Does corporate social responsibility impact equity risk? International evidence

Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting - Based on a large panel of listed firms from 52 countries in the period 2002–2020, we investigate the relationship between corporate social...     

Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence

This paper assesses whether shareholders drive the environmental and social (E&S) performance of firms worldwide. Across 41 countries, institutional ownership is positively associated with E&S performance with additional tests suggesting this relation is causal. Institutions are motivated by both financial and social returns. Investors increase firms’ E&S performance following shocks that reveal financial benefits to E&S improvements. In cross section, investors increase firms’ E&S performance when they come from countries with a strong community belief in the importance of E&S issues, but not otherwise. As such, these institutional investors transplant their social norms regarding E&S issues around the world.     

Do common owners influence corporate social responsibility? Firm-level evidence from China

Using a sample of Chinese A-share listed companies from 2007 to 2018, this article explores the influence of common owners on corporate social responsibility (CSR). The results show that common owners significantly promote CSR investment, indicating that increased CSR represents a bright side to common owners, in contrast to their anticompetitive effect. Further analysis shows that the nature of state ownership significantly weakens the positive relationship between common owners and CSR investment. Prospector firms strengthen the positive influence of common owners on CSR investment, whereas defender firms weaken the effect. Moreover, common owners benefit from increasing CSR investment, and co-owned firms benefit by easing their financial constraints when they invest or increase their investment in social responsibility. The findings enhance the outstanding of how common owners affect corporate behavior and enrich the literature on common ownership and CSR investment.     

Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital?

We examine the effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the cost of equity capital for a large sample of US firms. Using several approaches to estimate firms’ ex ante cost of equity, we find that firms with better CSR scores exhibit cheaper equity financing. In particular, our findings suggest that investment in improving responsible employee relations, environmental policies, and product strategies contributes substantially to reducing firms’ cost of equity. Our results also show that participation in two “sin” industries, namely, tobacco and nuclear power, increases firms’ cost of equity. These findings support arguments in the literature that firms with socially responsible practices have higher valuation and lower risk.     

Strange bedfellows? Voluntary corporate social responsibility disclosure and politics

We show a reliable association between voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure and company political interests, which we proxy by company employees’ contributions to political action committees and statewide voting in presidential elections. This relation is most pronounced for the contributions of Democratic employees at companies in states that vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. We also show a positive association between corporate political contributions and excess stock returns. A portfolio strategy of investing based on company size, CSR disclosure intensity and corporate political contributions produces a significant positive mean excess stock return of 4.5 per cent over 3 months following CSR disclosure.     

Does corporate social responsibility help the survivorship of SMEs and large firms?

Using a sample of 2480 firms from 51 countries covering the period 2010–2015, we find that firms with more effective corporate governance mechanisms are more likely to be more engaged in CSR. Consistent with the stakeholder theory and the conflict resolution model, this result suggests that managers adopt effective governance mechanisms together with CSR engagement in an attempt to mitigate conflicts among stakeholders. Moreover, after controlling for endogeneity and simultaneity issues, we find that both CSR engagement and corporate governance mechanisms have a significantly negative influence on the firms' risk of financial distress measured by the Altman et al. model (1995). Our results also show that the favorable influence of CSR on the firms' capability of survivorship is more pronounced in SMEs than in large firms.     

Does social responsibility begin at home? The relation between firms’ pension policies and corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities

Review of Accounting Studies - Pension freezes are highly visible corporate actions with the potential to hurt the firms’ reputation as “responsible” employers. We document that...     

Does corporate social responsibility affect mutual fund performance and flows?

We use an asset-weighted composite corporate social responsibility (CSR) fund score to study the effects of CSR on fund performance and flows. Compared to low-CSR funds, high-CSR funds display poorer performance, stronger performance persistence, a weaker performance-flow relationship, and comparable persistence in flows. These findings are consistent with investors in high-CSR funds deriving utility from non-performance attributes.     

Do controlling shareholders' expropriation incentives imply a link between corporate governance and firm value? Theory and evidence

We develop and test a model that investigates how controlling shareholders' expropriation incentives affect firm values during crisis and subsequent recovery periods. Consistent with the prediction of our model, we find that, during the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Asian firms with weaker corporate governance experience a larger drop in their share values but, during the post-crisis recovery period, such firms experience a larger rebound in their share values. We also find consistent evidence for Latin American firms during the 2001 Argentine economic crisis. Our results support the view that controlling shareholders' expropriation incentives imply a link between corporate governance and firm value.     

Does executive portfolio structure affect risk management? CEO risk-taking incentives and corporate derivatives usage

This paper extends the investigation of the effect of managerial motives on hedging policy. I utilize a proxy variable that incorporates CEO incentives to increase risk relative to incentives to increase stock price. The variable is directly measured using observed characteristics of CEO portfolios of stock and option holdings. Furthermore, CEO risk-taking incentives are modeled as a choice variable to eliminate the simultaneity bias of modeling risk-taking incentives as an exogenous variable. If modeled as a simultaneous system of equations, a strong negative link between CEO risk-taking incentives and the amount of derivative holdings exists. This result is consistent with the notion that derivatives are used for hedging purposes. Both the characteristics of stock and option holdings are important in determining cross-sectional differences in corporate derivative holdings.     

Does debt concentration depend on the risk-taking incentives in CEO compensation?

Using a sample of US non-financial firms we show that an increase in risk-taking incentives in CEO pay is associated with a greater debt concentration by debt type. This result holds in various empirical settings that account for endogeneity and is in line with the view that a more concentrated debt structure in fewer debt types reduces coordination problems among creditors and the related financial distress costs. Along these lines, we find our results are stronger in riskier firms, in firms with more volatile cash-flows or less stakeholder-orientation and when CEO pay incentives are embedded in vested options that are expected to favor business choices with more immediate negative effects on debtholders' wealth. Overall, our findings are consistent with theoretical models in which the debt structure of a firm acts as a commitment device.     

A research note on standalone corporate social responsibility reports: Signaling or greenwashing?

Over the past two decades, more and more U.S. firms are voluntarily issuing costly standalone Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reports. Nevertheless, firms’ motivations for issuing standalone CSR Reports are not clear. In this paper, we consider two different explanations: signaling and greenwashing. The first explanation, signaling, proposes that firms use standalone CSR Reports as a signal of their superior commitment to CSR, which suggests firms with stronger social and environmental records will be more likely to issue standalone CSR Reports as compared to those without. The second explanation, greenwashing, proposes that firms use standalone CSR Reports to pose as “good” corporate citizens even when they do not have stronger social and environmental records. To provide insight into these explanations we compare the CSR performance scores of firms that issue CSR reports to those firms that do not. We control for firm size, leverage, profitability and industry. We find that firms that voluntarily issue standalone CSR Reports generally have higher CSR performance scores, which suggests that firms are using voluntary CSR Reports to publicize stronger social and environmental records to stakeholders.     

What do we learn from ratings about corporate social responsibility? New evidence of uninformative ratings

The rise of investments professionally managed with a socially responsible mandate has generated growing interest in environmental and social ratings. However, it is not clear how informative these ratings are or whether they are distorted by greenwashing. Based on the ratings of the leading provider, I offer the first evidence linking greenwashing to ratings inflation. Better ratings do not predict less future corporate bad behavior. This is of concern because it undermines the signaling value of these ratings. To understand these results, I develop a model where the rating agency may underinvest in greenwashing detection while firms have incentives to window dress and engage in greenwashing. Finally, controlling for greenwashing improves ratings predictive quality.     

The IPO corporate social responsibility information disclosure: Does the stock market care?

We create textual information indices using corporate social responsibility (CSR) information extracted from IPO prospectuses in China. We use the indices to measure the issuers’ corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate environmental performance (CEP) and assess how the stock market reacts. We find that CSP disclosure is significantly related to the post‐market performance of the firm. Specifically, better CSP disclosure is correlated with higher post‐IPO listing holding period returns among firms that do not disclose donations or environmental expenditures, although the association does not hold for firms that make donations and environmental expenditures. In addition, institutional investors seem to care more about the CEP information for a firm than the CSP information.     

Does corporate social responsibility affect auditor-client contracting? Evidence from auditor selection and audit fees

We find that firms with higher CSR performance are more likely to choose Big N auditors and less likely to switch to non-Big N auditors, consistent with socially responsible firms demanding higher audit quality. Furthermore, we provide robust evidence that firms with higher CSR performance pay lower audit fees using both levels and changes models, suggesting that higher CSR performance reduces auditor engagement risk. Our analysis based on the difference-in-differences approach indicates that it is higher CSR performance that leads to lower audit fees, not vice versa. Overall, the results highlight the important role of CSR performance in auditor-client contracting.     

Is corporate social responsibility sufficient enough to explain the investment by socially responsible funds?

I propose an explanation for investment decisions by socially responsible investment funds (SRI) on the firms with higher corporate social responsibility (CSR). Different from the previous literature, I use a unique and comprehensive measure that considers both firm CSR ratings and fund CSR perception. I show SRI mutual funds increase their ownership about 15 % for one unit increase in the firm CSR score when those funds are highly sensitive to CSR. This finding is more pronounced for employee relations and society areas of CSR. The results also hold for a broader range of mutual funds. While industry concentration does not have influence on the fund investment, SRI funds particularly choose socially responsible firms operating in construction, transportation, personal services, and financial sector. I show the funds with CSR sensitivity underperform the market in general and fail to improve their portfolio performance after they invest in the firms with high CSR.     

Does ambiguity matter for corporate debt financing? Theory and evidence

Traditional tradeoff theories puzzlingly predict that firms use high leverage, issue debt carrying a high duration and low yield spread, and have optimal debt policies highly affected by managerial risk-shifting behavior. We offer an ambiguity-based explanation for these corporate debt puzzles. The key intuition is that ambiguity-averse managers hold the worst-case belief about EBIT growth, resulting in upward (downward) distortion of bankruptcy (restructuring) probability. While firms under ambiguity aversion take less leverage, optimal leverage increases with ambiguity (if holding information constraints fixed). Our theoretical predictions about the impact of ambiguity aversion on corporate debt financing are supported by empirical evidence. Moreover, we document that the tradeoff models allowing for ambiguity aversion achieve a better performance in fitting real data, and information-constraint heterogeneities can be a distinctive determinant of leverage variations.     

How does corporate social responsibility affect financial performance,financial stability,and financial inclusion in the banking sector? Evidence from Pakistan

This paper examines the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the financial performance, financial inclusion, and financial stability of the banking sector, focusing on annual data for 20 Pakistani commercial banks for the period 2008–2017. The results suggest that CSR, as well as age and size, has a positive impact on all three factors. However, high levels of leverage reduce financial inclusion and financial stability, while financial inclusion is also negatively associated with the tangibility of assets.     

Benefits from social trading? Empirical evidence for certificates on wikifolios

Social trading describes the idea that signal providers make their investment decisions available to other investors who follow them. The performance of social trading has hardly been in the focus of research so far. We analyze the performance of 1084 wikifolio certificates used in social trading and issued in 2012 and 2013. We apply factor models to analyze these certificates' returns and alphas relative to benchmark indexes. We find that, on average, wikifolios do not outperform the market. However, wikifolios with geographical focus provide better performance than those without. Furthermore, the best performing wikifolios earn significant short-term excess returns.     

Are red or blue companies more likely to go green? Politics and corporate social responsibility

Using the firm-level corporate social responsibility (CSR) ratings of Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini, we find that firms score higher on CSR when they have Democratic rather than Republican founders, CEOs, and directors, and when they are headquartered in Democratic rather than Republican-leaning states. Democratic-leaning firms spend $20 million more on CSR than Republican-leaning firms ($80 million more within the sample of S&P 500 firms), or roughly 10% of net income. We find no evidence that firms recover these expenditures through increased sales. Indeed, increases in firm CSR ratings are associated with negative future stock returns and declines in firm ROA, suggesting that any benefits to stakeholders from social responsibility come at the direct expense of firm value.