Does Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Improve Credit Ratings? Evidence from Geographic Identification

We show that a firm's CSR policy is significantly influenced by the CSR policies of firms in the same three‐digit zip code, an effect possibly due to investor clienteles, local competition, and/or social interactions. We then exploit the variation in CSR across the zip codes to estimate the effect of CSR on credit ratings under the assumption that zip code assignments are exogenous. We find that more socially responsible firms enjoy more favorable credit ratings. In particular, an increase in CSR by one standard deviation improves the firm's credit rating by as much as 4.5%.     

Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect the Cost of Bank Loans? Evidence from China

This article examines the link between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and cost of bank loans (CBL) in China. We find that there exists an inverse U-shape relationship between CSR and CBL. In addition, CSR threshold for state-owned enterprises (SOEs) is higher than for non-SOEs. In particular, CSR threshold for SOEs is lower in regions with high degree of marketization than in regions with low degree of marketization. The findings indicate that value-destroying effect occurs during CSR underinvestment phase, which is different from the overinvestment view. Moreover, the effect of CSR on CBL also depends on contextual factors such as firm ownership and marketization level.     

Does a Government Mandate Crowd Out Voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility? Evidence from India

This study investigates the implementation of a Government of India mandate that requires firms to spend at least 2% of their profits on corporate social responsibility (CSR). The results show that qualifying firms that voluntarily engaged in CSR before the mandate reduce their CSR spending afterward. Despite increasing advertisement expenditure likely to offset the lost signaling value of voluntary CSR, stock prices and operating performance of former voluntary CSR spenders who qualify under the law decline. Our results suggest that regulatory intervention in CSR can both diminish its signaling value and lead to a reduction in voluntary CSR spending.     

Does Earnings Quality Influence Corporate Social Responsibility Performance? Empirical Evidence of the Causal Link

The study examines the causal links between earnings quality and corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance using a large sample of United States (US) firms from 1992 to 2013. We first find that the association between earnings quality and CSR performance is positive and significant. We then test the flow of causality using Granger's (1969) lead–lag analysis to determine whether changes in earnings quality cause changes in CSR performance or vice versa. Our findings show that changes in earnings quality cause changes in a firm's CSR performance but not vice versa. Further analysis shows that earnings quality reduces the cost of equity capital for firms with higher CSR performance. These findings suggest that one plausible means by which firms with higher earnings quality can maintain better CSR performance is to reduce their cost of equity capital.     

Does Social Capital Matter in Corporate Decisions? Evidence from Corporate Tax Avoidance

We investigate whether the levels of social capital in U.S. counties, as captured by strength of civic norms and density of social networks in the counties, are systematically related to tax avoidance activities of corporations with headquarters located in the counties. We find strong negative associations between social capital and corporate tax avoidance, as captured by effective tax rates and book‐tax differences. These results are incremental to the effects of local religiosity and firm culture toward socially irresponsible activities. They are robust to using organ donation as an alternative social capital proxy and fixed effect regressions. They extend to aggressive tax avoidance practices. Additionally, we provide corroborating evidence using firms with headquarters relocation that changes the exposure to social capital. We conclude that social capital surrounding corporate headquarters provides environmental influences constraining corporate tax avoidance.     

Corporate Social Responsibility: Is Too Much Bad?—Evidence from India

Asia-Pacific Financial Markets - Over the years, firms have been using Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a strategic tool to improve their competitiveness and ultimately benefit their...     

Corporate Social Responsibility,Corporate Performance,and Pay-Performance Sensitivity—Evidence from Shanghai Stock Exchange Social Responsibility Index

Based on annual data of listed companies on Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE) through 2009–2013, this article examines three hypotheses: first, whether a firm’s taking corporate social responsibility (CSR) affects corporate performance; second, whether corporate governance and a firm’s age positively moderate the relationship between CSR and performance; and third, whether CSR positively moderates the magnitude/direction of linkage between a firm’s performance and top management/director compensation (pay-performance sensitivity, PPS). Three proxies for CSR engagement are constructed by a firm’s inclusion in the SSE Social Responsibility Index. Empirical evidence generally shows that firms engaging in CSR tend to obtain superior performance in terms of higher profitability. However, firm’s age and sound corporate governance have little additional benefit on the effect of a firm engaging in CSR on performance. Finally, greater CSR engagement is associated with larger PPS. Principal outcome does not shift under two-stage estimation and propensity score matching (PSM) to correct for sample self-selection of CSR engagement.     

Does “Vote No” Change Corporate Governance and Firm Value? Evidence from the Shareholder Activism of the Korean National Pension Service

In this paper, we analyze the effect of shareholder activism on firm value through internal corporate governance in an emerging market. We investigate the shareholder activism by the National Pension Service (NPS) of Korea, the fourth-largest pension fund in the world in 2010. We investigate stock price reaction to a “vote no” press announcement and find that the market does not react in the short run, which reaction is inconsistent with the results from developed countries. We also find that firms experiencing “vote no” and improved internal corporate governance have higher firm valuation. Shareholder activism by the NPS is effective in increasing target firm value through improving internal corporate governance.     

Do Financial Markets Care about Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure? Further Evidence from China

Corporations increasingly define their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities as a part of their business. However, is this trend beneficial to investors? Based on an event study methodology and a sample of Chinese listed companies, we extend the literature on voluntary disclosure by exploring the role of CSR disclosure in reducing stock market information asymmetry, as proxied by share price volatility and liquidity. Our results show that the share price volatility after CSR disclosure is lower than before CSR disclosure; however, the trend is that it decreases first and then increases for three months following disclosure. Stock liquidity also significantly improves after CSR disclosure; however, it increases first and then decreases. Additionally, by dividing CSR disclosure into economic (hard) disclosure and generic (soft) disclosure, we find that the reduction in information asymmetry is higher for hard disclosure than soft disclosure, suggesting that although CSR disclosure does indeed have an impact on investors’ behaviour in China, an economic‐based disclosure contributes more substantially. Finally, to better understand the characteristics of the Chinese financial market, we also explore the role of marketisation with results that show that the effect in reducing information asymmetry is greater for companies located in a region with a higher degree of marketisation.     

Does Cross-Listing Benefit the Shareholders? Evidence from Companies in the GCC Countries?

The goal of this study is to estimate the impact of cross-listing on stock returns, on liquidity, and on risk. A sample of 24 companies from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries which cross-listed their stocks in a foreign market over the period 2000–2010 were chosen for study. An event study estimating abnormal returns related to the cross-listing event as well as parametric and nonparametric tests find that there is (1) a significant abnormal return of about 6 % that lasts until 6 days after the cross-listing day and starts fading away thereafter (2) a significant increase in liquidity during the event period for most firms and (3) on average a decrease in risk. Our results also suggest that cross-listing had a small impact on market risk measured by the average beta but led to a decrease in the total risk measured by standard deviation of returns and a decrease in the potential loss measured by the average value at risk at the 5 % confidence. Additionally, an analysis based on the foreign market of secondary listing suggests that the benefit of cross-listing varies with the market of secondary listing. The positive abnormal return is more obvious for companies that cross-listed in Kuwait, Bahrain, and London. The most obvious increase in liquidity is for firms that cross-listed in London or in Bahrain and the biggest decrease in risk is for companies that cross-listed in London. We conclude overall that cross-listing in London benefits the shareholders the most as it leads to positive significant abnormal returns, an increase in liquidity, and a decrease in risk.     

Do Corporate Venture Capitalists Add Value to Start-Up Firms? Evidence from IPOs and Acquisitions of VC-Backed Companies

We present evidence that corporate venture capitalists (CVCs) add value to start-up companies only when the start-ups have a strategic fit with the parent corporations of CVCs. We find that CVCs provide a variety of services and support that suit the specific needs of start-ups operating in different industries. CVC-backed start-ups are able to obtain higher valuations at the IPO than non-CVC-backed ones, and the value added by CVCs concentrates in start-ups with a strategic overlap with CVC parents. Entrepreneurial companies with strategic CVC backing also receive higher takeover premiums when they become acquisition targets .     

Does liberalization reduce agency costs? Evidence from the Indian banking sector

On February 16, 2002, the Reserve Bank of India issued a circular that signaled a policy liberalization facilitating acquisition of private sector banks in India by foreign entities. Portfolios of private sector and nationalized banks posted significant value gains in the days surrounding the announcement. The gains by private sector banks were almost double those of nationalized banks. We further analyze the firm specific abnormal returns using cross-sectional regressions and find a significant relation between firm-specific abnormal returns and factors typically associated with a bank’s potential for takeover. These results provide the first empirical support for Stulz’s hypothesis that one cause of the valuation gains associated with liberalization is the expected gain from a reduction of agency costs.     

Do Buyouts (Still) Create Value?

We examine how leveraged buyouts from the most recent wave of public to private transactions created value. Buyouts completed between 1990 and 2006 are more conservatively priced and less levered than their predecessors from the 1980s. For deals with post‐buyout data available, median market‐ and risk‐adjusted returns to pre‐ (post‐) buyout capital invested are 72.5% (40.9%). In contrast, gains in operating performance are either comparable to or slightly exceed those observed for benchmark firms. Increases in industry valuation multiples and realized tax benefits from increasing leverage, while private, are each economically as important as operating gains in explaining realized returns.     

How Does the Market for Corporate Control Function for Property Companies?

We investigate 95 takeovers of property companies all over the world and find that only two of those are hostile. To determine the effectiveness of the market for corporate control, we first study characteristics of targets and acquirers compared to a control sample, using the complete global universe of listed property companies during the most recent takeover wave (1999–2004). We find that the inefficient management hypothesis holds for both REITs and non-REITs, as targets exhibit significant underperformance before takeovers. In the second part of this study, we investigate shareholder wealth effects following takeovers and confirm previous findings that abnormal returns for targets and bidders are distinctly different for the real estate sector. Moreover, we show that this difference not only holds for REIT-to-REIT mergers, but also for mergers of real estate firms without a REIT-status.

Does Corporate Governance Predict Future Performance? Evidence from Hong Kong

This study uses time‐series data to examine the relation between changes in the quality of corporate governance practices and subsequent market valuation among large listed companies in Hong Kong. The results indicate that firms that exhibit improvements in the quality of corporate governance display a subsequent increase in market valuation, whereas firms that exhibit deterioration in the quality of corporate governance practices tend to encounter a decline in market valuation. Additionally, the impact is greater for firms that are included in the MSCI index or with a China affiliation. The results provide evidence in support of the notion that good corporate governance can predict future market valuation.     

Does CSR matter in times of crisis? Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic

The debate over how firm stakeholder engagement is tied to preserving shareholder wealth has received growing attention in recent years, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis. Against this backdrop, we examine the relation between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and stock market returns during the COVID-19 pandemic-induced market crash and the post-crash recovery. Using a sample of 1750 U.S. firms and two major sources of CSR ratings, we find no evidence that CSR affected stock returns during the crash period. This result is robust to various sensitivity tests. In additional cross-sectional analysis, we find some supporting evidence, albeit weak, that the relation between CSR and stock returns during the pandemic-related crisis is more positive when CSR is congruent with a firm's institutional environment. We also find that Business Roundtable companies, which committed to protecting stakeholder interests prior to the pandemic, do not outperform during the pandemic crisis. We conclude that pre-crisis CSR is not effective at shielding shareholder wealth from the adverse effects of a crisis, suggesting a potential disconnect between firms' CSR orientation (ratings) and actual actions. Our evidence suggests that investors can distinguish between genuine CSR and firms engaging in cheap talk.     

Are Controlling Shareholders Influencing the Relationship Between CSR and Earnings Quality? Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies

This article examines how controlling shareholders may affect the relationship between the level of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and earnings quality. We find that controlling shareholders have a significant impact on the relationship between the level of CSR and earnings quality; the relationship between the level of CSR and earnings quality is significantly positive in privately owned enterprises but not state-owned enterprises; and, among state-owned enterprises, the relationship is weaker at enterprises controlled by the central government than at those controlled by local governments. Our article highlights the differential impacts of controlling shareholders on the relationship between CSR and earnings quality.     

Does the Use of Foreign Currency Derivatives Affect Firms' Market Value? Evidence from Colombia

High returns in emerging markets over the last decade have attracted international investors. This study investigates if and how economic or political news affects stock market activity in two emerging markets: Argentina and Turkey. Our analysis shows that political and economic news influences both the volatility of returns and trading volume in these markets to varying degrees. Results suggest that both economic and political factors, as well as specific market characteristics, should be taken into consideration by international investors when making investment decisions in emerging markets.     

Does Risk Management Add Value? A Survey of the Evidence

The fact that 92% of the world's 500 largest companies recently reported using derivatives suggests that corporate managers believe financial risk management can increase shareholder value. Surveys of finance academics indicate that they too believe that corporate risk management is, on the whole, a valueadding activity. This article provides an overview of almost 30 years of broadbased, stock‐market‐oriented academic studies that address one or more of the following questions:

• ? Are interest rate, exchange rate, and commodity price risks reflected in stock price movements?
• ? Is volatility in corporate earnings and cash flows related in a systematic way to corporate market values?
• ? Is the corporate use of derivatives associated with reduced risk and higher market values?

The answer to the first question, at least in the case of financial institutions and interest rate risk, is a definite yes; all studies with this focus find that the stock returns of financial firms are clearly sensitive to interest rate changes. The stock returns of industrial companies exhibit no pronounced interest rate exposure (at least as a group), but industrial firms with significant cross‐border revenues and costs show considerable sensitivity to exchange rates (although such sensitivity actually appears to be reduced by the size and geographical diversity of the largest multinationals). What's more, the corporate use of derivatives to hedge interest rate and currency exposures appears to be associated with lower sensitivity of stock returns to interest rate and FX changes. But does the resulting reduction in price sensitivity affect value—and, if so, how? Consistent with a widely cited theory that risk management increases value by limiting the corporate “underinvestment problem,” a number of studies show a correlation between lower cash flow volatility and higher corporate investment and market values. The article also cites a small but growing group of studies that show a strong positive association between derivatives use and stock price performance (typically measured using price‐to‐book ratios). But perhaps the nearest the research comes to establishing causality are two studies—one of companies that hedge FX exposures and another of airlines' hedging of fuel costs—that show that, in industries where hedging with derivatives is common, companies that hedge outperform companies that don't.     

Mind the Gap: Is Water Disclosure a Missing Component of Corporate Social Responsibility?

Corporate water stewardship is conventionally internally focused, but now it is becoming a critical issue in a wider socio-political context. Drawing on the theory of self-regulation, we investigate the rationale behind, and the factors contributing to, corporate decisions to voluntarily disclose water information via the CDP. The study uses innovative proxies for corporate self-regulation, including water governance, water policy, water actions, and water performance. Our results show that these proxies are significantly related to the propensity of the companies participating in the CDP to disclose water information. Furthermore, belonging to a water-intensive industry may moderate the impact of self-regulation on water transparency. Finally, sharing water information privately with key institutional investors is a strategic tool for implementing self-regulation. The study suggests that corporate self-regulation can play a powerful role in reducing corporate water opaqueness when mandatory water legislation is absent or not yet applicable.