Skip to main content

What Good Does Doing Good do? The Effect of Bond Rating Analysts’ Corporate Bias on Investor Reactions to Changes in Social Responsibility

Abstract

In this study, we explore how investors reconcile information on firms’ social responsibility with analysts’ assessments of future firm risk in the pricing of long-term bonds. We ask whether investors pay attention to small strides toward and/or small slips away from socially responsible behavior, arguing that analysts’ corporate bias toward gains and against losses influences investor reactions to corporate social responsibility. We hypothesize that analysts notice and reward improvements in social responsibility, yet excuse lapses. We find support for this hypothesis, using a unique dataset of long-term bonds that combines lagged measures of firm-level financial and social performance with bond-specific data pertaining to risk of default and pricing. The empirically robust asymmetry in investor responses to small but often cumulative increases versus decreases in corporate social responsibility reveals an under-examined root cause of longer-term, larger-scale distortions in financial market returns regarding corporate social performance. Our findings elaborate earlier behavioral research on how corporate bias influences analysts’ short-term assessments of economic risk, by theorizing why this corporate bias may influence long-term assessments of social risk. Our work also motivates more critical scrutiny of the role analysts play in revising the future risk of today’s social action versus inaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. In the short-term, firms face risks such as manufacturing challenges, supply shortages, labor disruptions, and price increases, each of which are made predictable from repetition. These short-term risks manifest in the present and the near future when environments greatly resemble the past. Short-term risks can usually be predicted using conventional measures that take into account a firm’s historical risk, such as beta, a measure of a firm’s historical systematic risk (Balabanis et al. 1998; McGuire et al. 1988) and sigma, a measure of its historical total risk (Aupperle et al. 1985; Herremans et al. 1993).

  2. In practice, analysts often assign the same default risk to short-term and long-term bonds—if they expect the same risk factors to impact both equally. However, the assessment process calls for a separate evaluation of the risk facts associated with each bond, and we expect that at least some social actions or inactions may weigh more heavily in the future than in the present.

  3. Because we are measuring incremental changes with a limited range of performance, in what is seen to be a relatively stable context (corporate bonds), we expect that the relationship will approach linearity. However, since other authors have found a nonlinear relationship between CSR changes and financial performance measures in settings with more variation (see, for example, Brammer and Millington 2008; Barnett and Salomon 2012), we subject our linearity assumption to a post hoc test in the results section.

  4. As a reviewer noted, investors may attend to multiple sources of data about bond risk. Specific to our argument investors have access to multiple third party ratings with different models and therefore different biases. We examine this boundary condition empirically using the case of S&P (an issuer-pays model of credit rating) and EJR (an investor-pays model of credit rating). Our results show that when specific parallels are being drawn between two different ratings of the same bond using the same risk measurement framework, the corporate bias is no longer present. This argument has also received support in the broader corporate bias literature where the robust effects of a credit agency disappeared once an agency with a competing model began evaluating the same bonds (Xia 2014), arguably because investors compared and contrasted the two ratings when making their decisions.

  5. The hypothesized mediation mechanism only applies to firms whose credit risk is explicitly rated by third parties. A comparison of rated and nonrated firms, while helpful in principle to discern the effect size of the mediation effect, is problematic in our case because rated firms and their rated bonds differ significantly on many underlying characteristics from the firms and bonds analysts do not rate. We do however examine differences among rated firms by testing the effects of two competing models (issuer-pays and investor-pays), and are able to show that the mediation effect holds only for the specific case of issuer-pays models as we hypothesize. We also show that this mediation effect is turned off when investors have access to direct comparisons between competing models. This pattern of results is consistent with our core argument of when and why corporate bias may influence the corporate social responsibility–performance relationship.

  6. Some suggested that Moody’s ratings may have been more susceptible to the financial crisis. However, we found the same high convergent validity with other credit-rating agencies one year after our analyses (i.e., in June 2009, the average inter-item correlation .92; standardized alpha .97). This reassured us that our results were not driven by our choice of Moody’s data as our primary source of credit analyst risk ratings.

  7. Our design relies on a real-time natural experiment. During the same window of our study, all firms reported changes in their social responsibility - some did more, others less. Credit analysts rewarded some of these firms by reducing their default risk, and penalized others by increasing their default risk. Because the social expectations are the same, and we control for alternative explanations ranging from traditional economic performance to good governance arguments, our design includes the counter-factual, affording greater confidence in comparing the two hypothesized effects.

  8. EJR (and S&P) uses 10 major gradations (AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB, B, CCC, CC, C, D), which when qualified as positive or negative extend to a total of 22 minor gradations. Moody’s uses 9 major gradations (Aaa, Aa, A, Baa, Ba, B, Caa, Ca, C; qualifiers of (1), (2), and (3) on Aa–Caa extends the Moody’s scale to 21 minor gradations.

  9. In practice, analysts often assign the same default risk to short-term and long-term bonds if they expect the same risk factors to impact both equally. However, the assessment process calls for a separate evaluation of the risk facts associated with each bond, and we expect that at least some social actions or inactions may weigh more heavily in the future than in the present.

References

  • Ashbaugh-Skaife, H., Collins, D. W., & LaFond, R. (2006). The effects of corporate governance on firms’ credit ratings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 42(1–2), 203–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hartfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 446–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, H. K., & Mansi, S. A. (2002). Assessing credit rating agencies by bond issuers and institutional investors. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 29(9), 1367–1398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balabanis, G., Phillips, H. C., & Lyall, J. (1998). Corporate social responsibility and economic performance in the top British companies: Are they linked? European Business Review, 98(1), 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & DesJardines, M. R. (2014). Business sustainability: It’s about time. Strategic Organization, 12(1), 70–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L., & King, A. A. (2008). Good fences make good neighbors: A longitudinal analysis of an industry self-regulatory institution. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1150–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1304–1320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barreda-Tarrazona, I., Matallin-Saez, J. C., & Balaguer-Franch, M. R. (2011). Measuring investors’ socially responsible preferences in mutual funds. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(2), 305–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bascle, G. (2008). Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 6(3), 285–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, R. H., & Yeung, F. (2013). Are investors willing to sacrifice cash for morality? Journal of Business Ethics, 117(3), 477–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhojraj, S., & Sengupta, P. (2003). Effect of corporate governance on bond ratings and yields: The role of institutional investors and outside directors. Journal of Business, 76(3), 455–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, R., Hall, A. D., Momente, F., & Reggiani, F. (2007). What corporate social responsibility activitie are valued by the market. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, P., Freixas, X., & Shapiro, J. (2012). The credit ratings game. Journal of Finance, 67(1), 85–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouquet, C., & Deutsch, Y. (2008). The impact of corporate social performance on a firm’s multinationality. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 755–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1325–1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branzei, O., & Vertinsky, I. (2006). Strategic pathways to product innovation capabilities in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(1), 75–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C., & Marcus, A. J. (2003). Fundamentals of corporate finance. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, K. (2005). How do consumers evaluate risk in financial products. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 10(1), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterji, A. K., Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 18(1), 125–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Q., & Jiang, W. (2006). Analysts’ weighting of private and public information. Review of Financial Studies, 19, 319–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooperrider, D. L., & Dutton, J. E. (1999). The organization dimensions of global change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, P., Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2004). An empirical examination of institutional investor preferences for corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Antonio, L., & Johnsen, T. (1997). Expanding socially screened portfolios: An attribution analysis of bond performance. Journal of Investing, 6(4), 79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, W. N., & Worrell, D. L. (1988). The impact of announcements of corporate illegalities on shareholder returns. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diacon, S. (2004). Investment risk perceptions: Do consumers and advisers agree? The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 22(3), 180–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diacon, S., & Ennew, C. (2001). Consumer perceptions of financial risk. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 26(3), 389–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterwood, J. C., & Nutt, S. R. (1999). Inefficiency in analysts’ earnings forecasts: Systematic misreaction or systematic optimism? The Journal of Finance, 54(5), 1777–1797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, W. B., Jackson, K. E., Peecher, M. E., & White, B. J. (2014). The unintended effect of corporate social responsibility performance on investors’ estimates of fundamental value. Accounting Review, 89(1), 275–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entine, J. (2003). The myth of social investing: A critique of its practices and consequences for corporate social performance research. Organization & Environment, 16(3), 352–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M. J., McEwen, R. A., & Spindle, R. M. (1994). Shareholder preferences concerning corporate ethical performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(6), 447–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer, A. (2009). Ambiguity and the equity of rating systems: United states brokerage firms, 1995–2000. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(4), 555–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fons, J. S. (2008). Rating competition and structured finance. The Journal of Structured Finance, 14(3), 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. (1997). Socially irresponsible and illegal behavior and shareholder wealth: A meta-analysis of event studies. Business and Society, 36(3), 221–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, J. (2008). The evolution of business sustainability: Historical trajectory and structural relationships. PhD: University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Girerd-Potin, I., Jimenez-Garces, S., & Louvet, P. (2014). Which dimensions of social responsibility concern financial investors? Journal of Business Ethics, 121(4), 559–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glac, K. (2009). Understanding socially responsible investing: The effect of decision frames and trade-off options. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goss, A., & Roberts, G. S. (2007). The cost of virtue: Corporate social responsibility and the cost of debt financing (Working Paper ed.). Toronto, ON: York University Schulich School of Business.

  • Graafland, J. J. (2003). Distribution of responsibility, ability and competition. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1–2), 133–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 1034–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (2000). Beyond built to last. Stakeholder relations in ‘built-to-last” companies. Business and Society Review, 105(4), 393–418.

    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 

  • Groening, C., & Kanuri, V. K. (2013). Investor reaction to positive and negative corporate social events. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1852–1860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, B. H., & Nickerson, J. A. (2003). Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 1(1), 51–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, M. L. A., & Boeker, W. (1998). Power and conflicts of interest in professional firms: Evidence from investment banking. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, D. E., Koonce, L., & Simko, P. J. (1995). Investor reactions to financial analysts’ research reports. Journal of Accounting Research, 33(2), 335–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hockerts, K., & Moir, L. (2004). Communicating corporate social responsibility to investors: The changing role of the investors relations function. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummels, H., & Timmer, D. (2004). Investors in need of social, ethical, and environmental information. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, X., Stanford, M. H., & Xie, Y. (2012). Does it matter who pays for bond ratings? Historical evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 105(3), 607–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. The Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A., & Lenox, M. (2002). Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Management Science, 48(2), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, A. (1990). A direct test of the cognitive bias theory of share price reversals. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 13, 155–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. New York: Houghton Mufflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. The Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 300–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, K., Wong, C. S., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 741–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 817–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2001). People and profits? The search for a link between a company’s social performance and financial performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazutis, D. (2012). Much ado about nothing? (The lack of) CSR initiative adoption and isomorphism over time. Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.

  • 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 

  • McLachlan, J., & Gardner, J. (2004). A comparison of socially responsible and conventional investors. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), 11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, R. A., & Obenberger, R. W. (1994). Factors influencing individual investor behavior. Financial Analysts Journal, 50(4), 63–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, D. (2012). Normal organizational wrongdoing: A critical analysis of theories of misconduct in and by organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Peloza, J. (2006). Using corporate social responsibility as insurance for financial performance. California Management Review, 48(2), 52–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picou, A., & Rubach, M. J. (2006). Does good governance matter to institutional investors? Evidence from the enactment of corporate governance guidelines. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(1), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plowman, D. A., Baker, L. T., Beck, T. E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S. T., & Travis, D. V. (2007). Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 515–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramnath, S., Rock, S., & Shane, P. (2008). The financial analyst forecasting literature: A taxonomy with suggestions for further research. International Journal of Forecasting, 24, 34–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (1991). Organizational effectiveness, social performance, and economic performance. Research in Corporate Social Performance, 12, 143–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, M., & White, L. J. (2009). The rating agencies: Is regulation the answer? In V. A. Acharya & M. Richardson (Eds.), Restoring financial stability: How to repair a failed system (pp. 101–116). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. J., & Paul, K. (2001). An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(2), 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., & Paul, K. (1998). The development of a systematic, aggregate measure of corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 24(1), 119–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandbu, M. E. (2012). Stakeholder duties: On the moral responsibility of corporate investors. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(1), 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schipper, K. (1991). Analysts’ forecasts. Accounting Horizons, 5, 105–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M. (1996). The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg & Domini social performance ratings data. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(3), 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M. P., & Fernando, C. S. (2008). Environmental risk management and the cost of capital. Strategic Management Journal, 29(6), 569–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, J. M. (1998). Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Science, 44(4), 571–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2012). Short on time: The role of organizational time orientation in business sustainability. Organization Studies, 33(11), 1537–1563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spicer, B. H. (1978). Investors, corporate social performance, and information disclosure: An empirical study. Accounting Review, 53(1), 94–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike, V. M., Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2006). Being good while being bad: Social responsibility and the international diversification of US firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 850–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Laan, G., Van Ees, H., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2007). Corporate social and financial performance: An extended stakeholder theory, and empirical test with accounting measures. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(3), 299–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., & Bansal, P. (2012). Social responsibility in new ventures: Profiting from a long-term orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1135–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M., Qiu, C., & Kong, D. (2011). Corporate social responsibility, investor behaviors, and stock market returns: Evidence from a natural experiment in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(1), 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, L. J. (2010). Markets: The credit rating agencies. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(2), 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on Corporate Social Performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia, H. (2014). Can investor-paid credit rating agencies improve the information quality of issuer-paid rating agencies? Journal of Financial Economics, 111(2), 450–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brent Mcknight.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Branzei, O., Frooman, J., Mcknight, B. et al. What Good Does Doing Good do? The Effect of Bond Rating Analysts’ Corporate Bias on Investor Reactions to Changes in Social Responsibility. J Bus Ethics 148, 183–203 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3357-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3357-6

Keywords

  • Corporate social responsibility
  • Corporate bias
  • Long-term debt
  • Long-term risk