Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 98, Issue 2, pp 247–258

Losses from Failure of Stakeholder Sensitive Processes: Financial Consequences for Large US Companies from Breakdowns in Product, Environmental, and Accounting Standards

Article

Abstract

This article makes first use of a set of databases that are authoritative, independent, and consistent to examine an old research question: do firms hurt their financial performance by damaging stakeholder interests? The databases are US government on-line listings of fines for environmental breaches, unsafe workplaces, fraudulent accounting standards, and product recalls. These measures are assumed to proxy for signals to stakeholders of the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks in transacting with the firm and appear to have fewer biases than conventional measures of stakeholder standards. Using a sample of all non-financial S&P 500 firms during the most recent 1998–2003 full cycle in the market, after controlling for firm-specific differences, sales margins of firms fell by 0.8% if they announced a product recall and by 0.4% if cited by OSHA for an unsafe workplace; and shareholder return was significantly reduced by an EPA or SEC prosecution. This study links the risk of transaction uncertainty, information signaling theory, and the resource-based view of the firm to company financial performance. Results support the normative assumption that a firm’s sales margin will be damaged by unethical treatment of stakeholders as evidenced by ESG breaches, presumably because risk-averse customers and suppliers are alert to signals of counterparty risk.

Key words

ESG ethics behavioral corporate finance stakeholder risk 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott, L. J., Y. Park and S. Parker: 2000, ‘The effects of audit committee activity and independence on corporate fraud’, Managerial Finance 26 (11), 55-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ang, A., J. Chen and Y. Xing: 2006, ‘Downside Risk’, The Review of Financial Studies 19 (4), 1191-1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bansal, P. and T. Hunter: 2003, ‘Strategic Explanations for the Early Adoption of ISO 14001’, Journal of Business Ethics 46 (3), 289-299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett, M. L.: 2007, ‘Stakeholder Influence Capacity and the Variability of Financial Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility’, The Academy of Management Review 32 (3), 794-816.Google Scholar
  5. Bartel, A. P. and L. G. Thomas: 1987, ‘Predation through Regulation: The wage and profit effects of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency ‘, Journal of Law and Economics 30 (2), 239-264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bassen, A. and A. M. M. Kovacs: 2008, ‘Environmental, Social and Governance Key Performance Indicators from a Capital Market Perspective’, Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik 9(2), 182–192. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1307091.
  7. Bennett, J. A. and R. W. Sias: 2006, ‘Why Company-Specific Risk Changes Over Time’, Financial Analysts Journal 62(5), 89–100.Google Scholar
  8. Börsch-Supan, A. and J. Köke: 2002, ‘An Applied Econometrician’s View of Empirical Corporate Governance Studies ‘, German Economic Review 3 (3), 295-326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boulding, W. and A. Kirmani: 1993, ‘A Consumer-Side Experimental Examination of Signaling Theory: Do Consumers Perceive Warranties as Signals of Quality?’. The Journal of Consumer Research 20 (1), 111-123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bromiley, P.: 1991, ‘Testing a causal model of corporate risk taking and performance’, Academy of Management Journal 34 (1), 37-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, J. L.: 2007, ‘Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Responsible Ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility’, Academy of Management Review 32 (3), 946-967.Google Scholar
  12. Chami, R., T. F. Cosimano and C. Fullenkamp: 2002, ‘Managing Ethical Risk: How investing in ethics adds value’, Journal of Banking and Finance 26 (9), 1697-1718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chan, L. K., J. Lakonishok and T. Sougiannis: 2001, ‘The Stock Market Valuation of Research and Development Expenditures’, The Journal of Finance 55 (6), 2431-2456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chatterji, A. K., D. I. Levine and M. W. Toffel: 2009, ‘How Well Do Social Ratings Actually Measure Corporate Social Responsibility?’. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 18 (1), 125-169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Core, J. E., W. R. Guay and D. F. Larcker: 2003, ‘Executive Equity Compensation and Incentives: A Survey’, FRBNY Economic Policy Review 9 (1), 27-50.Google Scholar
  16. Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston: 1995, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications’, Academy of Management Review 20 (1), 65-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fassin, Y.: 2009, ‘The Stakeholder Model Refined’, Journal of Business Ethics 84 (1), 113-135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feroz, E. H., K. Park and V. S. Pastena: 1991, ‘The Financial and Market Effects of the SEC’s Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases ‘, Journal of Accounting Research 29 (3), 107-142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gompers, P., J. Ishii and A. Metrick: 2003, ‘Corporate Governance and Equity Prices’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (1), 107-155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gruber, M. J.: 1996, ‘Another Puzzle: The growth in actively managed mutual funds’, The Journal of Finance 51 (3), 783-810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gunningham, N., R. A. Kagan and D. Thornton: 2004, ‘Social License and Environmental Protection: Why businesses go beyond compliance’, Law & Social Inquiry 29 (2), 307-341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen, R. C.: 2006, ‘The Impact of the Equator Principles on Lender Liability: Risks of Responsible Lending’, http://ssrn.com/abstract=948228. Accessed 21 June 2007.
  23. Hart, S. L.: 1995, ‘A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm ‘, The Academy of Management Review 20 (4), 986-1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jensen, M. C.: 2001, ‘Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory and the Corporate Objective Function’, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 14 (3), 8-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lo, S.-F. and H.-J. Sheu (2007) Is Corporate Sustainability a Value-Increasing Strategy for Business?. Corporate Governance 15 (2): 345-358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. March, J. G. and Z. Shapira: 1987, ‘Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking’, Management Science 33 (11), 1404-1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Margolis, J. D. and J. Walsh: 2003, ‘Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business’, Administrative Science Quarterly 48 (2), 268-305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel: 1997, ‘Event Studies in Management Research: Theoretical and empirical issues ‘, Academy of Management Journal 40 (3), 626-657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel (2000) Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Correlation or misspecification?’. Strategic Management Journal 21(5), 603-609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel: 2001, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective’, Academy of Management Review 26 (1), 117-127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olsen, R. A. and G. H. Troughton: 2000, ‘Are Risk Premium Anomalies Caused by Ambiguity?’. Financial Analysts Journal 56 (2), 24-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Orlitzky, M.: 2008, ‘Corporate Social Performance and Financial Performance: A Research Synthesis’, in A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon and D. S. Siegel (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, Chap. 5 (Oxford University Press, Oxford).Google Scholar
  33. Orlitzky, M., F. L. Schmidt and S. L. Rynes: 2003, ‘Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A meta-analysis ‘, Organization Studies 24 (3), 403-441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Palacios-Huerta, I.: 2003, ‘An Empirical Analysis of the Risk Properties of Human Capital Returns’, American Economic Review 93 (3), 948-964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robin, D.: 2009, ‘Toward an Applied Meaning for Ethics in Business ‘, Journal of Business Ethics 89 (1), 139-150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rubin, P. H., R. D. Murphy and G. Jarrell: 1988, ‘Risky products, risky stocks’, Regulation 12 (1), 35-39.Google Scholar
  37. Salzmann, O., A. Ionescu-Somers and U. Steger: 2005, ‘The Business Case for Corporate Sustainability: Literature review and research options’, European Management Journal 23 (1), 27-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Siegel, D. S. and D. F. Vitaliano: 2007, ‘An Empirical Analysis of the Strategic Use of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 16 (2), 773-792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Social Investment Forum: 2006, 2005 Report on Socially Responsible Investing Trends in the United States, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  40. Statman, M.: 2000, ‘Socially Responsible Mutual Funds’, Financial Analysts Journal 56 (3), 30-39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Marrewijk, M.: 2003, ‘Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between agency and communion’, Journal of Business Ethics 44 (2-3), 95-105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Waddock, S. A. and S. B. Graves: 1997, ‘The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link’, Strategic Management Journal 18 (4), 303-319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang, L.: 2005, ‘The Value Premium’, The Journal of Finance 60 (1), 67-103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations