The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) information in supply-chain contracting: Evidence from the expansion of CSR rating coverage

Darendeli, Alper; Fiechter, Peter; Hitz, Jörg‐Markus; Lehmann, Nico

doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2022.101525

Cited by 45 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Examples of stakeholder pressure include public shaming by the press (Dyck, Volchkova, and Zingales [2008]), adverse product demand by consumers (Jin and Leslie [2003]), or reduced contracting by corporate customers (Darendeli et al. [2021]). Affected firms may respond to stakeholder pressure by adjusting their CSR activities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Real Effects of a Widespread CSR Reporting Mandate: Evidence from the European Union's CSR Directive

Fiechter

Hitz

Lehmann

2022

J of Accounting Research

Self Cite

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate real effects of a widespread corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting mandate. In 2014, the European Union (EU) passed Directive 2014/95 (hereafter, "CSR Directive"), mandating large listed EU firms to prepare annual nonfinancial reports beginning from fiscal year 2017 onward. We document that firms within the scope of the directive respond by increasing their CSR activities and that they start doing so before the entry-into-force of the directive. These real effects are concentrated in firms that are plausibly more strongly affected by the directive, that is, those with previously low levels of both CSR reporting and CSR activities. Using various alternative outcome variables (e.g., new CSR initiatives, improvements in CSR

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Real Effects of a Widespread CSR Reporting Mandate: Evidence from the European Union's CSR Directive

Fiechter

Hitz

Lehmann

2022

J of Accounting Research

Self Cite

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Зокрема суттєві зміни у напрямі запровадження «сталого» чи «відповідального» інвестування спостерігаються в ЄС, де це є центральним питанням порядку денного останніх років [8][9][10][11][12]. У деяких країнах розкриття ESG інформації взагалі має галузеву специфіку (наприклад, у США це видобувна промисловість) або для певної сталої діяль ності (як корпоративна благодійна діяльність у Великій Британії чи Індії) [13,14].…”

Section: економіка та право Economics and Lawunclassified

Directions of Regulatory Coordination of Responsible (Esg) Investment in the World: Fragmentation or Unification?

Vorontsova,

Agafonova,

Bilan

2023

Econ. pravo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To date, processes of regulatory coordination of responsible or ESG (Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance) investing are characterized by a combination of fragmentation and unification efforts. On the one hand, there is a noticeable degree of fragmentation of the regulatory landscape for responsible investing. At the level of different regions and countries, their own regulatory frameworks, standards and guidelines for disclosure of ESG information and sustainability reporting are being actively developed and improved. In particular, the European Union (EU), Great Britain, the USA and Canada, some countries of the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, China, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, etc.) have made special progress. For example, the EU has taken a significant step with the introduction of the so-called triad of regulatory instruments: the Sustainability Taxonomy, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), aimed at standardizing ESG reporting and classifying investments in sustainable development in member countries. This fragmentation creates difficulties for investors and companies operating in different jurisdictions as they must navigate and comply with different requirements. On the other hand, efforts to unify and harmonize ESG disclosure and regulatory rules are increasing. Recognizing the global nature of ESG challenges, international organizations are working to establish common principles and standards. Initiatives such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) have gained prominence worldwide, promoting transparency and consistency ESG reporting. While the trend toward unification is promising, achieving full regulatory coordination of responsible investing remains challenging. Different political priorities, cultural and economic differences between countries prevent the creation of a universally recognized regulatory framework. However, the growing recognition of the importance of ESG and the collective efforts of stakeholders around the world indicate a gradual convergence towards more coherent ESG regulations.

show abstract

“…Our study makes several contributions to the existing literature. First, it responds to Christensen, Hail, and Leuz [2021] call for more research on the consequences of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting (Christensen et al [2017], Rauter [2020], Krueger et al [2021], She [2022], Darendeli et al [2022], Fiechter, Hitz, and Lehmann [2022], Tomar [2023]). More broadly, we extend the literature on the real effects of disclosures (e.g., Kanodia and Sapra [2016], Leuz and Wysocki [2016], Roychowdhury, Shroff, and Verdi [2019]) by exploring whether enhanced supply chain transparency resulting from Section 1502 encourages companies to undertake real actions with far-reaching impact on nonfinancial stakeholders, such as communities affected by corporations' upstream operations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Real Effects of Supply Chain Transparency Regulation: Evidence from Section 1502 of the Dodd–Frank Act

BAIK,

EVEN‐TOV,

HAN

et al. 2024

J of Accounting Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section 1502 of the Dodd–Frank Act requires SEC‐registered issuers to conduct supply chain due diligence and submit conflict minerals disclosures (CMDs) that indicate whether their products contain tantalum, tin, tungsten, or gold (3TG) sourced from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) or its neighboring countries (“covered countries”). Consistent with the reputational cost hypothesis, we find that heightened public attention to CMDs increases responsible sourcing. After Section 1502 takes effect, we find higher demand for 3TG products processed in certified smelters, decreased conflicts in covered countries’ mining regions relative to other regions, and reduced sensitivity of conflict risk to conflict minerals’ price spikes. Finally, we find that conflicts decrease in Eastern DRC territories with prevalent 3T (tantalum, tin, and tungsten) mines but increase in territories with prevalent gold mines. Overall, our findings highlight the real effects of enhanced supply chain transparency regulation.

show abstract

The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) information in supply-chain contracting: Evidence from the expansion of CSR rating coverage

Cited by 45 publications

References 63 publications

Real Effects of a Widespread CSR Reporting Mandate: Evidence from the European Union's CSR Directive

Real Effects of a Widespread CSR Reporting Mandate: Evidence from the European Union's CSR Directive

Directions of Regulatory Coordination of Responsible (Esg) Investment in the World: Fragmentation or Unification?

The Real Effects of Supply Chain Transparency Regulation: Evidence from Section 1502 of the Dodd–Frank Act

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About