The articles chosen for this essay paper were “Corporate Environmental Reporting: A test of legitimacy theory” by Trevor D. Wilmshurst and Geoffrey R. Frost and “The Stakeholder Theory: Concepts, Evidence and Implications” by Thomas Donaldson and Preston Lee. There were several factors that contributed to my choosing these particular articles for my study. First and foremost, these articles were both peer reviewed and the journals they were sourced from, namely the Academy of Management Review (AMR) and the Accounting, Auditing & Accountability (AAA) Journal are both journals that currently publish research articles on papers concerning environmental and social reporting, the foundation on which my assignment is based. Secondly, I was intrigued by the ‘titles’ of these articles. I knew that from reading these articles I would gain an in-depth insight into the two theoretical perspectives I was required to discuss in detail as part of this assessment. Thirdly, these articles vary significantly in their approaches to presenting the different theoretical perspectives in question. The first article outlined above was based on empirical evidence where a selected sample from the top 500 listed Australian companies for 1994-1995 was used in the survey, while the basis for the second article was contesting views and theories drawn from numerous years of research. This to me was an interesting mix. Last but not least, these articles as compared to many others which I previously considered using in my paper were very much easier to comprehend and were not tediously boring and lengthy. Through my research online I also found that these two articles had been cited by several other individuals as part of their efforts to further explain and develop on the stakeholder and legitimacy theories.
|Criterion |Article Based on Legitimacy Theory |Article based on Stakeholder Theory | |Currency |The article concerning Legitimacy Theory was published |The article concerning Stakeholder Theory| | |in the Year 2000 with no indication of when exactly it |was published in 1995. Even though the | | |was submitted. The information in it can be viewed as |article was published almost 17 years | | |current and up-to-date as the article was only published|ago, it is based on contesting theories | | |12 years ago. The article was revised twice, once in |that were developed several years ago | | |August 1998 and again in February 1999. |back in the 1990s. The foundation of | | | |these theories for the most part remains | | | |the same with some aspects of these | | | |theories being redefined over time. | |Reliability |The article is peer reviewed, the reason being that it |The article is refereed, the reason being| | |was published in a scholarly journal, AMR. In general, |that it was published in a scholarly | | |articles that appear in scholarly journals have been |journal, AAA. | | |widely acknowledged by experts in the field and have had| | | |their articles reviewed for content, scholarly soundness| | | |and academic value (Libguides.newcastle.edu.au, 2012). | | |Coverage |The article is based on the various influential factors |The article is based on the...