©*Template/Guide for Candidates

This guide is intended for use as a template by students &

staff undertaking research studies for RMIT (Vietnam) and is
not to be cited or published without the express permission
of the author.

Template: Application for Candidature: Doctorate by Research/Masters by

Research/Honours By Research/ Research Projects for Undergraduate
Studies

*©Dr Nicholas A Mroczkowski – August 2016: All rights

reserved
RMIT University of Technology
November 2016

Research Study Title:

Corporate Social & Environmental Reporting in Vietnam: An empirical analysis of financial

report disclosures of companies listed on Vietnamese Securities Exchanges during 2006 -
2016.

Candidate: XXXXXXXX (Name to be listed here)

Proposed Supervisors:

Primary:

Example: Dr Nicholas A Mroczkowski - Senior Academic (Research), RMIT Hanoi, Vietnam

CA, FCPA, PhD - Finance (Monash), M Acc – Finance (RMIT), BBus - Accounting, Dip Bus (Mgt
Acc), B.Ed, Doctoral Supervision Dip (Monash)
Co-Supervisor

Example: Professor Brendan O’Connell – Professor of Accounting, RMIT Melbourne

CA, FCPA, PhD – Finance (Monash), BBus (Accounting)

Accounting Lecturer: For undergraduate Students undertaking a research project (Name to

be included)

Proposed Starting Date: State Semester and year

Abstract - Sample

The purpose of this is study is to examine the trends in Corporate Social & Environmental
Reporting (CSER) within financial reports of Vietnamese companies. Specifically, the study
will examine the changes in the volume and nature of information disclosed within the
social and environmental categories for financial reports lodged between financial periods
ending 31 March 2006 and 31 March 2016. The final sample will include the annual financial
reports of all companies listed on the Vietnamese Securities Exchanges (3 in total) from
2006 to 2016. Globally, there has been a significant increase in the breadth and depth of
disclosures relating to social and environmental performance and given that these
disclosures are typically voluntary in most countries, the obvious question is why have these
disclosures occurred? In explaining this world-wide phenomenon, several theories have
been posited in the literature, including; legitimacy theory Elkington (1977), stakeholder
theory (Deegan, 2014) and institutional theory (De Maggio 2003). Each of these theories will
be explored in the context of the financial reporting environment in Vietnam; however, the
study will predominantly focus on institutional theory, which essentially explains why firms
change their structural form or processes to win acceptability and legitimacy in a
commercial context. Given Vietnam’s recent transition from a closed economy to a global
trading power, institutional theory has considerable relevance which might explain
Vietnam’s recent reforms in financial disclosure regimes.

Introduction and Background

Anecdotal evidence suggests that voluntary disclosures of social and environmental

information in financial reports have been occurring for more than a century (Deegan, 2014),
although these types of disclosures have arguably only become more wide-spread, since the
early nineties (particularly for instance, in market-based economies such as in the US, UK,
Singapore, Australia, etc). Among the first wave of studies that identified a significant need
for structured CSR, was Elkington (1977) who argued that firms should not only be
accountable for their economic performance which should be properly disclosed in annual
reports, but should also provide information in these reports on their social and
environmental performance. Elkington (1977) referred to this type of reporting as Triple
Bottom Line, a term which has since gained considerable popularity in the literature. Indeed
the literature has been extended extensively to include ethical considerations relating to
role of directors in steering the corporate ship. In this sense, the focus has been on whether
directors have a moral obligation toward the rights of members of society generally, for
example as cited by Deegan (2014), in terms of:

 Interaction with the local community

 Level of support for community projects
 Level of support for developing countries
 Health and safety issues
 Training, employment and education issues and
 Environmental performance

These initiatives are a considerable shift from traditional lines of accountability which
focussed purely on the financial accountability aspect of directors; which was to attend to
the needs of shareholders and no other stakeholders or the communities and environments
in which they live. Indeed this appeared to be the dominant paradigm in the economic
literature for some years, particularly the view of (the post- modernism era) economist
Milton Friedman (1968), who once argued that the only role of directors was to increase the
wealth of shareholders. He further argued that as long as laws were not broken, directors
had no other responsibilities to any other party. Interesting, from a legal perspective, the
views of Friedman are still supported. For example, corporate laws in many countries, such
as for instance the U.K., the U.S., and Australia, reflect a shareholder supremacy perspective.
In the case of Australia in particular, directors are still obliged by law to “act in good faith in
the best interest of the corporation” (s181, Corporations Act 200); an obligation which has
been interpreted in case law, as one where directors must act in the best interests of the
majority of shareholders (Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [1951]). It should be noted
though, whilst this may continue to be the legal position, directors do indeed have moral
obligations to act in the best interests of other stakeholders and the environment though
constructive and moral obligations imposed by society. Time and time again this new wave
of director obligations has been the consequence of activities and events that have exposed
firms to societal pressure. These events have included market failures (such as the recent
global financial crises triggered by sub-prime lending), major corporate collapses (such as
Enron and Worldcom, triggered by greed and fraud), environmental disasters and social
misbehaviour (such as for example, the BHP Joint Venture in Brazil in which scores of people
were killed and injured due to land erosion caused by mining, the Exxon Valdez and BP oil
Spills, the James Hardie asbestos disaster, the BHP OK Teddy river pollution disaster, the
Bhopal toxic gas disaster in India, the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in Russia, the
exploitation of child labour allegations made against Nike and other firms), and so on. All of
these cases and many more have led to heightened concerns by society regarding the
responsibility of directors to society and the environment. Undeniably, climate change
(formerly termed global warming) has led to even further concerns regarding the effects of
business activities on the ecology of the world, in turn leading to countless initiatives
supporting sustainable development. Thus, given the above scenarios, directors have
serious motives to protect members of society and the physical environment in which they
live. These motivations and incentive alignment mechanisms are posited in several current
paradigms, including legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory, and institutional theory

Literature to be explored in the study

As briefly explained above, the current paradigms which explain why directors have
incentives to consider the interests of stakeholders other than shareholders, revolve around
three basic theories, viz; legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory, and institutional theory. All
of these theories can collectively be classified as systems-oriented theories, which as
explained by Gray, Owens and Adams (1996), “permit us to focus on the role of information
and disclosure in the relationships between organisations, the State, individuals and groups”.
It is assumed in these theories, that the firm can be influenced by the views of society and in
turn can influence the society in which it operates. In this sense, the role of information is
critical (particularly accounting information and other information disclosed in public
documents, such as for example annual financial reports) because it can act as the primary
influencing mechanism to manage relationships between the firm and the outside world.
Each of these theories have relevance in explaining disclosure regimes in many countries
around the world including Vietnam, and will therefore constitute a major proportion of the
literature review in the current study. A brief explanation of the relevant theories proposed
in this study, (along with Positive Accounting Theory which has its genesis rooted in
economic ‘self-interest’, is provided below.

Legitimacy Theory – Text required here – Read Deegan FAT

Stakeholder Theory – Text required here – Read Deegan FAT

Institutional Theory – Text required here – Read Deegan FAT

Positive Accounting Theory – Text required here – Read Deegan FAT

Objectives and justification for the study

Text required here (why is this study important and for who?)

Potential implications

Text required here (who will benefit from this study and how?)

Potential limitations

Text required here (are there any areas of weakness in this study that could impair the
results and outcomes of the research? Methodological/procedural – eg restricted sample
size, or assumptions made that cannot always be supported?)
Research design & methodology - Text required here

 Quantitative or Qualitative, or both? - eg examining continuous variables such as

accounting numbers (quantitative) or using surveys or interviews to gather
information (qualitative)?
 Mixed methods used? eg a combination of qualitative and qualitative methods
 Explanatory or Exploratory - is the research explaining data that already exists
(explanatory), eg annual reports information; or does the research seek to explore
experimental possibilities (exploratory), eg, testing the relationship between two or
more variables using statistical regression models)
 Primary and Secondary Data? - is the research seeking information from primary
sources – eg data gathered from respondents (persons) that are being surveyed or
interviewed, or secondary data – eg existing information sourced from public/private
databases or similar sources?
 Data sourcing procedures and methodological issues – this could be for example a
combination of primary and secondary sources being utilised: In the case CSR
disclosures in Vietnam, a survey instrument can be designed targeting directors of a
representative sample of companies listed on any one of the three Stock Exchanges
in Vietnam (primary sources), along with access to annual, semi-annual and quarterly
financial reports of all companies listed on all three of the Stock Exchanges of
Vietnam (secondary sources).

Descriptives and analysis of data

Summary of the data collected and basic analysis, eg the number of respondents surveyed
and their profiles (eg – mean age, gender, level of education, level of income, etc) and a
summary of secondary data, eg number of companies examined, variables examined,
number of industry in which companies are classified, etc (eg – variables could include
accounting data, and other non-financial data could include CSR disclosures by
class/grouping etc)

Results

This would normally consist of the results of testing the responses from surveys/interviews
and the analysis of existing data collected from databases etc, along with more advanced
statistical analysis where relevant.

Implications and conclusion

What can we conclude from all of the above and what important implications are likely to
eventuate from the results and conclusions? Why are the results important?

Timelines

Text required here

References

Text required here