Search results

This paper aims to analyse the similarities and differences in the methodologies adopted by corporate social responsibility (CSR) rating agencies.

The authors gather secondary and primary evidences of practices from selected agencies on the methodologies and criteria they rely upon to assess a firm’s CSR performance.

The authors find not only evidence of similarities in the methodologies adopted by the CSR rating agencies (e.g. the use of environment, social and governance themes, exclusion criteria, adoption of positive criteria, client/“customised” input, quantification) but also several elements of differences, namely, in terms of the thresholds for exclusion, transparent vs confidential approach, industry-specific ratings and weights for each dimension. Drawing from Sandberg et al.’s (2009) conceptualisations, the authors tentatively argue that this mixed picture may reflect competing organisational pressures to adopt a differentiation approach at the strategic and practical levels whilst recognising, and incorporating, the “globalising” tendencies of the CSR business at the terminological levels.

Although these data are based on a relatively small number of agencies, the findings and analysis convey some implications for users of CSR ratings and policymakers, particularly in light of the recent Paris 2016 Agreement on Climate Change and the increased emphasis on the monitoring of social, environmental and governance performance.

The authors contribute to the literature by highlighting how key intermediate rating organisations operationalise notions of CSR.

The purpose of this study is to examine how corporate communication of their social programs on their websites affects the ratings of those programs by independent rating agencies. Firms expend resources on corporate social programs (CSPs) to promote their corporate social responsibility and sustainability credentials. Stakeholders, however, often respond to such “self-promotion” with skepticism because they believe that there are inconsistencies between corporate claims and actions. This research draws on attribution theory as a framework to examine how the perceived CSP performance of firms by uncontrollable sources are affected when firms disseminate CSP information on firm websites, i.e. a controllable source, where their claims may not be verifiable.

This study uses a two-step, mixed method study for the analysis using data from Fortune 500 companies. A qualitative content analysis process identifies the interfaces of CSP and their communications on firms’ website. The process allows the authors to collect CSP data systematically from firm websites and to identify relevant variables through the patterns that emerge from the analysis. The findings are used in a quantitative analysis to study how the patterns underlying CSP communication on their websites affect the ratings of firms’ CSP by independent rating agencies.

Results show that the location, the manner, the content and the scope of CSP information dissemination on firm websites, as well as perceived commitment to CSP identified on the website are important drivers of perceived CSP performance. A robustness check using an alternative independent rating of CSP also provides results that are supportive of the findings. In addition, the effects are found to differ by sector of operation, firm age and profitability.

This research suggests that communication of CSPs at controllable sources of firm information dissemination can have a significant effect on the evaluation of CSP at uncontrollable sources when such communication facilitates the assessment of other information from a firm to determine the motive underlying a firm’s CSP.

The findings show that firms and managers can influence the perceived ratings, rankings or scores of their CSP by stakeholders when they put the right information at the right place on their corporate websites. One of the findings shows that even moderate levels of CSP commitment demonstrated on firm websites result in positive perceptions of CSP, which has marked practical implications.

The findings show that integrating even a medium level of commitment to CSP increases the positive perceptions of a firm’s CSP. Thus, society benefits from the firm’s action without a substantial impact on the firm’s profits.

This research shows that firm-controlled sources of CSP information dissemination to stakeholders can affect uncontrollable sources of CSP information evaluation.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the practices, challenges and ethical issues underlying the fabric and dissemination of corporate sustainability ratings.

Based on 36 semi-structured interviews with sustainability rating practitioners, the study shows the trade-offs, ethical judgments and customizable aspects involved in rating practices, which cannot rely only on formal and predefined methods.

In contrast with the official optimistic rhetoric about the rationality and rigor of sustainability rating methods, agencies face serious challenges in the measurement and comparison of performance in this area, particularly in terms of the aggregation of scattered and fuzzy indicators, commercial pressures and the availability, materiality and reliability of the information collected. Despite these concerns, sustainability ratings do appear to be useful in improving corporate responsiveness and increasing investor awareness of the complex and difficult-to-measure aspects of nonfinancial reports.

Rating agencies should collaborate to set up common indicators that would be easier for firms to produce and should better separate their sustainability rating production activities from other services they offer to companies (e.g. consultancy).

This study contributes to the literature on the measurement and promotion of corporate sustainability by analyzing rating practices through the lens of moral fictionalism, which here refers to the human tendency to build ethical judgments on fictional but convenient and useful representations.

This study aims to focus on developing the sustainability reporting index (SRI) with combined perspectives from varied social rating agencies, along with integrated combined perspectives from academics experts and Indonesian companies.

The first section discusses the theoretical framework along with the sustainability challenges faced by companies in Indonesia. The second section develops the methodology of the study to measure the SRI by considering practical and theoretical perspectives, starting from the identification of initial disclosure, selecting the final disclosure and developing the hierarchical framework. Lastly, the third section confirms the validity of the study’s framework by the exploratory factor analysis method and its comparability by comparing the content analysis result of the study with the Kinder–Lydenberg–Domini (KLD) method. The content analysis was used to analyze annual reports, sustainability reports and companies’ websites based on indicators found in the resulted model.

The main finding is the SRI framework (SRIF) of the study, which is built on the basis of the stakeholder relationship theory and is focused on three main dimensions (social, economic and environmental). Specifically, the framework consists of 17 indicators and 93 sub-indicators. On the basis of factor analysis method, it can be safely said that the study’s SRIF is quite valid. The high score of correlations between the SRIF and KLD results at the composite and dimension levels, along with the statistically significant results show that the study’s SRIF results and KLD results are fairly similar.

The present study has its limitation as it only gathers data from publicly available reports issued by the firms (secondary data). Owing to time limitation, primary data are not collected. However, this is also the strength of this research as it will allow investors to replicate the study’s methodology to measure companies’ sustainability.

The study is useful to organizations and statutory bodies toward finding a replicable method to measure the Indonesian companies’ social performance. In addition, the study also introduced the usefulness of the qualitative program Atlas TI to perform content analysis, the exploratory factor analysis method to ensure validity and comparability by comparing it to the KLD methodology, which is known globally as the most widely accepted methodology to measures social performance. Lastly, this study will provide implications to the Government to ascertain the level of SRI reporting among the Indonesian public-listed companies.

The resulted framework in this study simultaneously considers social, environmental and economic factors in the context of companies in Indonesia, while previous researchers have constructed reporting index separately (i.e. Sumiani et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2012). Especially in the context of Indonesia, there is no such index simultaneously focused on the three main dimensions, namely, social, environmental and economics. The current study tries to fill the gap by using the constructed SRI index based on three perspectives combined, namely, social rating agencies, academic theorist and Indonesian companies.

Firms’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) behaviour is embedded in the institutional context. Under this logic, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the institutional antecedents of CSR, especially how two sub-national institutions – regional institutional development and industry dynamism – and their interactions affect firms’ CSR.

The sample consists of 608 Chinese listed firms, with 2,694 observations made from 2009 to 2014. The data were collected from two sources. The CSR information was acquired from the CSR rating agency Rankins CSR Ratings, and the financial data from the China Stock Market and Accounting Research database. Panel ordinary least squares regression was used to test the hypotheses.

The empirical results indicate that firms located in advanced regional institutions and more dynamic industries are more likely to engage in CSR. Moreover, macro institution, termed as regional institutional development, positively moderates the relationship between micro institution in terms of industry dynamism and CSR.

Overlooking how the institutional environment influences CSR decisions limits understanding of firms’ CSR activities. This paper offers an institutional explanation of CSR and, in particular, investigates different levels of sub-national institutions and their interaction.

The purpose of this study was to conduct a scientometric analysis of the body of literature contained in international peer‐reviewed journals, university publications, reports of development organizations and conference publications on the performance management of the microfinance institutions.

A total of 71 research papers (1995‐2010) published in international peer‐reviewed journals, reports of developmental organizations, university reports and international conference publications, which aim to provide insights into the assessment of the microfinance institutions, was reviewed. The review was done along different parameters, namely financial performance, social performance, outreach, sustainability, efficiency, productivity, institutional characteristics and governance.

Based on the literature review, a new conceptual model is proposed that focuses on the overall performance of the MFIs. The study also documents the various dimensions of the performance measurement of the MFIs done so far. It is expected that this study would help turn the attention of microfinance researchers, microfinance practitioners, and various rating agencies to the various dimensions affecting the overall assessment of microfinance institutions.

Attempt was made to make the sample as inclusive and exhaustive as possible, but some research work may inadvertently have not found a place in this study.

A scientometric analysis of the MFI performance measurement is done in terms of longitudinal spread as well as geographical spread focusing the various performance dimensions of microfinance institutions.

The purpose of this paper is to present the three critical changes needed to reform the US health care system – these changes will drive cascades of other beneficial changes. These three changes include the use of transparent market prices, alignment of incentives and systematic assessment and ratings of quality.

The paper used an analysis based on the literature on the comparison between non-market and market systems. The current US health care system is similar to the Soviet economic system, and the paper proposes moving it gradually to where it can respond to market-based signals.

The US health care system needs to adopt transparent and real pricing, independent quality assessment of health provider organizations and portable electronic patient records. These changes will lead to continuing cascades of innovation and improvement.

The recommended changes will be opposed by vested interest groups, and so will be easier with regulatory guidance and encouragement. It would also be useful to protect against “regulatory capture” by interested parties during the change process.

Health care in the USA will gradually become better and cheaper. Health organizations will become more transparent. Regulators would have to set up and supervise private quality ratings agencies.

Social implications of this paper include greater labor mobility and higher productivity, as well as increased competitiveness of the USA.

In spite of numerous writings on the subject, this issue has not been analyzed in this way. This paper is unique in the way in which it layouts the process of movement to a market-based system for the US health care system.

The purpose of this paper is to provide to the Board of Directors and CEOs of a firm to be aware of and accountable for the information they provide to the public. As long as the quality of the companies’ public information is high, it will be able to retain its investors as well as to obtain new ones more easily.

This paper introduces a Multi-Criteria Decision Aid (MCDA) tool with the use of the PROMETHEE II method to formulate an alternative aggregate ESG quality approach. We conduct comparisons in a sectorial and regional based perspective during different exam periods before and after the implementation of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), in an attempt to provide a robust framework for corporate disclosure reporting.

The findings are of particular interest to both scholars and decision-makers, including providers of corporate governance indices and rating agencies. The innovation of this paper lies among others in using the MCDA method with the ESG framework, which proposes a combination of qualitative and quantitative criteria, enabling experienced and/or not experienced analysts to avoid manipulating techniques in business information.

The sample of companies based on the US and Europe companies incorporating only large-sized ones.

Findings are of particular interest to both scholars and decision-makers including providers of corporate governance indices and rating agencies.

Better understanding features pay key importance for increasing the “quality” information in firms financial statements, especially after the use of IFRS in reporting standards.

The authors proceed to analysis using a multiple perspective use that is decomposed into the following options: (a) Time-period oriented option, (b) Regional-oriented option and (c) Sectoral-oriented option respectively.

The purpose of this paper is to show how overall performance can help foster trust in financial institutions. While a climate of mistrust amongst investors and the general public toward financial institutions has developed since the recent turmoil in the financial markets, it is believed that mutual funds adopting the overall performance approach can help recover a climate of trust owing to the implied balance between economic, social and environmental performance. More specifically, overall performance promotes values that are similar to investors’ values and could be used by responsible investment funds if they want to contribute to the restoration of trust in investment funds.

This paper uses an innovative, experimental design to test the effect of value similarity on the trust that investors have in the investment fund. This effect cannot be studied in isolation, which is why it is compared with the effects of financial performance and ethical labeling on trust.

The authors find that funds with similar values are perceived as more trustworthy by investors. Consequently, overall performance should be added to fund managers' toolbox if they want to foster trust in their fund. The effect of financial performance on trust applies only when the investor has no other information regarding the fund. As for the ethical labeling of funds, it has no effect on trust.

The findings encourage research that aims to develop a comprehensive approach of integrated overall performance focusing on financial and extra-financial values. Bonnet et al.’s (2016) fieldwork on socio-economic management and Naro and Travaillé^©’s (2016) work on management controllers provide promising examples in this regard.

Investment funds can acquire an edge by communicating on overall performance and specific values of their target investors. Merely labeling funds as ethical is not sufficient to increase trust.

Increasing similarity in values to investors and adopting the overall performance approach in investment funds will increase investors' trust. Trust contributes to social capital and allows societies to create flexible large-scale businesses needed to be competitive in a global environment.

Using an innovative experimental methodology, this paper shows that the underlying factor of overall performance on trust in investment funds is value similarity. It provides researchers and practitioners with insight about the underlying mechanisms of the effect of overall performance on trust.