Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect Information Asymmetry?

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we examine the empirical association between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and information asymmetry by investigating their simultaneous and endogenous effects. Employing an extensive U.S. sample, we find an inverse association between CSR engagement and the proxies of information asymmetry after controlling for various firm characteristics. The results hold using 2SLS considering the reverse side of information asymmetry influencing CSR activities. The results also hold after mitigating endogeneity based on the dynamic panel system generalized method of moment. Furthermore, the CSR–information asymmetry relation is amplified in high-risk firms due to managers’ efforts to build a good reputation. Last, we find that CSR engagement is inversely associated with reputational risk measure and lower predicted value of reputational risk is positively associated with lower information asymmetry measures. We interpret these results as supporting the stakeholder theory-based, reputation-building explanation that considers CSR engagement as a vehicle to build and maintain firm reputation thereby enhancing the information environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We also use the bid–ask spread in our robustness tests.

  2. According to KPMG’s 2011 International Corporate Responsibility Reporting Survey, the percentage of companies reporting on their CSR initiatives from 2008 to 2011 rose from 74 to 83 % in the U.S., from 62 to 79 % in Canada, and from 91 to 100 % in the U.K. The survey also indicates the percentage of corporate reporting by region, including Europe with 70 %, the Americas with 69 %, Middle East and Africa with 61 %, and Asia Pacific with 49 %.

  3. Several U.S. government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are increasing their scope of sustainability disclosure oversight. In February 2010, the SEC issued an interpretive release to provide guidance to public companies regarding the SEC’s non-financial disclosure requirements as they apply to climate change matters.  Effective in December 2011, the EPA established mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting requirements (40 CFR Part 98) for large sources and suppliers in the United States. In response to requirements in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC adopted conflict minerals reporting requirements. The FTC has issued Guides for the Use of Environmental Market Claims (Green Guides) to address sustainability reporting at the product level (White 2012).

  4. Akerlof (1970) provides the first formal model to study signaling and how dramatically asymmetric information can affect market equilibrium. The signaling literature suggests that signals are typically used by insiders to disseminate information that helps differentiate items that look similar to outsiders. In that regard, signals should also be credible, observable, and costly to imitate (Ross 1977) and should add to the existing information set of outsiders (Spence 1973, 2002).

  5. Notice that the proxy for corporate governance we use in this study is the corporate governance scores from the KLD, which may yield a different result to the GIM index used by Gompers et al. (2003) or Chung et al. (2010).

  6. We added the C kt term in the numerator to make the index positive. When we use an alternative definition of the index C it without adding the C kt term in the numerator, however, our main results remain intact.

  7. According to Goyenko et al. (2009), AMIHUD is found to be the single best proxy for the five-minute price impact measure from the Trade and Quote (TAQ).

  8. Using the dynamic panel system GMM based on Blundell and Bond (1998), the economic significances of CSRIDX on both AMIHUD and DISP are still non-trivial and economically even more significant. For example, a one-standard deviation increase in CSRIDX would decrease AMIHUD by 13.71 or 12.31 % of its mean, while a one-standard deviation increase in CSRIDX would decrease DISP by 28.52 or 27.35 % of its mean.

References

  • Aguilera, R., Rupp, D., Williams, C., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S Back in CSR: A Multi-level theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof, G. (1970). The market for ‘Lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. (2000). Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, H., & Campello, M. (2007). Financial constraints, asset tangibility, and corporate investment. Review of Financial Studies, 20(5), 1429–1460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alsop, R. (2004). The 18 immutable laws of corporate reputation. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amihud, Y. (2002). Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets, 5, 31–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attig, N., Cleary, S., El Ghoul, S., & Guedhami, O. (2014). Corporate legitimacy and investment cash flow sensitivity. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 297–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attig, N., El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., & Suh, S. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and credit Ratings. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 679–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baiman, S., & Rajan, M. (2002). The role of information and opportunism in the choice of buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Accounting Research, 40, 247–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M., Jermier, J., & Lafferty, B. (2006). Corporate reputation: The definitional landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(1), 26–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, D., Harjoto, M., & Jo, H. (2011). The economics and politics of corporate social performance. Business and Politics, 13(2), 1–46. (Article 1).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. G., Ofek, E., & Swary, I. (1996). Investor valuation of the abandonment option. Journal of Financial Economics, 42(2), 257–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blazovich, J., & Smith, L. (2011). Ethical corporate citizenship: Does it pay? In C. Jeffrey (Ed.), Research on professional responsibility and ethics in accounting (research on professional responsibility and ethics i accounting (Vol. 15, pp. 127–163). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohnet, I., & Huck, S. (2004). Repetition and reputation: Implications for trust and trustworthiness when institutions change. American Economic Review, 94, 362–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, G., Katok, E., & Ockenfels, A. (2004). How effective are electronic reputation mechanisms? An experimental investigation. Management Science, 50, 1587–1602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracht, J., & Feltovich, N. (2007). An experimental study of information mechanisms in the trust game: Effects of observation and cheap talk. Working paper. University of Aberdeen Business School and University of Houston.

  • Bromley, D. (2002). Comparing corporate reputation: League tables, quotients, benchmarks, or case studies? Corporate Reputation Review, 5, 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Y., Jo, H., & Pan, C. (2011). Vice or virtue? The impact of corporate social responsibility on executive compensation. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai, J., Liu, Y., & Qian, Y. (2009). Information asymmetry and corporate governance. Working paper. University of Iowa.

  • Calton, J., & Payne, S. (2003). Coping with paradox. Business and Society, 42, 7–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, J., Hsieh, S., & Kohlbeck, M. (2013). Major customers and management earnings forecasts. Working paper. Florida Atlantic University.

  • Cao, Z., & Narayanamoorthy, J. (2011). The effect of litigation risk on management earnings forecast. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(1), 125–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, S., Lee, C., & Pfeiffer, R. (2013). Corporate social responsibility performance and information asymmetry. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 32, 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2009). Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(8), 895–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, K., & Jo, H. (1996). The impact of security analysts’ monitoring and marketing functions on the market value of firms. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 31, 493–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, K., Elder, J., & Kim, J. (2010). Corporate governance and liquidity. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 45(2), 265–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4), 303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Core, J., & Guay, W. (1999). The use of equity grants to manage optimal equity incentive levels. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 28(2), 151–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal, D., Michas, O., Naiker, V., $ Sharma, D. (2013). Major customer reliance and auditor going-concern decisions. Working paper. University of Arizona.

  • Dhaliwal, D., Oliver, L., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. Accounting Review, 86(1), 59–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal, D., Radhakrishnan, S., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. (2012). Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: International evidence on corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure. Accounting Review, 87(3), 723–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, D. (1991). Monitoring and reputation: The choice between bank loans and privately placed debt. Journal of Political Economy, 99, 689–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, D., & Verrecchia, R. (1991). Disclosure, liquidity, and the cost of capital. Journal of Finance, 46(4), 1325–1359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diether, K., Malloy, C., & Scherbina, A. (2002). Differences of opinion and the cross-section of stock returns. Journal of Finance, 57, 2113–2141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C., & Mishra, D. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388–2406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, J., Soyka, P., & Ameer, P. (1997). Does improving a firm’s environmental management system and environmental performance result in a higher stock price? Journal of Investing, 6, 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fieseler, C. (2011). On the corporate social responsibility perceptions of equity analysts. Business Ethics: A European Review, 20(2), 131–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisman, R., Heal, G., & Nair, V. (2008). A model of corporate philanthropy. Working paper. Columbia University.

  • Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relation between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30, 777–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C., & Hansen, J. (2009). The relation between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, A. M., & Thakor, A. V. (2003). Why do firms smooth earnings? Journal of Business, 76, 151–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompers, P., Ishii, J., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 107–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corporate reputation management: Living the brand. Managerial Decision, 39(2), 99–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goyenko, R. Y., Holden, C. W., & Trzcinka, C. A. (2009). Do liquidity measures measure liquidity? Journal of Financial Economics, 92, 153–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Harvey, C., & Rajgopal, S. (2005). The economic implications of corporate financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 40(1/3), 3–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, 39(3), 254–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halov, N., & Heider, F. (2011). Capital structure, risk and asymmetric information. Quarterly Journal of Finance, 1(04), 767–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harjoto, M., & Jo, H. (2015). Legal vs. normative CSR: Differential impact on analyst dispersion, stock return volatility, cost of capital, and firm value. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herremans, I., Akathaporn, P., & McInnes, M. (1993). An investigation of corporate social responsibility reputation and economic performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18, 587–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A., & Keim, G. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, H., & Kacperczyk, M. (2009). The price of sin: The effects of social norms on markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 93, 15–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W. (2005). The relation between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(2), 175–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts’ perceptions and shifting institutional logistics. Strategic Management Journal,. doi:10.1002/smj.2268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. (2011). Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(3), 351–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. (2012). The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., & Kim, Y. (2007). Disclosure frequency and earnings management. Journal of Financial Economics, 84, 561–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., & Kim, Y. (2008). Ethics and disclosure: A study of the financial performance of firms in the seasoned equity offerings market. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 855–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., Kim, Y., & Park, M. (2007). Underwriter choice and earnings management: Evidence from seasoned equity offerings. Review of Accounting Studies, 12, 23–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., & Na, H. (2012). Does CSR reduce firm risk? Evidence from controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 441–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Li, H., & Li, S. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and stock price crash risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 43, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Park, M., & Wier, B. (2012). Is earnings quality associated with corporate social responsibility? Accounting Review, 87, 761–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2011). KPMG International survey of corporate responsibility reporting. Amsterdam: KPMG International.

  • Lambert, R., Leuz, C., & Verrecchia, R. E. (2007). Accounting information, disclosure, and the cost of capital. Journal of Accounting Research, 45(2), 385–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, M., & Lundholm, R. (1996). Corporate disclosure policy and analyst behavior. Accounting Review, 71(4), 467–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, L. H., Stulz, R., & Walkling, R. A. (1991). A test of the free cash flow hypothesis: The case of bidder returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 29(2), 315–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, K., & Zhao, X. (2008). Asymmetric information and dividend policy. Financial Management, 37(4), 673–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., Maon, F., Eltantawy, R., Fox, G., & Giunipero, L. (2009). Supply management ethical responsibility: Reputation and performance impacts. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 14, 99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., Wang, H., Raithel, S., & Zheng, Q. (2014). Corporate social performance, analyst stock recommendations, and firm future returns. Strategic Management Journal,. doi:10.1002/smj.2219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011). Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1), 3–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lys, T., Naughton, J., & Wang, C. (2015). Signaling through corporate accountability accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(1), 56–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makni, R., Francoeur, C., & Bellavance, F. (2009). Causality between corporate social performance and financial performance: Evidence from Canadian firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(3), 409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maksimovic, V., & Titman, S. (1991). Financial policy and reputation for product quality. Review of Financial Studies, 4, 175–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J., & Walsh, J. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, J. E., & Berman, S. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action. Business and Society, 45(1), 20–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, S., & Modi, S. (2013). Positive and negative corporate social responsibility, financial leverage, and idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 431–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. (1963). Corporate income taxes and the cost of Capital: A correction. American Economic Review, 53(3), 433–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oikonomou, I., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2012). The impact of corporate social performance on financial risk and utility: A longitudinal analysis. Financial Management, 41(2), 483–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business and Society, 40(4), 369–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F., & Rynes, S. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta analysis. Organizational Studies, 24, 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D. M. (2002). The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(8), 763–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. L., & Thomas, W. B. (2003). The implications of using stock-split adjusted I/B/E/S data in empirical research. The Accounting Review, 78(4), 1049–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, S. (2003). Supply chain specific? Understanding the patch success of ethical sourcing initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. A. (1977). The determination of financial structure: The incentive-signaling approach. Bell Journal of Economics, 8(1), 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salama, A., Anderson, K., & Toms, J. S. (2011). Does community and environmental responsibility affect firm risk: Evidence from UK panel data 1994–2006. Business Ethics: A European Review, 20, 192–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, K. (2002). Kicking the tires of corporate reputation. Harvard Management Communication Letters, 5, 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, P. B., & Spicer, B. H. (1983). Market response to environmental information produced outside the firm. Accounting Review, 58, 521–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherer, A., Palazzo, G., & Baumann, D. (2006). Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the TNC in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16, 502–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, D. J. (1994). Why firms voluntarily disclose bad news. Journal of Accounting Research, 32, 38–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, D. J. (1997). Earnings disclosure and stockholder lawsuits. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 23, 249–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, D. J., & Sloan, R. (2002). Earnings surprises, growth expectations, and stock returns, or don’t let an earnings torpedo sink your portfolio. Review of Accounting Studies, 7(2/3), 289–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, M. (2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American Economic Review, 92(3), 434–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steurer, R. (2010). The role of governments in corporate social responsibility: Characterising public policies on CSR in Europe. Policy Science, 43, 49–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, H. R. (2000). Presidential address: Friction. The Journal of Finance, 55(4), 1479–1514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sufi, Amir. (2007). Information asymmetry and financing arrangements: Evidence from syndicated loans. The Journal of Finance, 62(2), 629–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D., & Greening, D. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallentin, S. (2015). Governmentalities of CSR: Danish government policy as a reflection of political difference. Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallentin, S., & Murillo, D. (2012). Governmentality and the politics of CSR. Organization, 19(6), 825–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S., & Graves, S. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, S. (2012). The rising global interest in sustainability and corporate social responsibility reporting. Sustainability. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved October 5, 2012 from http://sustainability.thomsonreuters.com/2012/10/05/the-rising-global-interest-in-sustainability-and-corporate-social-responsibility-reporting/.

  • Wintoki, M., Linck, J., & Netter, J. (2012). Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 105(3), 581–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank two anonymous referees for their many valuable comments and suggestions. Jo appreciates sabbatical support of Leavey School of Business at Santa Clara University. This study is partially performed while Jo was visiting Korea University Business School (KUBS). Jo appreciates the partial financial assistance from the Asian Institute of Corporate Governance. This Research was also partially supported by the IBRE Award granted by KUBS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Korea University Business School, Seoul, Korea

    Jinhua Cui & Haejung Na

  2. Leavey School of Business, Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA, 95053-0388, USA

    Hoje Jo

  3. College of Business and Economics, California State University, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA, 90032, USA

    Haejung Na

Authors
  1. Jinhua Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hoje Jo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haejung Na
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haejung Na.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 9 and 10.

Table 9 Variable definitions
Full size table
Table 10 List of the strength and concern items in the KLD database
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cui, J., Jo, H. & Na, H. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect Information Asymmetry?. J Bus Ethics 148, 549–572 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-3003-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-3003-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation