How firms respond to mandatory information disclosure

Abstract

Mandatory information disclosure regulations seek to create institutional pressure to spur performance improvement. By examining how organizational characteristics moderate establishments' responses to a prominent environmental information disclosure program, we provide among the first empirical evidence characterizing heterogeneous responses by those mandated to disclose information. We find particularly rapid improvement among establishments located close to their headquarters and among establishments with proximate siblings, especially when the proximate siblings are in the same industry. Large establishments improve more slowly than small establishments in sparse regions, but both groups perform similarly in dense regions, suggesting that density mitigates the power of large establishments to resist institutional pressures. Finally, establishments owned by private firms outperform those owned by public firms. We highlight implications for institutional theory, managers, and policymakers. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Does persistence explain ESG disclosure decisions?

“…This study contributes to the literature on the adoption of corporate ESG disclosure strategies (Bansal & Roth, 2000;Brammer & Pavelin, 2008;Delmas & Toffel, 2008;Doshi, Dowell, & Toffel, 2013;Gamerschlag, Moller, & Verbeeten, 2011;Huang, 2013;Rodriguez & LeMaster, 2007;Sharma, 2000;Sharma, Pablo, & Vredenburg, 1999;among others). The results show that persistence in management's approach to ESG disclosure, as proxied by managerial tenure, plays an important role in inhibiting more complete, transparent disclosures.…”

“…In most instances, managers are granted great leeway with respect to their ESG disclosure strategies (Clarkson et al, 2008). The voluntary nature of most ESG disclosure provides space for managers to select the level of firm disclosure consistent with their preferences (Bansal & Roth, 2000;Delmas & Toffel, 2008;Doshi et al, 2013;Sharma, 2000;Sharma et al, 1999). For example, managerial attitudes towards environmental issues affect firm strategies for pollution reduction and play a prominent role in their firm's response to environmental issues (Cordano & Frieze, 2000;Egri & Herman, 2000;Sharma, 2000).…”

Does Corporate Social Responsibility Put Reputation at Risk by Inviting Activist Targeting? An Empirical Test among European SMEs

“…Still, the reputational liability effect of CSR might also be important for SMEs. As they are embedded in their local community (Doshi et al, 2013), their CSR performance may be noticed by local activists in their local community and become known in local media (Fuller and Tian, 2006). King and McDonnell's finding that an increase in CSR activities makes a company a more likely target of activists' engagement, may therefore also apply to SMEs (King and McDonnell, 2012).…”

“…Although SMEs are less visible, it can be argued that they also need a social license from the local community. Since SMEs are highly embedded in their local community, they will be seriously harmed if local NGOs spread bad news about their CSR in the media in the local community (Fuller and Tian, 2006;Doshi et al, 2013).…”

Mandatory corporate social responsibility disclosure and dividend payouts: evidence from a quasi‐natural experiment

“…Corporate social responsibility essentially requires firms to conduct business beyond compliance with the law and beyond shareholder wealth maximisation (Lin, ) . It is noteworthy that firms increasingly face external pressures from stakeholders to curb undesirable behaviours and comply with sustainability norms, which have perhaps intensified in the aftermath of the global financial crisis (Doshi et al ., ; McGuinness et al ., ). Although previous literature assesses the economic impact of CSR disclosure to some extent (e.g.…”