Environmental,Social, and Governance (ESG) Profiles,Stock Returns,and Financial Policy: Australian Evidence

This study investigates the independent effects of environmental (E), social (S), corporate governance (G), and the composite ESG ratings on stock returns and corporate financing decisions of the largest stocks in the Australian equity market. Firms with high composite ESG ratings tend to increase their leverage. For the individual ratings, we find different inferences: firms with low E and high G ratings tend to raise less debt. Firms with high G ratings hold less cash, while those with low G ratings have lower dividend payouts. S ratings have no impact on corporate financing decisions. There appears to be no significant difference in risk‐adjusted returns for portfolios based on ESG ratings, effectively indicating that there is no cost of ESG investment.     

Do Credible Firms Perform Better in Emerging Markets? Evidence from China

Prior research suggests that corporate credibility is associated with firm financial performance in developed countries. This article examines whether corporate credibility is related to firm performance using Economic Observer’s rating of corporate credibility in China, the largest emerging market in the world. Based on a four-stage valuation model, we find that more reputable and credible firms outperform those with low ratings by almost 20% in 3-year stock returns and have better 3-year net profit margins, return on equity, and sales growth. This study is the first to directly examine the relationship between corporate credibility and firm performance in emerging markets such as China, and our results confirm that firms with high credibility exhibit better financial and market performance at least in the following 3 years.     

CEO facial masculinity,fraud, and ESG: Evidence from South Korea

Researchers in finance and accounting find that male CEOs' high facial masculinity (fWHR: facial width-to-height ratio), which is known to be related to aggressiveness to achieve higher social status in the neuroendocrinology literature, shows dual impacts on corporate outcomes. For example, firms led by more masculine-faced CEOs have better financial performance (ROA) but are more likely to have a higher likelihood of financial misreporting. The harnessing of the strong achievement drive of masculine-faced CEOs to minimize potentially adverse corporate outcomes is of primary concern. We hypothesize that a well-designed environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practice could serve this purpose. Using a sample of South Korean public companies from 1998 to 2015, we find supporting evidence that a one-standard-deviation increase in fWHR is associated with a three-fold higher likelihood of corporate fraud and that the association is attenuated for firms with stronger ESG performance that includes voluntarily disclosing sustainability reports, holding less cash, and incentivizing with stock options.     

Virtuous Structures

This study treats firm productivity as an accumulation of productive intangibles and posits that stakeholder engagement associated with better corporate social performance helps develop such intangibles. We hypothesize that because shareholders factor improved productive efficiency into stock price, productivity mediates the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Furthermore, we argue that key stakeholders’ social considerations are more valuable for firms with higher levels of discretionary cash and income stream uncertainty. Therefore, we hypothesize that those two contingencies moderate the mediated process of corporate social performance with financial performance. Our analysis, based on a comprehensive longitudinal dataset of the U.S. manufacturing firms from 1992 to 2009, lends strong support for these hypotheses. In short, this paper uncovers a productivity-based, context-dependent mechanism underlying the relationship between corporate social performance and financial performance.     

Crossing the borderline in strategic corporate philanthropy: Dangote and the construction of cement roads in Nigeria

Using the case of Nigeria's Dangote Group and an exploratory research technique, we critique CSR practices in a developing country context based on a three‐pillar model—traditional CSR, strategic CSR and strategic business engagements. Our paper makes a unique contribution by revealing how a company can transform its strategic CSR into strategic business engagements that permit it to circumvent public procurement laws and secure public contracts at non‐competitive terms. We show how, in weak institutional and regulatory contexts, strategic CSR could be turned to a tool for rent extraction and profit maximization. We advocate for regulatory measures that impose ex ante and ex post limits on the extent to which firms can go in integrating CSR into their normal business operations. Based on the outcomes from this important African case study, we illustrate and propose the strategic business engagement model as a new framework for analysing the social benefits of strategic CSR practices in developing countries.     

The effect of cross-listing on the environmental,social, and governance performance of firms

We propose that cross-listing is associated with better environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance, because cross-listed firms adopt ESG practices to mitigate the liability of foreignness (LOF) in foreign financial markets. Institutionalization processes have made ESG practices important for managing challenges associated with the LOF. With tests involving the S&P Global 1200 index, we show that cross-listing improves corporate social responsibility (CSR; i.e., social and environmental dimensions) but not corporate governance. The effects of cross-listing on CSR also depend on investor protection regimes of listing destinations: Stronger regimes correspond with poorer CSR performance, suggesting that they limit managerial discretion.     

Do Firms Spend More on Suppliers That Have Environmental Expertise? An Empirical Study of U.S. Manufacturers’ Procurement Spend

Stakeholders expect focal firms to improve their environmental performance. While firms may be able to accumulate the environmental expertise needed to achieve this goal internally, doing so may require significant time and resource commitments. Alternatively, buyer firms can leverage their suppliers’ existing environmental expertise and gain access to such expertise when they purchase products and services from these suppliers. The purpose of this study was to develop and test theory regarding under what conditions suppliers’ environmental expertise influences a buying firms’ procurement spend with these suppliers. We ground our study in transaction cost economics and agency theories and empirically test our hypotheses using a unique buyer–supplier dyadic data set. We find that buyer firms are willing to increase their overall business spend with suppliers that have strong environmental expertise, particularly when the buyer firms are more profitable and have higher levels of absorptive capacity. However, we find the opposite effect when the buyer firm’s executive compensation is linked to the firm’s environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance. Likewise, we also find that the buyer firm’s environmental concern ratings negatively moderate the relationship between the supplier’s environmental expertise and the buyer’s procurement spend with the supplier.     

Where does ESG pay? The role of national culture in moderating the relationship between ESG performance and financial performance

This study investigates the moderating role of a country’s culture as an external contingency factor in the relationship between a firm’s environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and financial performance. Using ESG performance data of 4978 firms from 48 countries for 17 years, we argue that the financial return from engaging in ESG varies depending on the countries’ cultural aspects because stakeholder evaluations and appreciations for a firm’s ESG performance differ across nations. We find that a country that espouses a culture of high individualism or masculinity tends to appreciate and reflect on this more explicitly, strengthening the relationship between a firm’s ESG performance and financial performance. Contrastingly, in a country with a culture of high power distance or uncertainty avoidance, firms’ ESG efforts are less likely to be associated with financial performance. Our findings have important implications for multinational enterprises facing various cultural environments when dealing with heterogeneous stakeholder demands across countries.     

Losses from Failure of Stakeholder Sensitive Processes: Financial Consequences for Large US Companies from Breakdowns in Product,Environmental, and Accounting Standards

This article makes first use of a set of databases that are authoritative, independent, and consistent to examine an old research question: do firms hurt their financial performance by damaging stakeholder interests? The databases are US government on-line listings of fines for environmental breaches, unsafe workplaces, fraudulent accounting standards, and product recalls. These measures are assumed to proxy for signals to stakeholders of the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks in transacting with the firm and appear to have fewer biases than conventional measures of stakeholder standards. Using a sample of all non-financial S&;P 500 firms during the most recent 1998–2003 full cycle in the market, after controlling for firm-specific differences, sales margins of firms fell by 0.8% if they announced a product recall and by 0.4% if cited by OSHA for an unsafe workplace; and shareholder return was significantly reduced by an EPA or SEC prosecution. This study links the risk of transaction uncertainty, information signaling theory, and the resource-based view of the firm to company financial performance. Results support the normative assumption that a firm’s sales margin will be damaged by unethical treatment of stakeholders as evidenced by ESG breaches, presumably because risk-averse customers and suppliers are alert to signals of counterparty risk.     

Beating the recession blues: Exploring the link between family ownership,strategic marketing behavior and firm performance during recessions

This study explores whether family firms exhibit unique marketing behavior and whether their unique behavior in turn helps them outperform non-family firms during periods of economic contraction. Findings based on a sample of 275 large publicly listed U.S. firms reveal that family firms outperform non-family firms during recessions. This superior performance is partially driven by family firms' proactive marketing behavior and their relatively strong emphasis on corporate social responsibility (CSR). During recessions, while non-family firms tend to decrease their advertising intensities and rates of new product introduction (NPI), family firms are likely to maintain relatively high levels of advertising intensity and rates of NPI. Unlike non-family firms, family firms are also likely to maintain high levels of corporate social performance (CSP) during recessions. These results underscore the benefits of proactive marketing behavior and a continued emphasis on CSR during economic downturns. The authors also add to the scant family-firm literature, demonstrating the family firm to be an effective organizational form.     

Family Firms’ Corporate Social Performance: A Calculated Quest for Socioemotional Wealth

This study investigates the engagement of family firms in corporate social responsibility. We first compare their corporate social performance (CSP) to non-family firms. Then, following recent evidence on the heterogeneity of family firms, we examine two factors that may influence CSP within family firms: the level of family control and the governance orientation of the country in which they operate. This research is based on a theoretical framework which considers both agency and socioemotional wealth (SEW) influences on family firms CSR engagements. Overall, we find that family firms exhibit lower CSP than non-family firms. But when focusing on family firms, our analyses show a curvilinear relationship between family control and CSP. At lower levels of control, family owners invest more in social initiatives to protect their SEW. Beyond a threshold level of control that we estimate at 36 % in our sample, economic considerations prevail over SEW and social performance starts decreasing. We also find that family firms operating in stakeholder-oriented countries are more attentive to social concerns than those operating in more shareholder-oriented countries.     

Making the invisible,visible: Overcoming barriers to ESG performance with an ESG mindset

Improving corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance starts with recognizing that not every dollar of earnings is created equally, as some profit may be earned at the cost of damaging the environment or of harming stakeholder relationships. These costs are often invisible to corporate employees, as they are not recorded. To earn corporate profits that are environmentally and socially responsible, boards and CEOs must overcome two barriers: (1) the ESG issue-assessment barrier, which reflects an organization’s inability to fairly assess, prioritize, scope, and plan ESG initiatives that address the invisible environmental and social damage corporations cause, and (2) the shareholder-value barrier, which recognizes that corporate employees may resist implementing ESG initiatives owing to their entrenched belief that corporations must maximize shareholder returns. To overcome these two barriers, we propose an ESG mindset model that highlights the pitfalls relating to ESG issue assessment and to the common belief in maximizing shareholder value and then suggests tactics to overcome them. The benefits to corporations that successfully overcome the barriers and improve their corporate ESG performance are threefold: They (1) will be perceived as positively contributing to environmental and societal issues, and thereby (2) avoid accusations of greenwashing and (3) improve their standing with stakeholders.     

Can Sinful Firms Benefit from Advertising Their CSR Efforts? Adverse Effect of Advertising Sinful Firms’ CSR Engagements on Firm Performance

This study investigates corporate social responsibility (CSR) of sinful firms, which refer to ones that are operating in controversial industries, including the production and distribution of alcohol, tobacco, gambling, adult entertainment, firearm, military, and nuclear power. We attempt to answer two questions in this study: (1) Do these sinful firms actively advertise their CSR engagements compared to non-sinful firms? And (2) do their advertising efforts really yield increased financial performance? Positing that advertising not only can make sinful firms’ good deeds visible, but also can highlight the contradiction between these firms’ stigma and their prosocial activities, we claim that sinful firms are likely to advertise their CSR engagement to overcome their stigmatized firm image, but these advertising activities will make the firms’ performance vulnerable by inducing skepticism from stakeholders. Using KLD database in conjunction with COMPUSTAT and Center for Research in Security Prices from 1991 to 2010, where 337 firms are involved in the controversial sinful industries, namely tobacco, alcohol, gaming, firearms, military, and nuclear power, we examine the effect of advertising spending of sinful firms’ CSR engagement on performance vulnerability, which is instantiated with idiosyncratic risk. The empirical results indicate that sinful firms increase their advertising expenditure when they engage in CSR programs, but these efforts for advertising CSR tend to increase idiosyncratic risk. This finding indicates that even though sinful firms can benefit from engaging in socially responsible initiatives, advertising their CSR efforts may backfire.     

ESG in Focus: The Australian Evidence

Addressing ESG issues has become a point of interest for investors, shareholders, and governments as a risk management concern, while for firms it has become an emerging part of competitive strategy. In this study, a database from an independent ratings agency is used to examine, longitudinally, how Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) 300 firms are responding to ESG issues. Following institutional theory predictions, ASX300 firms are improving ESG performance over the 2002–2009 timeframe. Furthermore, over this timeframe, performance on the governance dimension improved at a greater rate than environmental or social performance, as predicted. Lastly, high impact industries are predicted to demonstrate overall improved ESG performance relative to medium or low impact industries over the timeframe, but this hypothesis was not confirmed. Results are discussed along with implications and future research directions.     

Do ESG Controversies Matter for Firm Value? Evidence from International Data

The aim of this paper is to investigate the relationship between environmental, social, and governance (ESG) controversies and firm market value. We use a unique dataset of more than 4000 firms from 58 countries during 2002–2011. Primary analysis surprisingly shows that ESG controversies are associated with greater firm value. However, when interacted with the corporate social performance (CSP) score, ESG controversies are found to have no direct effect on firm value while the interaction appears to be highly and significantly positive. Building on this evidence, we attempt to explore the channels through which CSP may enhance market value. Conducting sample split analysis indicates that higher CSP score has an impact on market value only for high-attention firms, those firms which are larger, perform better, located in countries with greater press freedom, more searched on the Internet, more followed by analysts, and have an improved corporate social reputation. Thus, our findings provide new insights on the role of firm visibility through which firms can profit from their CSP.     

Corporate Social Responsibility and Credit Ratings

This study provides evidence on the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firms’ credit ratings. We find that credit rating agencies tend to award relatively high ratings to firms with good social performance. This pattern is robust to controlling for key firm characteristics as well as endogeneity between CSR and credit ratings. We also find that CSR strengths and concerns influence credit ratings and that the individual components of CSR that relate to primary stakeholder management (i.e., community relations, diversity, employee relations, environmental performance, and product characteristics) matter most in explaining firms’ creditworthiness. Overall, our results suggest that CSR performance conveys important non-financial information that rating agencies are likely to use in their evaluation of firms’ creditworthiness, and that CSR investments—particularly those that extend beyond compliance behavior to reflect what is desired by society—can lead to lower financing costs resulting from higher credit ratings.     

Local green finance policies and corporate ESG performance

Based on China's government-business relations theory, we use difference-in-differences and causal forest to find that local green finance policies can significantly enhance corporate ESG performance especially for nonstate-owned companies, companies with high levels of executive social capital, non-heavily polluting companies, and companies in developed regions. We also find that the corporate financing constraint mitigation effect and the regional environmental regulation effect of local green finance policies are important mechanisms for promoting corporate ESG performance. Additionally, local green finance policies can strengthen the positive role of corporate ESG performance in enhancing corporate value, which is conducive to corporate sustainability.     

Doing Good Business by Hiring Directors with Foreign Experience

Using a manually collected dataset on the overseas experiences of directors of Chinese listed firms, we examine the effects of returnee directors on firms’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagement. Our results show that returnee directors significantly improve their firms’ CSR engagement. The positive relationship between the percentage of returnee directors and CSR engagement is more significant when a firm is in a competitive industry, when a firm has no government ownership, when a firm’s CEO is not politically connected, and when a firm’s CEO is older. Furthermore, we find that only long-term foreign professional or academic experience matters, whereas short-term visiting experience does not. Finally, our results are robust after controlling for endogeneity. Therefore, this paper offers clear policy implications by suggesting that hiring more returnees as corporate directors is an efficient way to enhance firms’ CSR, which may be of particular interest to regulators in emerging markets.     

Discussion of “A Theoretical Framework of Professional Accountants’ Identity Formation and Directions for Future Research”

Many researchers believe the tremendous industrial development over the past two centuries is unsustainable because it has led to unintended ecological deterioration. Despite the ever-growing attention sustainable supply-chain management (SSCM) has received, most SSCM research and models look at the consequences, rather than the antecedents or motives of such responsible practices. The few studies that explore corporate motives have remained largely qualitative, and large-scale empirical analyses are scarce. Drawing on multiple theories and combining supply-chain and business ethics literature, we purport that instrumental, relational, and moral motives are behind a firm’s engagement in SSCM practices. Specifically, we examine the links between corporate motives, SSCM practices, and firm performance. Using a sample of 259 supply-chain firms in Germany, we empirically test five hypothesized relationships. Our results reveal that relational and moral motives are key drivers, and that firms exhibiting high levels of moral obligations tend to outperform those primarily driven by amoral considerations. Findings of this study contribute to multiple literatures espousing sustainability management and can help policy makers, stakeholder groups, and scholars develop more robust strategies for encouraging firms to practice SSCM.     

Does the nature of political connection matter for corporate social responsibility engagement? Evidence from China

We examine whether firms' political connection affects their corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagements and how the effects vary with different political ties, namely symbolic and material connections. These ties reflect different degrees of political embeddedness, interest alignment, network size, and monitoring with the government, and therefore impart divergent effects on managerial incentives for CSR practices. Our analysis indicates that CSR in firms with symbolic connection is much more associated with agency cost than CSR in firms with material connection. We also find that large firms with symbolic connection exhibit lower CSR performance than those with material connection, probably because the former group tends to substitute the prestige of their political capital for the goodwill associated with CSR engagement. These results show that accounting for the effects of different types of political connection on managerial incentives contributes some clarity to the debate about the compatibility of CSR with primary corporate mandates.