responsibility”, available on-line at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52006 DC0136&from=EN [Accessed March 25, 2016] Eccles, R. & Krzus, M. (2010) “One Report: Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable Strategy”, John Wiley & Sons. Eierle, B. & Schultze, W. (2013) “The role of management as a user of accounting information: implications for standard setting”, Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, vol. 12, no. 2: 155-189 Einhorn, E. (2007) “Voluntary disclosure under uncertainty about the reporting objective”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 43: 245-274 The role of the stakeholders in the institutionalization of the CSR reporting in Romania Vol. 15, No. 2 337 EP (2007) “Corporate social responsibility: a new partnership”, available on-line at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+IMPRESS+20070309IPR03999+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN [Accessed March 25, 2016] Epstein, M. J. & Freedman, M. (1994) “Social disclosure and the individual investor”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 7, no. 4: 94-109 EU (European Union) (2014) “Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups”. available on-line at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2014:330:FULL&from=EN [Accessed March 25, 2016] Farneti, F. & Guthrie J. (2009) “Sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organisations: Why they report”, Accounting Forum, vol. 33: 89-98 Freedman, M. & Stagliano, A.J. (1992) “European unification, accounting harmonization and social disclosures”, International Journal of Accounting, vol. 27, no. 2: 112-122 Freeman, E. R., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L. & de Colle, S. (2010) Stakeholder Theory. The State of the Art, New York: Cambridge University Press Guidry R.P. & Patten D.M. (2012) “Voluntary disclosure theory and financial control variables: An assessment of recent environmental disclosure research”, Accounting Forum, vol. 36: 81-90 Gurvitsh N. & Sidorova I. (2012) “Survey of sustainability reporting integrated into annual reports of Estonian companies for the years 2007-2010: based on companies listed on Tallinn Stock Exchange as of October 2011”, Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 2: 26-34 Habek, P. & Wolniak, R. (2013) “European Union regulatory requirements relating to sustainability reporting. The case of Sweden”, Scientific Journals, vol. 34, no. 106: 40-47 Heitzman, S., Wasley, C. & Zimmerman, J. (2010) “The joint effects of materiality thresholds and voluntary disclosure incentives on firms’ disclosure decisions”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 49: 109-132 Holton, I., Glas, J. & Price A.D.F (2010) “Managing for sustainability: findings from four company case studies in the UK precast concrete industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 18: 152-160 Husted, B.V. & Allen, D.B. (2007) “Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Value Creation among Large Firms. Lessons from the Spanish Experience”, Long Range Planning, vol. 40: 594-610 Ienciu, A., Muller, V. & Matiș, D. (2011) “Environmental reporting within the Romanian companies”, International Journal of Energy and Environment, vol. 1, no. 5: 123-131 Accounting and Management Information Systems 338 Vol. 15, No. 2 IIRC, 2013. The International IR Framework, IIRC, London. Available on-line at: <http://www.theiirc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/13-12-08-THEINTERNATIONAL-IR-FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf> [Accesed March 24, 2015]. Jennings P.D. & Zandbergen P.A. (1995) “Ecologically sustainable organizations: an institutional approach”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 20: 1015-1052 Joseph, G. (2012) “Ambiguous but tethered: An accounting basis for sustainability reporting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 23: 93-106 Kolk A. (2003) “Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250”, Business Strategy and the Environment vol. 12, no. 5: 279-291 Langberg, N. & Sivaramakrishnan, K. (2008) “Voluntary disclosures and information production by analists”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 46: 78-100 Leitoniene, S., Sapkauskiene, A. & Dagiliene, L. (2015) “Theoretical issues and practical implications of corporate social accounting and reporting in Lithuania”, Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 32, 1713-1723 Leitoniene, S. & Sapkauskiene, A. (2015) “Quality of corporate social responsibility information”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 213: 334-339 Lo, K. (2010) “Materiality and voluntary disclosures”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 49, 133–135 Maignan, I. & Ralston, D.A. (2002) “Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations”, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 33: 497-514 McInnes, B., Beattie, V. & Pierpoint, J. (2007) Communication Between Management and Stakeholders: A Case Study, UK: ICAEW Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B. (1977) “Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 83: 340-363 Milstein, M.B., Hart, S.L. & York, A.S. (2002) “Coercion breeds variation: the differential impact of isomorphic pressures on environmental strategies”, Organizations, Policy and the Natural Environment: Institutional and Strategic Perspectives, Hoffman A.J. & Ventresca M.J. (eds). Stanford University Press: Stanford: 151-172 Mir, M.Z. & Rahaman, A.S. (2005) “The adoption of International Accounting Standards in Bangladesh. An exploration of rationale and process”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 18, no. 6: 816-41 Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. & Wood, D.J. (1998) “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts”, in M. B. E. Clarkson (Ed.), The Corporation and its Stakeholders: Classic and Contemporary Readings (University of Toronto Press, Toronto): 275-303 O’Dwyer, B. & Owen, D.L. (2005) “Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and sustainability reporting: A critical evaluation”, British Accounting Review, vol. 37, no. 2: 205-229 The role of the stakeholders in the institutionalization of the CSR reporting in Romania Vol. 15, No. 2 339 O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J. & Bradley, J. (2005) “Perceptions on the emergence and future development of corporate social disclosure in Ireland: Engaging the voices of nongovernmental organizations”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, vol. 18, no. 1: 14-43 Obrad, C., Petcu, D., Ghergeş, V. & Suciu, S. (2011) “Corporate social responsibility in Romanian companies – between perceptions and reality”, Amfiteatru Economic, vol. XIII, no. 29: 43-55 Ministry of Public Finance (2014) Order of the no. 1802/2014 for the approval of the accounting regulations regarding the individual and consolidated financial statements [“OMFP 1802/2014 pentru aprobarea reglementărilor contabile privind situațiile financiare anuale individuale și situațiile financiare anuale consolidate”], Official Journal no. 963/30.12.2014 Ministry of Public Finance (2012) Order no. 1286/2012 for the approval of the accounting regulations conform with the International Financial Reporting Standards, applicable to the companies whose securities are traded on a regulated market [“OMFP 1286/2012 pentru aprobarea reglementărilor contabile conforme cu Standardele Internaționale de Raportare Financiară, aplicabile societăților comerciale ale căror valori mobiliare sunt admise la tranzacționare pe o piață reglementată”], Official Journal no. 687/04.10.2012 Owen, G. (2013) “Integrated Reporting: A review of developments and their implications for the accounting curriculum”, Accounting Education, vol. 22, no. 4: 340-356 Owen, D. & O’Dwyer, B. (2008) “CSR: The reporting and assurance dimension”, chapter in Crane, A. and Matten, D. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of CSR, Oxford, UK Pollach, I., Johansen, T.S., Nielsen, A.E. & Thomsen, C. (2012) „The integration of CSR into corporate communication in large European companies”, Journal of Communication Management, vol. 16, no. 2: 204-216 Rockness, J. & Williams, P.F. (1988) “A descriptive study of social responsibility mutual funds” Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 13, no. 4: 397-411 Schaltegger, S. & Burrit, R.L. (2010) “Sustainability accounting for companies: Catchphrase or decision support for business leaders?”, Journal of World Business, vol. 45: 375-384 Smith, J.V., Adhikari, A. & Tondkar, R.H. (2005) “Exploring differences in social disclosures internationally: A stakeholder perspective”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, vol. 24, no. 2: 123-151 Solomon, J.F. & Solomon, A. (2006) “Private social, ethical and environmental disclosure”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 19, no. 4: 564-591 Steurer, R. & Konrad, A. (2009) “Business-society relations in Central-Eastern and Western Europe: How those who lead in sustainability reporting bridge the gap in corporate (social) responsibility”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, vol. 2: 23-36 Accounting and Management Information Systems 340 Vol. 15, No. 2 Tsamenyi, M., Cullen, J. & Gonzalez, J.M.G. (2006) “Changes in accounting and financial information system in a Spanish electricity company: a new institutional theory analysis”, Management Accounting Research, vol. 17: 409-32 Velte, P. (2014) “Improving corporate governance quality through modern controlling - integrated reporting in the German two tier system”, Business & Economics Journal, vol. 5, no.1:1 Winston, C.C.K. & Sharp, D. (2005) “Power and international accounting standard setting: Evidence from segment reporting and intangible assets projects”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, vol. 18, no. 1: 74-99