Work systems as frames of reference for HR disclosure

Difference in ideology influenced the interpretation of the disclosure facts. For instance, in the category “1. Business Planning & Continuous Improvement”, banks favoring high-performance work system shared information regarding improvement of the operational efficiency, which often meant decreasing personnel quantity and consequent decrease in the wage fund. Banks shared how they fired worse performing employees; centralized, automated, unified job functions; normalized number of personnel across branches in the organizational chart. Among numerical facts, banks often reported total amount of employees, corresponding expenses, often mentioned different staff categories (employees by region, by age, by gender, etc.).

Banks favoring high-commitment work system in the same category referred to their core competency which provided their sustainable development, highlighting the role of employees in it. However, employees' role was mentioned rather in general terms: “Personnel of bank 4 is highly qualified and is one of the main resources with competitive advantages”. Disclosed plans of these banks included much more details about employees, compared to banks favoring highperformance work system. These banks also shared their interest in building a HR brand (banks 2, 3) and distinguished key personnel (banks 6, 17).

Banks favoring high-involvement work system highlighted expectation of high selfefficacy of employees: “The group strives for all employees to be worthy individuals (bank 1) in their interaction with customers, to be leaders regardless of their positions and to be responsible for themselves and their work” (from the report of bank 1). These banks stressed on continuous improvement. They shared initiating departments, which unite employees with different professional background. They also considered their own adaptability to market requests as own strength, and called its employees like-minded people with similar attitude to customers and common priorities in their work. Similar difference in the content of the HR disclosure was evident in all categories, fully matching theoretically predetermined patterns.

In summary, Table 1 provided useful patterns for differentiating between aspira- tional referent systems, it helped interpreting signals of success, despite high contextual specificity and discursiveness of related concepts.

Table 4 Descriptive statistics of HR disclosure extent

Figure 2. HR disclosure extent (means by groups)

Variance in extent of HR disclosure Table 4 and Figure 2 illustrate difference in extent of HR disclosure among groups, while Figure 3 illustrates variance in extent of HR disclosure for each bank separately.

On average banks favoring high-commitment work system were indeed the most transparent, while banks favoring only highperformance work system disclosed the least amount of HR-related facts, especially non- russian banks (banks 15-17). However, there was high variance in groups and in categories. Banks favoring high-performance work system shared more facts in the third category “3. Learning and People Management” (29%). Banks that favored additionally high-involvement work system were more transparent regarding “1. Busines Planning and Continuous Improvement” (30%), while banks that adopted frame of high-commitment work system disclosed more facts about “4. Learning and Development” (28%). These findings highlighted difference in preferences, caused by frames of reference. The least transparent category for all groups became “2. Effective Communication & People Engagement”.

We omitted bank 1 from the observation for its exceptional transperency. One of the reason for such results could be government ownership. Bank 11 possessed similar characteristic and also significantly differed in its group in extent of HR disclosure.

Bank 4 showed exceptionally low extent of HR disclosure in compared to other banks in its group. The reason of such difference might lay in location of the head office outside of Moscow and Moscow Region. However, this reason was not valid for banks from the other groups (banks 10, 12), which, on the contrary, showed better level of transparency. Type of business entity provided good explanation of lower results of joint- stock companies (banks 4, 8, 9, 11, 16,17) compared to PJSC in all categories but “2. Effective Communication & People Engagement”.

After accounting for contextual predetermination of HR disclosure, we revealed only two categories that predetermined difference between groups: “1. Business Planning & Continuous Improvement” and “4. Learning & Development”. Category “2. Effective Communication & People Engagement” provided banks with freedom for differentiation from competitors disregarding preference in frames of reference. The rest categories were highly predetermined by the institutional requirements: “3. Leadership & People Management” and “5. Human Resource Policies & Employee Wellbeing”.

Variance in quality of HR disclosure Table 5 provides descriptive statistics for HR disclosure quality, while Figure 4 illustrates quality of HR disclosure for each category and sub-category.

Disclosure quality of the banks favoring high-commitment work system was expectedly higher. Unexpectedly, quality of HR disclosure among banks that favor high-performance work system was lower than among banks that favor high-involvement work system only in two categories out of five, “1. Business Planning & Continuous Improvement” and “4. Learning and Development”. Adopters of high-performance work system also gained exceptionally high scores for “3.1. Talent management” due to information about performance assessment and leaders of the banks; and for “5.1. HRM system”, due to facts related to threats. These examples illustrated how striving to legitimacy diminishes difference between groups.

The most top scores gained four subcategories “1.1. Corporate strategy” and “1.2. HRM strategy”, because of the disclosed amount of employees and changes in staff aiming to improve operational efficiency; “3.2. Motivation”, due to disclosed payroll fund; and “4.2. Training and development”, due to the percentage of employees with higher education. These facts were required for disclosure by International Accounti ng Standards (IAS 19) and by Regulation on disclosure of information by issuers of equity securities, approved by the Central Bank of Russia (No. 454-P, issued on December 30, 2014). Revealed variance partly could be explained by the contextual factors: type of business entity for “1.2. HRM strategy”.

Sub-categories “1.1. Corporate strategy”, “3.1. Talent Management”, “4.2. Training and development” and “5.1. HRM System”, appeared the least useful for differentiation due to high similarity of scores (Figure 5).

Figure 3. HR disclosure extent (by banks)

Figure 4. HR disclosure quality (means by groups)

Figure 5. Similarity in HR disclosure quality

Figure 6. Asymmetry in HR disclosure quality

Table 5 Descriptive statistics of HR disclosure quality

Asymmetry of information increased value of the disclosed HR-related facts disregarding the group, due to difference in quality of HR disclosure in sub-categories “2.2. Employee engagement”, “4.1.Intern- ships and induction” and “5.2. CSR & Employee wellbeing” (Figure 6). Russian banks, including national banks, were on average more transparent in the categories “2. Communication & People Engagement” and “5. Human Resource Policies & Employee Wellbeing”, particularly in the sub-category “5.1. HR management system”.

Analysis of the content, extent and quality of HR disclosure showed that category “2. Effective Communication & People Engagement”, in particular the sub-category “2.2. Employee Engagement” was the least sophisticated by the institutional environment, providing freedom for differentiation. However, there were also ideational aspects behind this finding. Banks favoring highperformance work system with high ROA and ROE were more transperent on this category. Similar trend represented bank 1 and two banks favoring high-commitment work system. While for most banks favoring high- commitment work system and high-involvement work system, the association was the opposite. These examples illustrate how asymmetry of information increases value of the disclosed HR-related. Banks favoring high-performance work system utilize this category to support perception of their successful performance. While banks favoring high-commitment work system and high- involvement work system refer to this category to improve reputational risks associated with poorer performance.

Conclusion, Discussion and Research Limitations

The current research joins the debates on implicit frames of reference for voluntary HR disclosure. Such aspirational referent standards are specific source of patterns that help and limit firms in sharing their HR-related information.

There are at least two important managerial contributions of the research. Firstly, it illustrates specific patterns of disclosed HR-related information with different characteristics of firms. For example, we observed patterns of negative association of ROA with the disclosure on training and development and employee wellbeing policies. Theoretically, this association could be explained by the long-term focus of the subcategory attribute and short-term focus of the performance measurement. Besides, it could be a result of striving towards better impression: due to low performance indicators banks might want to create better impression [Kent, Zunker, 2013; Spence, 2002]. However, discourse analysis shows that such assosiation depends on the referent system, and it could be positive in case of preference to high-performance work system.

Second, the research provides examples of organizations that apply hybrid HR management approach combining the required referent standards with the preferred ones; or mimicking the lacking referent standard.

There are also three theoretical contributions. First, strategic HR management research domain offers four approaches to work systems: universalistic, contingent, configurational and contextual [Alcazar et al., 2005]. Reference to aspirational referent standards united positive features of all of them. The findings support expectations about the sufficiency of three aspirational work systems, which could be used additively [Lepak, Snell, 1999]. Holistic perspective on work systems overcame limitations of configurational and contingent approaches, moving attention from HR practices to HR philosophy [Jackson, Schuler, Jiang, 2014]. This effect was achieved by distinguishing the actual HR system from the aspirational one [Alvesson, 2013]. Contextual approach implies that institutional environment creates visible barriers for selecting the most suitable work system shifting to legitimate option [Suchman, 1995]. However, current empirical analysis challenges this perspective, suggesting that legitimate standard might be rather an excuse for revealing only part of the information. Big share of the observed banks adopted hybrid version of aspirational standards, consisting of high-performance work system and one or two additional alternatives. These findings support existing suggestion that companies may favor one work system, but combine several of them [Lepak, Snell, 1999] or blend all of them at once [Gonzalez, Ta- corante, 2004]. However, it revealed an additional reason behind such hybridization -- legitimacy. Revealed hybridization highlighted possible bias of attribution, when researchers refer to only quantitative or only qualitative methods. Discursive level of analysis revealed the application of the uncommon words to the attributed referent systems. It could be explained by low cognitive institualization [Suchman, 1995] of two out of three work systems and thus, lower awareness of the expected linguistic trends. It could also be a result of the corresponding consulting and auditing services of the side firms with different referent systems. Nevertheless, despite the mismatch in titles, the meaning behind the applied words varied according to expectations, marked in the Table 1. This observation supported the methodological decision to code for meaning rather than words. It also warns against quantitative methods based on counting exact terms.

Second, discourse-analytical perspective on work systems helped to decode actual contextual priorities in HR management, supporting debates around measuring and reporting success in HR management [Guest, 2011]. Any organization would benefit from all three strategic objectives to stay healthy [MacIntosh, MacLean, Burns, 2007]. The first one is the exposed evidence of health -- current performance, on the individual level associated with the employees' productivity. It suits high-performance work system. The second one are potential characteristics to stay healthy in the future -- rare and valuable organizational competencies and resources, requiring employees' commitment as a way to protect investments into human capital. They suit high-commitment work system. The third one is resilience -- ability to adapt quickly to contextual changes, necessitating employees' involvement. It suits high-involvement work system. By maturation of institutional requirements, regulating authorities strive to improve the situation in the industry. However, they actually limit freedom of choice, diminishing level of banks' health. Moreover, institutional environment not only motivates companies mimicking each other, but also unintentionally pretend to be adopters of an alien work system. As a result, banks might confuse readership with controversial signals, like the example with bank 17. It refered to language and values common for high-commitment work system illustrating details regarding employees' education and special value of HR for the corporate success. The reason for such rhetoric could be a result of being a subsidiary bank of a large European financial group, due to location of the bank's head office in Europe -- different institutional setting. Another example was the lower level of HR disclosure by certain banks preferring high-commitment work system. The reason could be -- underestimation of the above mentioned transformative power of such reports, accompanied with the high costs and perceived as questionable impact of the voluntary reports on the stakeholders' opinion [Brown, De Jong, Lessidrenska, 2009].

Third, the research explored contextual specificity of the universal HR referent systems. Preference of a particular referent system caused significant difference in the content, extent and quality of HR disclosure. Nevertheless, such variety corresponded to overall trends in strategic HR management research domain [Ingham, 2007; Lepak, Snell, 1999; Monks et al., 2017]. Revealed hybridization of work systems and limited freedom of choice restricted group-based comparing of HR disclosure in the selected context, supporting only expectations regarding asymmetry and legitimacy of information. Banks favoring high-commitment work system were indeed more transparent, possibly because of being more protected from mimicking. However, all of the observed banks also adopted high-performance work system. Analysis of the content suggested that for organizations in Russia to be successful, they should start with the highperformance work system as the basement for their survival. In addition, they can adopt either high-commitment work system or high-involvement work system, or both, based on their strategy: innovativeness and access to valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable resources. Legitimacy indeed decreased value of HR disclosure , due to similarity in quality, extent and content of disclosure of items in the sub-categories controlled by the authorities: “1.2. HR management strategy”; “3.2. Motivation”; “4.2. Training & development”. Asymmetry of information indeed increased value of HR disclosure, as in category “2. Effective Communication & People Engagement”. At the same time the study suggests valuable topic for a further research -- discursiveness of the concepts related to engagement.

Our study has important limitations. Important, the results should be generalized to other contexts with caution. We revealed several characteristics specific to the selected context of banks operatig in Russia. They included hybridization of work systems, limited freedom of choice due to high level of institutional saturation for highperformance work system, institutional gaps for high-involvement work system, and limiting accessibility of resources required for high-commitment work system. Further, distinguishing feature was banks' interest in corporate volunteering as part of HR managers' tasks along with the managing corporate holidays for employees, their families and communities.

We also had the small sample of only 18 observations. Further studies may increase the sample size and explore banks above the top 100. However, the previous study suggested it would increase representatives of banks, favoring high-performance work system and decrease reliability of the data [Bordunos, Kosheleva, 2015]. Adding to the sample reports of the same banks from other periods or countries could add bias to the discourse analysis due to discursiveness of related concepts. Resulted sample size restricted the application of more widely used methods of data interpretation, as regression analysis. But increase in the sample may deteriorate quality of the discourse-analytical research. Further, annual reports are not the only possible source of HR-related facts. Other valuable sources are codes of ethics, corporate strategy documents, sustainability reports, corporate career page on the bank's website or on the open career web-sites, etc. Moreover, annual reports are too general, as they aim at the common overview of the banks' performance; and they face certain limitations and requirements, which are not necessary for the mentioned sources.

References

1. Akerlof G. A. 1978. The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. In: P. Diamond, M. Rothschild (eds). Uncertainty in Economics (pp. 235-251). Academic Press.

2. Alcвzar F. M., Fernвndez P. M., Gardey G. S. 2005. Strategic human resource management: Integrating the universalistic, contingent, configurational and contextual perspectives. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 16 (5): 633659.

3. Alvesson M., Skцldberg K. 2017. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. Sage: London.

4. Alvesson M., Willmott H. 2002. Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies 39 (5): 619-644.

5. Alvesson M. (2013). The Triumph of Emptiness: Consumption, Higher Education, and Work Organization. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

6. Banking Supervision Report of the Central Bank of Russia. 2016.

7. Barney J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17 (1): 99-120.

8. Beattie V., McInnes B., Fearnley S. 2004. A methodology for analysing and evaluating narratives in annual reports: A comprehensive descriptive profile and metrics for disclosure quality attributes. Accounting Forum 28 (3): 205-236.

9. Becker B. E., Huselid M. A. 2006. Strategic human resources management: Where do we go from here? Journal of Management 32 (6): 898-925.

10. Beer M., Boselie P., Brewster C. 2015. Back to the future: Implications for the field of HR management of the multistakeholder perspective proposed 30 years ago. Human Resource Management 54 (3): 427-438.

11. Bitektine A., Haack P. 2015. The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review 40 (1): 49-75.

12. Bordunos A. K., Kosheleva S. V. 2018. Freedom of choice in human resource management strategy: Limitations and opportunities. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Management 17 (4): 499-546.

13. Bordunos A. K., Kosheleva S. V. 2016. Evolution of strategic human resource management trough the lens of high performance work system. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Management (3): 30-53.

14. Bordunos A. K., Kosheleva S. V. 2015. Role of institutional voids and sophistication in firms' preferences of human capital management strategy in Russia. Opportunities for excellencing firms' performance. International Scientific Conference «Innovation in Management and Business: Future Global Challenge». HSE St. Petersburg School of Economics and Management, November 27-28.

15. Boxall P., Macky K. 2009. Research and theory on high-performance work systems: Progressing the high-involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal 19 (1): 3-23.

16. Bratton J., Gold J. 2015. Towards critical human resource management education (CHR management): A sociological imagination approach. Work, Employment and Society 29 (3): 496-507.

17. Braun V., Clarke V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77-101.

18. Brown H. S., De Jong M., Lessidrenska T. 2009. The rise of the Global Reporting Initiative: A case of institutional entrepreneurship. Environmental Politics 18 (2): 182-200.

19. Brummet R. L., Flamholtz E. G., Pyle W. C. 1968. Human resource measurement -- a challenge for accountants. The Accounting Review 43 (2): 217-224.

20. Chang S., Jia L., Takeuchi R., Cai Y. 2014.

21. Do high-commitment work systems affect creativity? A multilevel combinational approach to employee creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology 99 (4): 665-680.

22. Child J., Marinova S. 2014. The role of contextual combinations in the globalization of Chinese firms. Management and Organization Review 10 (3): 347-371.

23. Coff R. W. 1997. Human assets and management dilemmas: Coping with hazards on the road to resource-based theory. Academy of Management Review 22 (2): 374402.

24. Connelly B. L., Certo S. T., Ireland R. D., Re- utzel C. R. 2011. Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of management 37 (1): 39-67.

25. Cooke F. L. 2018. Concepts, contexts, and mindsets: Putting human resource management research in perspectives. Human Resource Management Journal 28 (1): 1-13.

26. Cornelissen J. P., Werner M. D. 2014. Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals 8 (1): 181235.

27. Davey J., Schneider L., Davey H. 2009. Intellectual capital disclosure and the fashion industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital 10 (3): 401-424.

28. Deegan C. 2002. Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures -- a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 15 (3): 282-311.

29. Deetz S. 1995. Transforming communication, Transforming usiness: Building responsive and Responsible Workplaces. Hampton Press: Cresskill, NJ.

30. Demortier A. L. P., Delobbe N., El Akremi A. 2014. Opening the black box of HR practices-performance relationship: Testing a three pathways AMO model. In: Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2014, No. 1, p. 14932). Academy of Management: Briarcliff Manor, NY.

31. Ehnert I., Parsa S., Roper I., Wagner M., Muller-Camen M. 2016. Reporting on sustainability and HRM: A comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world's largest companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27 (1): 88-108.

32. Elitzur R., Gavious A. 2003. Contracting, signaling, and moral hazard: A model of entrepreneurs,`angels,'and venture capitalists. Journal of Business Venturing 18 (6): 709-725.

33. Excellence through People. 2017. National Standards Authority of Ireland.

34. Gelb D. S., Strawser J. A. 2001. Corporate Social Responsibility and financial disclosures: An alternative explanation for increased disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics 33 (1): 1-13.

35. Gonzalez S. M., Tacorante D. V. 2004. A new approach to the best practices debate: Are best practices applied to all employees in the same way? International Journal of Human Resource Management 15 (1): 56-75.

36. Guest D. E. 2011. Human resource management and performance: Still searching for some answers. Human Resource Management Journal 21 (1): 3-13.

37. Guthrie J., Petty R. 2000. Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices. Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 (3): 241251.

38. Guthrie J., Petty R., Ricceri F. 2006. The voluntary reporting of intellectual capital: Comparing evidence from Hong Kong and Australia. Journal of Intellectual Capital 7 (2): 254-271.

39. Guthrie J., Petty R., Yongvanich K., Ricceri F. 2004. Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting. Journal of intellectual capital 5 (2): 282-293.

40. Hackston D., Milne M. J. 1996. Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 9 (1): 77-108.

41. Harley B. 2015. The one best way? `Scientific' research on HR management and the threat to critical scholarship. Human Resource Management Journal 25 (4): 399-407.

42. Healy P. M., Palepu K. G. 2001. Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31 (1-3): 405-440.

43. Heizmann H, Fox S. 2017. O Partner, Where Art Thou? A critical discursive analysis of HR managers' struggle for legitimacy. The International Journal of Human Resource Management: 1-23.

44. Inayatullah S. 1998. Causal layered analysis: Poststructuralism as method. Futures 30 (8): 815-829.

45. Ingham J. 2007. Strategic Human Capital Management. Creating Value through People. Butterworth-Heinemann: Burlington, MA.

46. Jackson S. E., Schuler R. S., Jiang K. 2014. An aspirational framework for strategic human resource management. The Academy of Management Annals 8 (1): 1-56.

47. Keegan A., Francis H. 2010. Practitioner talk: The changing textscape of HR management and emergence of HR business partnership. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21 (6): 873-898.

48. Kent P., Zunker T. 2013. Attaining legitimacy by employee information in annual reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26 (7): 1072-1106.

49. Kompridis N. 1994. On world disclosure: Heidegger, Habermas and Dewey. Thesis Eleven 37 (1): 29-45.

50. Kosheleva S., Bordunos A. 2018. HRM systems effects as a basis for strategic HR planning. In: J. Fahed-Sreih (ed.). Human Resource Planning for the 21st Century (pp. 83-102). IntechOpen: London.

51. Kotonen U. 2009. Formal corporate social responsibility reporting in Finnish listed companies. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 10 (3): 176-207.

52. Kumar S. J. M. 2012.The determinants of HC disclosures of Indian firms. Journal of Intellectual Capital 13 (2): 221-247.

53. Laloux F. 2014. Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage in Human Consciousness. Nelson Parker: Brussels.

54. Lawless A., Sambrook S., Garavan T., Valentin C. 2011. A discourse approach to theorising HRD: Opening a discursive space. Journal of European Industrial Training 35 (3): 264-275.

55. Lepak D. P., Snell S. A. 1999. The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review 24: 3148.

56. Lepak D. P., Snell S. A. 2002. Examining the human resource architecture: The relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource configurations. Journal of Management 28 (4): 517-543.

57. MacIntosh R., MacLean D., Burns H. 2007. Health in organization: Towards a process- based view. Journal of Management Studies 44 (2): 206-221.

58. Mariappanadar S., Kairouz A. 2017. Influence of human resource capital information disclosure on investors' share investment intentions: An Australian study. Personnel Review 46 (3): 551-571.

59. Milne M. J., Adler R. W. 1999. Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 12 (2): 237-256.

60. Mishra L. D., Mishra R. 2017. Human resource disclosure and its association with corporate attributes. Global Journal of Management And Business Research 17 (5): 9-18.

61. Monks K., Kelly G., Conway E., Flood P., Truss K., Hannon E. 2013. Understanding how HR systems work: The role of HR philosophy and HR processes. Human Resource Management Journal 23 (4): 379-395.

62. Okhmatovskiy I. 2005. Sources of capital and structures of influence: Banks in the Russian corporate network. International Sociology 20 (4): 427-457.

63. Pava M. L., Krausz J. 1996 The association between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The paradox of social cost. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (3): 321-357.

64. Petera P., Wagner J. 2017. Human resources disclosure among companies in Czechia. Social Responsibility Journal 13 (4): 743-761.

65. Prahalad C. K., Hamel G. 2000. The core competence of the corporation. In: R. L. Cross, S. B.Israelit (eds). Strategic Learning in a Knowledge Economy: Individual, Collective and Organizational Learning Processes (Knowledge Reader); 3-22. Butterworth-Heinemann: Woburn, MA.

66. Rottig D. 2016. Institutions and emerging markets: Effects and implications for multinational corporations. International Journal of Emerging Markets 11 (1): 2-17.

67. Schmidt V. A. 2008. Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 11 (1): 303-326.

68. Schneider A., Samkin G. 2008. Intellectual capital reporting by the New Zealand local government sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital 9 (3): 456-486.

69. Spence M. 2002. Signaling in Retrospect and the Informational Structure of Markets. American Economic Review 92 (3): 434459.

70. Stiglitz J. E. 2000. The contributions of the economics of information to twentieth century economics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (4): 1441-1478.

71. Suchman M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 571-610.

72. Tsui A. S., Pearce J. L., Porter L. W., Hite J. P. 1995. Choice of employee-organization relationship: Influence of external and internal organizational factors. In: G. R. Ferris (ed.). Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 13; 117-151. Emerald: Bingley.

73. Van Dijk T. A. 1993. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4 (2): 249-283.

74. Wei L. Q., Lau C. M. 2010. High performance work systems and performance: The role of adaptive capability. Human Relations 63 (10): 1487-1511.

75. Williams M. S. 2001. Is intellectual capital performance and disclosure practices related? Journal of Intellectual Capital 2 (3): 192-203.

76. Wilson J. O, Casu B., Girardone C., Moly- neux P. 2010. Emerging themes in banking: Recent literature and directions for future research. The British Accounting Review 42 (3): 153-169.

77. Xanthopoulou D., Bakker A. B., Demerouti E., Schaufeli W. B. 2009. Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (3): 235-244.

78. Yi A., Davey H. 2010. Intellectual capital disclosure in Chinese (Mainland) companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital 11 (3): 326347.

79. Zanoni P., Janssens M. 2004. Deconstructing difference: The rhetoric of human resource managers' diversity discourses. Organization Studies 25 (1): 55-74.

80. Zhao M., Tan J., Park S. H. 2014. From voids to sophistication: Institutional environment and MNC CSR crisis in emerging markets. Journal of Business Ethics 122 (4): 655-674.

Размещено на Allbest.ru