Losses from Failure of Stakeholder Sensitive Processes: Financial Consequences for Large US Companies from Breakdowns in Product, Environmental, and Accounting Standards
- First Online:
- 419 Downloads
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 wordsESG ethics behavioral corporate finance stakeholder risk
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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.
- Bennett, J. A. and R. W. Sias: 2006, ‘Why Company-Specific Risk Changes Over Time’, Financial Analysts Journal 62(5), 89–100.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- Rubin, P. H., R. D. Murphy and G. Jarrell: 1988, ‘Risky products, risky stocks’, Regulation 12 (1), 35-39.Google Scholar
- Social Investment Forum: 2006, 2005 Report on Socially Responsible Investing Trends in the United States, Washington, DC.Google Scholar