Search results

Increasingly, U.S. firms voluntarily issue standalone corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports to demonstrate to society a commitment to social and environmental activities (Bebbington, Larrinaga, & Moneva, 2008; Erusalimsky, Gray, & Spence, 2006). To ascertain the effect of standalone CSR reports on investors, we compared the association between CSR performance scores and subsequent stock returns for firms that issue standalone CSR reports versus those that do not. Consistent with a signaling perspective (Akerlof, 1970), we found that firms that voluntarily issue standalone CSR reports have a stronger association between total CSR and CSR strengths and subsequent stock returns than firms that do not. Our findings indicated that investors are relying on standalone CSR reports because they reward CSR performance for firms that issue standalone CSR reports CSR performance for those that do not issue standalone CSR reports.

The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the companies’ motivations to issue or not issue voluntary standalone corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports in the Canadian context.

The authors realized a questionnaire survey that asked Canadian companies why they do or do not issue standalone CSR reports, what their motivations and costs are, and the extent to which they comply with GRI guidelines.

The results show that larger firms issue standalone CSR reports. As larger firms have more political visibility and are subject to greater external scrutiny than smaller firms (Watts and Zimmerman, 1986), the findings indicate that firms primarily issue standalone CSR reports in response to external scrutiny by stakeholders, which is consistent with a stakeholder perspective. The survey also identifies that ancillary motivations for Canadian firms for issuing standalone CSR reports are consistent with legitimacy and signalling perspectives.

The authors acknowledge that the generalizability of the findings is limited due to the sample being situated within a single national context. The inferences drawn from such a sample in Canada may not be applicable to other countries with different national institutional contexts. In addition, the small size of the sample may limit the generalizability of the findings. The authors also did not specifically consider the quality of the CSR reports in the study. Finally, the work may be affected by the inherent weaknesses associated with survey research, including the inherent bias of the individuals responding to the survey.

The research adds to the growing body of research on voluntary CSR disclosures, with particular reference to the Canadian context.

The purpose of the paper is to examine the impact of investor sentiment on managers’ decisions to provide CSR disclosures. The core issue focuses on whether, why and how managers adjust their approach to CSR disclosure to cater to the investor sentiment.

On the basis of 13,488 observations of A-share listed companies, the authors examine the impacts of investor sentiment on CSR disclosure, which is measured separately by the propensity to issue a standalone CSR report and the quality of CSR reports. Furthermore, the authors examine the moderating role of institutional factors in China.

The authors find that during low-sentiment periods, managers are more likely to issue a standalone CSR report and the quality of CSR reports is higher, and vice versa. Additionally, the authors find that the negative correlations between CSR disclosure and investor sentiment are stronger in state-owned enterprises.

First, the measurement of investor sentiment reflects only a part of characteristics of investor sentiment. Second, the authors pay less attention to the specific items of a CSR report.

The study contributes to the literature on CSR disclosure and investor sentiment by combining the two fields together. Furthermore, the study deepens the understanding of the institutional context in China and contributes to research on the predictors of CSR disclosure.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, the authors investigate a firm’s decision to provide a CSR report, and if so, whether to have the report assured and to seek higher quality assurance as reflected through the choices of the scope of the assurance and type of assurer, Big 4 accounting firm vs specialist consultant. Second, the authors investigate the impact of voluntary assurance of CSR reports, assurance scope and type of assurer on the likelihood of inclusion in the DJSI and on market valuation.

The study’s sample consists of 17,050 firm-year observations from 40 countries with CSR reports available from Corporate Register and ESG metrics available from ASSET4 over the period 2009–2015. The study first empirically examines the associations between CSR commitment and each of CSR report provision, CSR report assurance, assurance scope and type of assurer. It then examines that association between both inclusion in the DJSI and market valuation with each of CSR report assurance, assurance scope and type of assurer, using inclusion in the DJSI as an objective measure of a firm’s reputation for sustainability given its recognition as a leading indicator for corporate sustainability and market valuation as a reflection of the broader set of capital market participants.

The authors establish two key findings consistent with the predictions of signaling theory. First, we show that high CSR commitment firms are more likely to: provide standalone CSR reports; obtain assurance; obtain assurance from a Big 4 accounting firm; and, adopt higher assurance scope. Second, the authors find that both CSR report assurance and assurance scope increase the likelihood of inclusion in the DJSI, but that the type of assurance provider does not. Alternatively, the authors find that capital market participants appear to value the provision of a CSR report only when it is assured by a Big 4 accounting firm.

The results in the existing literature exploring the capital market benefits to CSR Assurance have been mixed. Firms that voluntarily obtain CSR Assurance incur a cost in doing so and must perceive a net benefit from obtaining such assurance. Despite the limited guidance currently provided by existing CSR standards, we establish the existence of benefits to obtaining CSR Assurance in terms of enhanced likelihood of DJSI inclusion and, more generally, enhanced market valuation. The discussions with DJSI analysts indicate that CSR assurance does enhance the perceived reliability of CSR data, thus improving user confidence.

The purpose of this study is twofold: to examine the reliability of voluntary corporate social responsibility reporting (CSRR) to determine whether users can rely on the information released by corporations and to examine the determinants of CSRR reliability in a voluntary context.

This study analyses the information included in a sample of 190 standalone corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports issued by Canadian corporations listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange S&P/TSX Composite Index from 2016 to 2018.

The results of this study show that CSR reports lack reliability. The determinants identified (image, corporate governance and financialisation) partially explain the quality of the information disclosed. As well, the results suggest that corporations may attempt to manipulate users’ perception through their disclosures.

TThis study provides a greater understanding of the current state of CSRR in a voluntary context. It offers further insights into the strategies corporations use to manage impressions through CSR disclosures.

This study provides further empirical data as to current shortcomings of voluntary CSRR and the potential benefits of further regulation.

Few studies have specifically focused on the reliability of CSRR and its determinants in a voluntary context.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting has been theorized as a key communication device and an integral part of a broader stakeholder integration management strategy. This paper aims to examine the relationship between CSR disclosures and organized labor, an important internal stakeholder, whose institutional role in dynamically advancing employee interests creates opportunities and challenges for strategic management and firm sustainability.

By using a sample of 2,526 US firm-year observations for the period 2002–2015, the authors demonstrate that managers in unionized contexts are more likely to issue CSR reports than managers in firms, where labor is not organized.

The authors demonstrate that managers in unionized contexts are more likely to issue CSR reports than managers in firms where labor is not organized. Considering stakeholder theory, they argue that, in unionized contexts, managers more intensively resort to CSR disclosures to form an alignment of interests, develop collaborative bonds with unions and smoothen relationships with external financial stakeholders. This effect is more prominent in areas where corporate spatial clustering and the prevailing political ideology facilitate the role of unions.

First, the data refer to USA, which may limit the generalization of the results. Hence, researchers could use cross-country datasets to overcome this limitation. Second, it would be important to know what benefits are enjoyed by the unionized companies that issue CSR reports. Third, they acknowledge that there is useful qualitative information they do not analyze. This analysis could potentially relate specific CSR information to unions’ needs and demands. Further, there are alternative channels through which companies disclose relevant information such as 10-K filings, annual reports, firm websites, media, public announcements, etc. These are not captured by the data.

Managers could benefit from the empirical analysis, which suggests that through the initiation of CSR reports a dialogue with unions is greatly facilitated. Managers should consider that CSR reports reduce information asymmetries and may attract the interest of investors. Unionists should be aware that CSR reports constitute an opportunity to identify mutual interests and align goals. Business analysts, investors and shareholders should be aware that standalone CSR reports are used by managers to reduce information asymmetries and disparities with unions and to communicate an investment-friendly context. So, market participants should factor such policies by unionized firms into their investment analyses.

The authors offer implications for managers, labor unionists and market participants.

This paper examines the relationship between CSR disclosures and organized labor, an important internal stakeholder, whose institutional role in dynamically advancing employee interests creates opportunities and challenges for strategic management and firm sustainability.

This paper aims to determine the perceptions of managers in China with respect to the pressures for, and the purposes of, social and environmental reporting (SER) in the Chinese context.

The authors interviewed 14 managers from nine different state-owned enterprises, all headquartered in Beijing. Interviews were conducted during 2009, the height of the period of growth in standalone corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting in China. The authors assess the perceptions of the managers from a neo-institutional perspective.

The findings indicate that, similar to reporting in more Western economies, managers perceive that a variety of coercive, normative and mimetic pressures interplay to influence SER in the Chinese context. The managers perceive peer institutions as exerting the greatest pressures for reporting and, surprisingly, indicate that the government, rather than exerting coercive pressures for SER, instead is seen as playing a facilitating role. The findings also reveal that the managers almost uniformly see the purpose of the reporting as a tool of image enhancement, particularly with respect to the general public. However, in contrast to studies of organizational response to institutional change in other settings, the authors find little non-conformity.

The findings suggest neo-institutional arguments for CSR reporting appear to hold, even in China’s socialist market economy.

The finding that managers see CSR reporting as being largely about image enhancement may help to explain the low quality of disclosure documented in other studies.

Improving CSR disclosure in China would appear to require more mandated pressure from, particularly, governmental powers.

This is the first study to explore via in-depth interviews the perceptions of managers in China to the evolving practice of standalone CSR reporting.

Corporate investment efficiency ultimately influences economic development but is largely at the discretion of managers. Information asymmetries are problematic in emerging markets, but it is widely believed that corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures can reduce information asymmetries. This paper examines whether CSR disclosures influence corporate capital investment efficiency in emerging Asian markets.

Investment inefficiency is measured as the residuals from an investment model that is constructed by combining variables from prior studies to obtain a more detailed specification. A CSR disclosure index (CSRDI) is constructed from manually collected CSR disclosures for the largest corporations in each of the nine Asian emerging markets, as categorised by the MSCI Emerging Market Index, during 2015–2017. Underinvestments and overinvestments are regressed against the CSRDI, using a two-stage model to address the potential self-selection of CSR report issuers.

The results indicate that CSR disclosures reduce underinvestment for large firms but do not constrain overinvestment. These results are consistent with the propositions that, by increasing transparency or reducing information asymmetry, CSR disclosures can improve firm access to external finance needed to invest in profitable projects but cannot constrain entrenched managers who are not reliant on external finance.

This study extends the literature by analysing the impact of CSR disclosures on both underinvestments and overinvestments and by examining the CSR-investment efficiency across the nine emerging Asian markets. This enhances generalisability compared to single market studies. More generally, this study enhances the understanding of the role of non-financial disclosures in the Asian emerging markets, where corporate investment efficiency is important for economic development but where severe information asymmetry and agency conflicts between insiders and external investors are prevalent. Both the investment community and policymakers should benefit from enhanced understanding of factors that influence investment efficiency in those markets.

The authors aims to examine, first, what factors appear to lead those US companies that do obtain assurance on their CSR reports to do so, and second, whether this assurance appears to be valued by market participants.

The authors use logistic regression analysis to determine what factors explain the choice to seek assurance. For the second stage of the analysis, the authors rely on Aboody et al.'s market valuation model to examine the association between CSR report assurance and firm value.

The authors find that industry membership and disclosure extensiveness both appear to influence the choice to attain third-party assurance on CSR reports in the USA. However, the results also indicate that the assurance is not associated with higher market value for report-issuing companies.

The authors examine only large firms and limit the investigation to a single year. Further, the authors do not examine market valuation effects where a broader stakeholder orientation might influence these relations.

The results suggest that improving the incidence of CSR report attestation in the USA may require efforts from the assurance community to better identify the potential benefits of the practice.

This is the first study to focus on CSR report assurance in a setting where country-level influences appear to limit adoption of the practice. As such, the findings are potentially important for understanding both the low incidence of assurance and what might be necessary to increase its use.

This study aims to investigate the relationship between companies filing versus those not filing corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports and corporate governance.

The websites of US publicly traded companies were examined for commitment to CSR or sustainability reporting based on the preparation of voluntary reports. This information provided the CSR measure, the key independent variable in this study. The data used to compute discretionary accruals (based on the modified Jones model) were obtained from Compustat. Data on auditor tenure were retrieved from Audit Analytics. The number of members and financial experts on an audit committee were gathered from proxy reports filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Companies filing CSR reports have higher audit quality, higher audit committee quality, increased auditor tenure and lower auditor dismissal compared to those not filing CSR reports. The findings support stakeholder theory.

This study’s utilization of multiple measures of corporate governance provides insight into the robustness of the relationship between CSR reporting and corporate governance. Further, this research uses a different measure of CSR reporting; that is, companies that voluntarily prepared separate CSR reports following or not following the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines compared to reports prepared following the GRI guidelines. This approach increases the size and diversity (i.e. industries) of the sample (Kolk, 2003; Waddock and Graves, 1997).

The findings suggest that companies engage in CSR reporting to indicate strong corporate governance.

This study uses multiple measures of corporate governance to demonstrate the positive relationship between CSR behavior (measured via filing of CSR reports) and corporate governance.