Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 2233-4165(Print)
ISSN : 2233-5382(Online)
Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business Vol.10 No.3 pp.7-16

Determinants of Corporate Anti-Corruption Practice Disclosure: Evidence from Chinese Firms

Hong Yin**,Ruonan Zhang***
* This paper is funded by Philosophy and Social Sciences Research Fund of Jiangsu Province (No. 2018SJA1395) and Talent Introduction Project of Suzhou Vocational University (No.3180138).
** First author, Associate Professor, Department of Accounting, Business School, Suzhou Vocational University, Suzhou, China, Tel: +86-151-8228-1601, E-mail:
*** Corresponding author, Associate, Department of International Trade, Business School, Suzhou Vocational University, Suzhou, China, Tel: +86-158-9557-0299, E-mail:
January 09, 2019. March 01, 2019. March 05, 2019.


Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the determinants of corporate anti-corruption practice disclosure (ACPD) from the perspective of rent-seeking theory.
Research design, data, and methodology - Data are hand-collected from corporate social responsibility reports (CSRR) issued by 724 A-share listed firms in China. This paper provides an empirical analysis of the relationship between ownership structure and corporate ACPD as well as its moderating role in the institutional environment.
Results - Our findings indicate that rent-seeking is a key factor in influencing corporate ACPD. State-owned enterprises disclose significantly more anti-corruption information than private ones in order to achieve personal promotion of top executives. Monopoly enterprises reported significantly less anti-corruption information than enterprises in competitive industries due to their rent-seeking behavior. The reduction of government intervention and improvement of legal environment are helpful to curb corporate rent-seeking activities and enhance the level of corporate ACPD.
Conclusions - Rent-seeking is an important factor in explaining corporate voluntary disclosure in emerging countries. Institutional environment also plays a moderating role in the relationship between ownership structure and corporate voluntary disclosure. Our results are of interest to policy makers, regulators and market participants that are interested in corporate voluntary disclosure and corruption prevention.

JEL Classifications: G38, M14, M41.





    1. Aerts, W., Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2006). Intra-industry Imitation in Corporate Environmental Reporting: An International Perspective. Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, 25(3), 299-331.
    2. Campbell, D., Craven, B., & Shrives, P. (2003). Voluntary Social Reporting in Three FTSE Sectors: A Comment on Perception and Legitimacy. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 16, 558-581.
    3. Carpenter, V. L., & Feroz, E. H. (2001). Institutional Theory and Accounting Rule Choice: An Analysis of Four Us State Governments' Decisions to Adopt Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Accounting Organizations & Society, 26(7), 565-596.
    4. Clarke, J., & Gibson-Sweet, M. (2010). The use of corporate social disclosures in the management of reputation and legitimacy: A cross sectoral analysis of UK Top 100 Companies. Business Ethics A European Review, 8(1), 5-13.
    5. Cormier, D., & Gordon, I. (2001). An Examination of Social and Environmental Reporting Strategies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14, 587- 616.
    6. Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Voght, P. (2000). Firms’ Disclosure Reactions to Major social Incidents: Australian Evidence. Accounting Forum, 4(1), 101-130.
    7. Dissanayake, T., Islam, M. A., & Dellaportas, S. (2011). Corporate Disclosure on Combatting Bribery: a Study of Two Global Companies in the Telecommunication Industry[A]. The 10th Australasian Conference on Social and Environmental Accounting Research (CSEAR)[C], 2011.
    8. Duff, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility reporting in professional accounting firms. British Accounting Review, 48(1), 74-86.
    9. Faccio, M.(2006). Politically Connected Firms. The American Economic Review,96(1), 369-86.
    10. Faccio, M.,Masulis, R. W., & Mc Connell, J. (2006). Political Connections and Corporate Bailouts. The Journal of Finance, 61(6), 2597-635.
    11. Francis, J. & Olsson, N. P. (2008). Voluntar Disclosure, Earnings Quality, and Cost of Capital. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(1), 53-99.
    12. Godfrey, P. C. (2005). Philanthropy and Shareholder Wealth: The Relationship Between Corporate: A Risk Management Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777-798.
    13. Gordon, T. (1967). The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopoly and Theft. Economic Inquiry, 3(5), 224-232.
    14. Gunawan, J. (2007). Corporate Social Disclosures by Indonesian Listed Companies: A Pilot Study. Social Responsibility Journal, 3(3), 26-34.
    15. Guthrie J., & Parker L D. (1990). Corporate Social Disclosure practice: A comparative international analysis. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3(2), 159-176.
    16. Heidenheimer, A. J. (2008). The Topography of Corruption: Explorations in a Comparative Perspective. International Social Science Journal, 48(149), 337-347.
    17. Huang, Q. (2006). New Characteristics of Management Corruption and New Stage of State-owned Enterprise Reform. China's Industrial Economy, (11), 52-59.
    18. Islam M. A., & Deegan, C. (2010). Media Pressures and Corporate Disclosure of Social Responsibility Performance Information: A Study of Two Global Clothing and Sports Retail Companies. Accounting and Business Research, 40(2), 131-148.
    19. Jin A, & Zhao L. (2010). On the Impact of Chinese Traditional Interpersonal Relations on Corruption. Journal of Northeast Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), (2), 5-9.
    20. Joseph C., Gunawan J., Sawani Y., Rahmat M., Noyem J.A., & Darus F. (2016). A Comparative Study of Anti-Corruption Practice Disclosure among Malaysian and Indonesian Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Best Practice Companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, (112), 2896 -2906.
    21. Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational Legitimacy under Conditions of Complexity: The Case of the Multinational Enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 64-81.
    22. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an Organizational Practice by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations: Institutional and Relational Effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215-233.
    23. Kothari, S. P., Li, X., & Short, J. E. (2009). The Effect of Disclosures by Management, Analysts, and Business Press on Cost of Capital, Return Volatility, and Analyst Forecasts: A Study Using Content Analysis. The Accounting Review, 84(5), 1639-1670.
    24. Li, W. (2012). Ownership Types, Political Rent-seeking and Corporate Social Responsibility Report: An Analytical Framework. Accounting Research, (1), 81-88.
    25. Liao, G. M., & Shen, H. (2014). Policy Burden of State-owned Enterprises: Motivation, Consequences and Governance. China's Industrial Economy, 6, 96-108.
    26. Lindblom, C. K. (1993). The Implications of Organizational Legitimacy for Corporate Social Performance and Disclosure. Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference. New York.
    27. Li Wenjing. (2012). Ownership Types, Political Rent- seeking and Corporate Social Responsibility Report: An Analytical Framework. Accounting Research, (1), 81-88.
    28. Magness V. (2006). Strategic Posture, Financial Performance and Environmental Disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(4), 540-563.
    29. Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. (2002). Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from Businesses’ Self-Representations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497-514.
    30. Newson, M., & Deegan, C. (2002). Global Expectations and Their Association with Corporate Social Disclosure Practices in Australia, Singapore, and South Korea. The International Journal of Accounting, 37, 183-213.
    31. Paul. J.. Di. M., & Walter, W. P. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
    32. Richardson A., Welker M., & Hutchinson I. (1999) Managing Capital Market Reaction to Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(1), 17-27.
    33. Rob Gray. (1995). Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting: A Review of the Literature and a Longitudinal Study of UK Disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47-77.
    34. Roberts, R. (1992). Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: An Application of Stakeholder Theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 6(17), 595-612.
    35. Shao, C. (2016). The Government-Enterprise Relationship, Corruption and Governance in the Context of Institutional Transition, Journal of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, 18(1), 64-74.
    36. Shleifer, A., & Vishny R. (1994). Politicians and Firms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(4), 995-1025.
    37. Teoh, H., & Thong, G. (1984). Another Look at Corporate Social Responsibility and Reporting: An Empirical Study in a Developing Country. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9(2), 189-206.
    38. Verrecchia, R. E. (2001). Essays on Disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32(1-3), 97-180.
    39. Wang, X. L., Fan, G., & Yu, J. W. (2017). China Provincial Marketization Index Report (pp.214-220). Beijing: Social Science Literature Publishing House.
    40. Willis, A. (2003). The Role of the Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines in the Social Screening of Investments. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 233-237.