Purpose – This paper aims to examine whether capital market rewards firms with good corporate sustainability practices in an international setting by using the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI hereafter) as an integrated measure of firm sustainability performance. Design/methodology/approach – There are two alternative theories regarding the impact of sustainability on firm value. The value-creating theory predicts that integration of environmental and social responsibility into corporate strategies and practices reduces firm risk and promotes long-term value creation. The value-destroying theory on sustainability suggests that managers may engage in socially responsible activities at the expense of shareholders. To perform empirical tests, we use a large international sample for a period of 13 years between 1999 (the first year when DJSI became available) and 2011. To control for self-selection bias and simultaneity, the authors use lagged values of sustainability performance in a robustness check. Findings – The authors find a positive relation between sustainability performance and firm value, after controlling for variables that have been found to affect firm value in the existing literature. The test results are consistent with the value enhancing theory (as opposed to the shareholder expense theory) regarding the role of sustainability engagement in firm valuation. Furthermore, the positive impact of sustainability engagement on firm value is primarily driven by countries with strong investor protection and with high disclosure levels. Research limitations/implications – A positive impact of sustainability performance on firm value supports the value-creating theory and rejects the value-destroying theory. Test results also suggest a more pronounced market response to corporate sustainability in countries with stronger shareholders protection and higher requirement for financial transparency. Practical implications – Given the growing international capital market and intensifying global competition, the valuation implications of sustainability in an international context is of practical interest to management, investors and regulators worldwide. Originality/value – First, it is an initial attempt to test an integrated measure of the “triple-bottom-line” definition of sustainability in an international setting. Second, our paper studies the international variation in market valuation of firm sustainability performance in terms of the value enhancing versus shareholder expense theories on sustainability. The authors explore the relevance of sustainability performance in relation to the investor protection and the reporting environment across countries.

No abstract

This study examines the relative value relevance of R&D reporting in France, Germany, the UK and the USA. France and the UK allow conditional capitalization of R&D costs, whereas Germany and the USA (except for the software industry) require the full and immediate expensing of all R&D costs. The relative value relevance of R&D reporting under different R&D accounting standards are compared while controlling for the reporting environment. Test results suggest that the level of R&D reporting has a significant effect on the association of equity price with accounting earnings and book value. The reporting of total R&D costs provides additional information to accounting earnings and book value in Germany and the USA (expensing countries), and the allocation of R&D costs between capitalization and expense further increases the value relevance of R&D reporting in France and the UK (capitalizing countries), including firms in the US software industry.

No abstract

This study investigates the valuation effect of modified audit opinions (MAOs) on the emerging Chinese stock market. Here, the term MAO refers to both qualified opinions and unqualified opinions with explanatory notes. The latter can be considered an alternative form of a qualified opinion in China. The institutional setting in China enables us to find compelling evidence in support of the monitoring role of independent auditing as an institution. First, we find a significantly negative association between MAOs and cumulative abnormal returns after controlling for effects of other concurrent announcements. Further, results from a by‐year analysis suggest that investors did not reach negative consensus about MAOs' valuation effect until the second year, exhibiting the learning process of a market without prior exposure to MAOs. Second, we do not observe significant differences between market reaction to non‐GAAP‐ and GAAP‐violation‐related MAOs. Third, no significant difference is found between market reaction to qualified opinions and market reaction to unqualified opinions with explanatory notes.