The Effect of Ownership Structure on Corporate Social
Responsibility Disclosures
Soegeng Soetedjo, Noorlailie Soewarno, Iswahjuni, and Sabina Ananda Amu
Department of Accounting-Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia
Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure, Institutional Ownership, Managerial Ownership, Foreign
Ownership.
Abstract: The purpose of this research was to examine the effect of ownership structure on institutional ownership,
managerial ownership, and foreign ownership disclosures on corporate social responsibility. The sample
used in this research are manufacturing companies listed in the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) during the
period 2012–2014 and amounted to 143 companies with 407 annual reports. The research proves
that institutional, managerial, and foreign ownerships have a significant positive effect on corporate social
responsibility disclosure. Institutional ownership pushes the company to disclose more social activities to
gain public legitimacy for the assurance of long-term stability of the company. Managerial ownership would
disclose more corporate social activity to show that the company works in accordance with applicable
regulations, systems, and norms to gain public legitimacy. For foreign ownership, encouragement will be
given to the company to disclose its corporate social responsibility activities because for foreign investors,
corporate social responsibility is considered an important issue to be disclosed in annual report.
1 INTRODUCTION
The importance of the implementation of social and
environmental responsibilities prompted the
Government of the Republic of Indonesia to issue
several regulations requiring their implementation as
well as its reporting form. Law Number 40, 2007
regarding Limited Liability Companies and Act No.
25 of 2007 on Investment mentioned that the
company's line of business, relating to natural
resources is required to implement social and
environmental responsibility and express this in
annual financial statements. In 2012, Government
Regulation Number 47, 2012 on Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environment was issued, which
stated the company's obligation in carrying out
social and environmental responsibility. For
reporting and disclosure of social responsibility, the
Chairman of the Capital Market Supervisory Agency
issued the Decision Chairman of the Capital Market
Supervisory Agency and Financial Institution No.
KEP-431/BL/2012 Rule number XK6 on
Submission of Annual Report Public Company,
which describes in detail how to compile, submit,
and decide what information should be disclosed in
the annual report, including the disclosure of
information regarding social responsibility activities.
Some studies have found that institutional
ownership has an influence on the disclosure of
social responsibility. Nurrahman and Sudarno
(2013), Nussy (2013), Khan et al. (2013) Khan et
al. (2013), Oh et al. (2011), Sri and Neem
(2013) proved that companies with
stake institution managerial ownership, or foreign
ownership, have a positive effect on the disclosure
of social responsibility, although there are some
studies that demonstrate the opposite effect.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theory of Legitimacy
The basis of this theory is the social contract that
occurs between the company and the society in
which the company operates and uses economic
resources, as well as the considering the belief that a
company's actions can have an impact on the
environment in which it operates.
Soetedjo, S., Soewarno, N., Iswajuni, . and Amu, S.
The Effect of Ownership Structure on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures.
In Proceedings of the Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics Symposium 2018 on Special Session for Indonesian Study (JCAE 2018) - Contemporary Accounting Studies in
Indonesia, pages 91-97
ISBN: 978-989-758-339-1
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
91

Gray et al. (1995) mention that the theory of
legitimacy focuses on the interaction between
companies and society. The theory of legitimacy
assumes that firms provide more social disclosure to
eliminate the possibility of threats to corporate
legitimacy.
2.2 Disclosure of Social Responsibility
Law Number 40, 2007 regarding the Limited
Liability Company states in article 66, paragraph 2
that in the annual report, one of the pieces of
information that should be disclosed is the report on
the implementation of social and environmental
responsibility. Information on the implementation of
social and environmental responsibilities that should
also be disclosed are further stipulated in the
attachment of the Decision of the Chairman of the
Capital Market and Financial Institution Supervisory
Agency number KEP-431/BL/2012 Rule XK6,
regarding the emanation of the Issuer's Annual
Report or Public Company. Items that should be
disclosed are discussions regarding corporate social
responsibility covering the policies, types of
programs, and expenses incurred among others
related to these aspects: Environmental, labor
practices, social and community development, and
product responsibility,
2.3 Institutional ownership
Aguilera et al. (2006), Rustiarini (2011), and
Aguilera et al. (2006) also explained that
institutional investors will be inclined to direct the
company to carry out its social responsibility as
investors see a good corporate social reputation as
indicators of behavior management and as a form of
compliance with applicable legislation. By
becoming a socially responsible and law-abiding
company, legitimacy can be gained from the public
improving their financial performance over the long
term.
2.4 Managerial Ownership
According to Nurrahman and Sudarno (2013), if a
company has managerial ownership then the
company will be more public disclosure of
information in order to obtain legitimacy from the
public.
2.5 Foreign Ownership
Nurrahman and Sudarno (2013) state that if a
company has an agreement with the holder of the
interest from abroad, the company will be supported
in disclosing social responsibility.
2.6 The Effect of Institutional
Ownership on Social Responsibility
Disclosure
The results of the study by Oh et al. (2011),
Nurrahman and Sudarno (2013) and Nussy (2013)
show that institutional ownership positively affects
social disclosure of responsibility. However,
Anggono and Handoko (2009), Utami and
Rahmawati (2010), Rustiarini (2011), and Wakidi
and Siregar (2011) show different results stating
that institutional ownership has no effect on the
disclosure of social responsibility because there is a
high amount of ownership-making investments,
social responsibility is not a major criterion for
institutional investors.
Gray et al. (1995) mentions the theory of legitimacy
that states that companies use environment-based
performance and environmental disclosure to
legitimize corporate activity.
H
1:
Institutional ownership positively affects the
disclosure of corporate social responsibility.
2.7 The Effect of Managerial
Ownership on Social Responsibility
Disclosure
Nussy (2013) found that managerial ownership has a
positive influence on the disclosure of social
responsibility. The contrasting results found by
Ghazali (2007), Oh et al. (2011), and Khan et al.
(2013) found that managerial ownership negatively
affects the disclosure of social responsibility.
Deegan (2006) mentions the theory of legitimacy in
which the company should explicitly pay attention to
the expectations of the community and ensure the
company appears to be in-line with those
expectations.
H
2:
Managerial ownership positively affects
social responsibility disclosure.
JCAE Symposium 2018 – Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics Symposium 2018 on Special Session for Indonesian Study
92

2.8 The Influence of Foreign
Ownership on the Disclosure of
Social Responsibility
The previous study by Rustiarini (2011), Oh et
al. (2011), Nurrahman and Sudarno (2013), Sriayu
and Neem (2013), and Khan et al. (2013) found that
stock ownership by foreign parties disclosure had a
positive effect on social responsibility. However,
Darus et al. (2009) and Utami and Rahmawati
(2010) show that foreign ownership has no effect on
the disclosure of social responsibility because
foreign ownership of firms in Indonesia generally do
not care about environmental and social issues as
critical issues that are extensively disclosed in the
annual report.
H
3:
Foreign ownership positively
affects social responsibility disclosure.
3 RESEARCH METHODS
This study uses a quantitative approach to secondary
data from the annual financial statements published
by manufacturing companies in the Indonesia Stock
Exchange (BEI) during the period 2012–2014, as
well as information related to social responsibility
that is expressed on the official web page of
each company.
This study used a census study that took just one
population group. Samples were taken from all
manufacturing companies listed on the Stock
Exchange during the period 2012–2014. There were
135 companies listed on the Stock Exchange in
2012, 142 in 2013, and 144 in 2014.
3.1 Operational Definition and
Measurement of Variables
The following variables used in this study include:
3.1.1 Disclosure of social responsibility
(Dependent variable)
Disclosure of social responsibility is a process used
by a company to disclose information relating to a
company's activities and its effect on the social
conditions of society and the environment. This
variable was calculated by adopting the
measurement instrument disclosure of social
responsibility by Hackston and Milne (1996) with
the initial number of disclosure items at 90, tailored
to the prevailing regulations in Indonesia, among
others. Act.
CSRDj = Σ Xij / Nj x 100%
Information:
CSRD j = CSR Disclosure Index company j
Xij = dummy variable (1= if disclosed; 0 = if not
disclosed)
Nj = Number of items for company j; Nj = 89
3.1.2 Institutional ownership (independent
variable)
Institutional ownership is defined by the number of
shares owned by institutions (government, foreign
companies and financial institutions, such as
insurance companies, banks, and pension funds)
relating to the companies (Anggono and
Handoko, 2009).
KPI = Number of Shares Institutional
Ownership/Total Corporate Shares
3.1.3 Managerial ownership (independent
variable)
Managerial ownership relates to stock ownership, as
the proportion of shares are held by non-executive
and independent directors (Ghazali, 2007).
KPM = Number of Shares Managerial Ownership/
Total Corporate Shares
3.1.4 Foreign ownership (independent
variable)
Foreign ownership is related to the proportion of the
company's shares in Indonesia owned by foreign
parties: either individuals or institutions for
total ownership (Anggono and Handoko, 2009).
KPA = Number of Shares Foreign Ownership Total
Corporate Shares
3.2 Analysis Data
Analysis data used in this research is carried out
using multiple regression analysis with the following
model:
CSRD = α + β
1
KPI + β
2
KPM+ β
3
KPA +
β
4
PROFIT + β
5
SIZE + ε (1)
CSRD = Disclosure of Social Responsibility
α = Constants
β
i
= Regression coefficients
KPI = Institutional ownership
KPM = Managerial ownership
KPA = Foreign ownership
The Effect of Ownership Structure on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures
93

PROFIT = Profitability
SIZE = Company size
ε = Error
4 RESULTS
This study uses multiple regression analysis to
determine the effect of institutional ownership,
managerial ownership, and foreign ownership on the
disclosure of social responsibility. The results of the
multiple regression analysis are as follows:
Table 1: Test Result t Regression Equation.
Dependent
Variables
Independent
Variables
t
Sig t
Information
CSDR
KPI
1.969
0.050
Sig (α = 5%)
KPM
2.047
0.041
Sig (α = 5%)
KPA
1.796
0.073
Sig(α =
10%)
PROFIT
-
0.613
0.540
No Sig
SIZE
1.657
0.098
No Sig
T-test for institutional ownership has a variable
significance value of t count equal to 0.050 and the
value is equal to the 5% significance level. This test
yields the conclusion that institutional ownership has
a significant positive effect on the disclosure of
social responsibility. Positive influence means the
higher the institutional ownership of the company,
the higher the level of social responsibility
disclosure.
For managerial ownership variables, the value of
the significance of t counted for 0.041, where the
value is smaller dibandingka n with a significance
level of 5%. This test yields the conclusion that
managerial ownership has a significant positive
effect on the disclosure of social responsibility.
Results t to foreign ownership variables
obtained t sig nifikansi of 0.073 where the value
is less than the 10% significance level. This test
resulted in the conclusion that foreign ownership has
a significant positive effect on the disclosure of
social responsibility.
The control variable is profitability and for the
size of the company note the significant value of t,
respectively 0.540 and 0.098. N t variables use
values for the significance of profitability for
0.540 where the value is greater than a significance
level of 10%. This
test shows that profitability has no influence on the
disclosure of social responsibility. For the variable
size of the company, the value siginifikansi t is
0.098, where the value is less than the rate of
signifika n 10%. This indicates that the size of the
company has a significant positive effect on social
responsibility disclosure.
4.1 The Effect of Institutional
Ownership on Social Responsibility
Disclosure
Several previous studies support the positive
influence of institutional ownership on the
disclosure of social responsibility including work by
Oh et al. (2011), Nurrahman and Sudarno (2013),
and Nussy (2013) who state that institutional
ownership will enhance the supervision of
management to disclose additional information in its
report, prompting an increase in the disclosure of
social responsibility.
Aguilera et al. (2006) mentioned that most
institutional investors are hunting for a stable profit
in the long term. By carrying out activities related to
social responsibility, Crisostomo (2010) states that
social responsibility can enhance a company's image
and reputation in the long term. According to the
theory of legitimacy Gray et al. (1995),
4.2 The Effect of Managerial
Ownership on Social Responsibility
Disclosure
The results support the research by Nussy (2013),
which states that managerial ownership has a
positive influence on social responsibility disclosure.
Semakin high managerial ownership and the
motivation to reveal the activity of the company will
be even greater because the manager and owner will
feel the direct impact of strategic decisions taken to
achieve a good reputation. Ghazali (2007), Oh et
al. (2011), and Khan et al. (2013) also found a
significant relationship between managerial
ownership and social responsibility disclosure but
with a negative direction so the higher the
managerial ownership, the fewer social
responsibility activities will be disclosed because
JCAE Symposium 2018 – Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics Symposium 2018 on Special Session for Indonesian Study
94

public accountability is not important for companies
owned by managers.
4.3 Effect Foreign Ownership on
Corporate Social Responsibility
Disclosure
Results of research in support work carried out by
Anggono and Handoko (2009), Oh et al. (2011),
Rustiarini (2011), Khan et al (2013), Nurrahman and
Sudarno (2013), and Sriayu and Mimba (2013),
stated that foreign ownership has a positive
influence on the disclosure of social
responsibility. However, this study contradicts
research by Darus et al. (2009) and Utami and
Rahmawati (2010).
Due to the rapid development of social
responsibility abroad, foreign investors are
concerned about social responsibility activities and
disclosure. By running performance based on
environmental disclosure, according to Gray et
al. (1995) the company seeks to justify or legitimize
its activities in society by building a positive
reputation. Foreign investors will give corporate
encouragement to perform social responsibility
because for foreign investors, social responsibility is
considered an important issue that should be
disclosed in the company's annual report.
5 CONCLUSIONS
From the research that has been done, the following
can be concluded:
1. Institutional ownership positively affects the
disclosure of corporate social
responsibility. Institutional investors will
attempt to direct the company to implement and
disclose social responsibility activities in order
to gain legitimacy from the public and improve
its financial performance in the long term.
2. Managerial ownership positively affects the
disclosure of corporate social responsibility. A
company with managerial ownership will seek
more social responsibility to disclose
information, indicating that the company is
working in accordance with the regulations,
systems and norms with an aim obtain the
public legitimacy.
3. Foreign ownership is a positive influence on the
disclosure of corporate social
responsibility. Foreign investors will give the
company a boost to social responsibility for
foreign investors social responsibility
considered important issues that must be
disclosed in the company's annual report.
REFERENCES
Adhima et al. (2013). Effect of Disclosure
of Corporate Sustainability Report on Profitability Case
Study at Manufacturing Companies Listed in Indonesia
Stock Exchange. Student Scientific Journal FEB 1 (1
2013).
Aguilera et al. 2006. Corporate Governance and Social
Responsibility A Comparative Analysis UK
and the US. Corporate Governance: An International
Review.14.3: 147-158.
Agustina, S. (2013). Effect of Profitability and Disclosure
of Corporate Social Responsibility Corporate
Values. Journal of Accounting 1 (1) 2013.
Anggono, I. and Jesica, H. (2009). The Effect of
Profitability, Institutional Ownership and Foreign
Ownership on Disclosure of Social Responsibility to
Mining Companies in Indonesia Stock
Exchange. Journal of Contemporary
Accounting, Vol.1., No.2., In July 2009.
Aziz, A. (2014). Effect Analysis Good Corporate
Governance (GCG) of the Disclosure
Quality Sustainability Report: Empirical Study on
Companies in Indonesia Period 2011-2012). Journal of
Audit and Accounting Faculty of Economics,
University of Tanjungpura Vol.3, No.2, December 2014
P.65-84.
Crisostomo et al. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility,
Firm Value and Financial Performance in Brazil. Social
Responsibility Journal7 (2): 295-309.
Darus et al. (2009). Influence of Institutional Pressure and
Ownership Structure on Corporate Social
Responsibility Disclosure. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, Vol.5, No.1,
September 2009.
Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction The Legitimising Effect
of Social and Environmental Disclosures - A
Theoretical Foundation. Accounting, Auditing, &
Accountability Journal, Vol.1, No.3, 2002, pp.282-311.
Deegan, C. (2006). Legitimacy Theory. Methodological
Issues in Accounting Research: Theories and Methods,
161-182.
Eng, L. and Mak. (2003). Corporate Governance and
Voluntary Disclosure. Journal of Accounting and
Public Policy 22 (2003), 325-345.
Eriandani, R. (2013). Effect of Institutional
Ownership and Managerial Ownership on Corporate
Social Responsibility Disclosure on Company Annual
Reports: Empirical Study on Manufacturing Company
from 2010 to 2011. National Symposium on Accounting
VI Manado.
Ernst, E. (1978). Social Responsibility Disclosure 1978
Survey of Ernst & Ernst. Cleveland. OH.
The Effect of Ownership Structure on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures
95

Ghazali, N. (2007). Ownership Structure and Corporate
Social Responsibility Disclosure: Some Malaysian
Evidence. Corporate Governance: The International
Journal of Business in Society,vol.7, 3, 251-266. 2007.
Ghozali, I. (2006). Applications Multivariate Analysis
With SPSS Program. Semarang: Diponegoro
University Publishing Agency.
Ghozali, I. and Anis, C. (2014). Accounting Theory:
International Financial Reporting System
(IFRS). Semarang: Diponegoro University Publishing
Agency.
Gray et al. (1995). Corporate Social and Enviro nmental
Reporting: A Review of the Literature
and t he A Longitudinal Study of UK
Disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol.8, Iss: 2, pp.47-77.
Guthrie et al. (1990). Corpotate Social Disclosure
Practice: A Comparative International
Analysis. Advances in Public Interest
Accounting, Vol.3., Pp.159-175.
Hackston et al. (1996). Some Determinants of Social and
Environmental Disclosures in New Zealand
Companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal 9.1. (1996) 77-108.
Haniffa, R. and Cooke. (2005). The Impact of Culture and
Governance on Corporate Social Reporting. Journal of
Accounting and Public Policy 24 (2005) 391-430.
Hoskisson et al. (2002). Conflicting Voices: The Effects of
Institutional Ownership of Heterogeneity and Internal
Governance of Corporate Innovation
Strategies. Academy of Management Journal 45 (4):
697-716.
Kamil, A. and Antonius, H. (2012). The Influence of
Corporate Characteristics on the Extent of Disclosure
of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities. Media
Research Research, 2 (1).
Ministry of Energy and Mineral
Resources. (2011). Regulation of the Minister of
Energy and Mineral Resources No. 04 Year 2011 on
Energy Award. Jakarta: Ministry of Justice and Human
Rights Republic of Indonesia.
Ministry of Finance Republic Indonesia Capital Market
and Financial Institution Supervisory Agency.
(2012). Decision of the Chairman of the Capital
Market Supervisory Agency and Financial Institution
No. KEP-431 / BL / 2012 Annual Report of the
Public Company. Jakarta: Ministry of Finance
Republic Indonesia Capital Market and Financial
Institution Supervisory Agency.
Ministry of Environment of the Republic of
Indonesia. (2002). Decree of the Minister of
Environment No. 127 of 2002 on Corporate
Performance Rating Program in Environmental
Management. Jakarta: Ministry of Environment
Republic Indonesia Deputy Minister of Environment
Policy and Institution.
Ministry of Manpower. (1987). Regulation of the Minister
of Manpower No. PER.04 / MEN / 1987 on Committee
of Occupational Safety and Health (P2K3). Jakarta:
Ministry of Manpower.
Khan, et al. (2013). Corporate Governance and Corporate
Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from an
Emerging Economy. Journal of Business Ethics (2013)
114: 207-223.
La Porta et al. (1999). Corporate Ownership Around t he
World. The Journal of Finance Vol. Liv, No. 2. April
1999.
Li et al. (2006). When Are Large Financial
Institutions Shareholders: The Role of Corporate
Governance Macro Environments. The Journal of
Finance, 61 (6), 2975-3007.
Lindblom, K. (1994). The Implications of Organizational
Legitimacy for Corporate Social Performance and
Disclosure. Critical Perspectives on Accounting
Conference, New York Vol.120.
Machmud et al. (2008). Effect Size Disclosure of
Ownership Structure on Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR Disclosure) at the Company's
Annual Reports: Empirical Study on Public Company
listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange Year
2006. National Symposium on Accounting XI
Pontianak.2008.
Nurrahman et al. (2013). Effect of Managerial Ownership,
Institutional Ownership and Foreign Ownership of the
Disclosure Practices Sustainability Report. Diponegoro
Journal of Accounting Vol.2, No.1, 2013, Page 1-14.
Nurkhin, A. (2009). Corporate Governance and
Profitability; The effect on the Social Responsibility
Disclosure Vendor (Empirical Study on Listed
Companies in Indonesia Stock Exchange.
DoctoralDissertation, Postgraduate Program
Diponegoro University.
Nussy, T. (2013). Corporate Governace and Ethnicity on
Disclosure of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal
of Finance and Banking, Vol.17, No.1 January 2013,
Page 1-10.
Oh et al. (2011). The Effect of Ownership Structure on
Corporate Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence
from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics 104 (2): 283-
297.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. (1999). Law
No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection. Jakarta:
Ministry of Justice and Human Rights Republic of
Indonesia.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. (2003). Act No.
13 of 2003 on Manpower. Jakarta: Ministry of Justice
and Human Rights Republic of Indonesia.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. (2007). Act No.
1 of 1970 on Safety. Jakarta: Ministry of Justice and
Human Rights Republic of Indonesia.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. (2007). Act No.
25 of 2007 on Investment. Jakarta: Ministry of Justice
and Human Rights Republic of Indonesia.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. (2007). Law
No. 40 Year 2007 regarding Limited
Liability Company. Jakarta: Ministry of Justice and
Human Rights Republic of Indonesia.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. (2009). Law
No. 32 of 2009 on the Protection and
JCAE Symposium 2018 – Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics Symposium 2018 on Special Session for Indonesian Study
96

Environmental Management. Jakarta: Ministry of
Justice and Human Rights Republic of Indonesia.
Government of the Republic of
Indonesia. (2009). Government Regulation No. 70 Year
2009 on Energy Koneservasi. Jakarta: Ministry of
Justice and Human Rights Republic of Indonesia.
Government of the Republic of
Indonesia. (2012). Government Regulation No. 47 Year
2012 on Social and Environmental Responsibility
Company Limited. Jakarta: Ministry of Justice and
Human Rights Republic of Indonesia.
Government of the Republic of
Indonesia. (2012). Government Regulation No. 81 Year
2012 on the Management of Household Waste and
Waste Household Waste kind. Jakarta: Ministry of
Justice and Human Rights Republic of Indonesia.
Petkoski et al. (2003). Public Policy for Corporate Social
Responsibility. World Bank Institute Series on
Corporate Responsibility: 7-25.
Rahayu et al. (2015). The Effect of Public Shares
Ownership, Profitability, and Media on Social
Responsibility Disclosures. A ccounting Analysis
Journal 4 (3) (2015).
Rustiarini, N. (2011). Effect on Shareholding Structure
Disclosure of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal
of Scientific Accounting and Business Vol.6., 114-119.
Santoso, S. (2014). Statistics Parametric Concepts and
Applications with SPSSEdisi Revision. Jakarta: Elex
Media Komputindo.
Sari, R. (2012). Effect of Characteristics of the
Company's Corporate Social Responsibility
Disclosure on Manufacturing Companies Listed in
Indonesia Stock Exchange. Journal of Nominal Volume
I Number I of 2012.
Sembiring, E. (2006). Corporate Characteristics and Social
Responsibility Disclosure: Empirical Study On
Company Listed on the Jakarta Stock
Exchange. MAKSI Journal, Vol.6, No.1.,January: 69-
85.
Shaarbaf, B. (2013). Assessing Corporate Social
Responsibility in Cultural Organizations in
Iran. International Journal of Business and Social
ScienceVol.4 No.1. January 2013.
Shocker, A. and Sethi S. (1974). An Approach to
Incorporating Social Preferences in Developing
Corporate Action Strategies. The Unstable Ground:
Corporate Social Policy in a Dynamic Society, Los
Angeles: Melville Publishing Company, pp. 67-80.
Sriayu, G. and Ni, M. (2013). Effect of Characteristics of
the Company's Corporate Social
Responsibility Disclosure. E-Journal of Accounting
Udayana University 5.2 (2013): 326-344.
Suchman, C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic a nd
Institutional Approach. Academy of Management
Review 1995, Vol. 20, No.3, 571-610.
Utami, I. and Rahmawati. (2010). Effects of Company
Size, Size of Board of Commissioners, Institutional
Ownership, Foreign Ownership and Age
Company's Corporate Social Responsibility
Disclosure on Property and Real
Estate Company Listed in Indonesia Stock
Exchange. Journal of Accounting and Management
Vol.21, No.3, December 2010, Page 297-306.
Utami, and Savitri. (2011). The Effect
of Social Characteristics of the
Company's Disclosure. Journal of Economics and
Business TH.16. No.1, March 2011.
Veronica, S. and Yanivi S. (2005). Corporate Governance,
Information asymmetry, and Earning
Management. Journal of Accounting and
Finance Indonesia, Vol.2, No.1, p. 77-106, July 2005.
Wakidi, R. and Hasa, S. (2011). The Influence of the
Company's Internal and External Sides on the
Disclosure of Social Responsibility to Manufacturing
Companies listed on the Stock Exchange. Journal of
Economists, Vol.14, No.4, September 2011.
Zheng et al. (2014). Regulatory Pressure, Blockholders
and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosures
in China. Social Responsibility Journal Vol.10, No.2,
2014, pp. 226-24.
The Effect of Ownership Structure on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures
97