Advertisement

Corporate non-financial disclosure, firm value, risk, and agency costs: evidence from Italian listed companies

  • Fabrizio RossiEmail author
  • Maretno Agus Harjoto
Original Paper
  • 97 Downloads

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between corporate non-financial disclosure ratings, the Italian Legislative Decrees 231/2001 and 254/2016, and three outcomes of Italian listed firms: performance, risk and agency cost. Based on stakeholder–agency theory, this study conceptualizes the role of firms’ non-financial disclosures in reducing asymmetric information and agency costs between managers and broad stakeholders. Utilizing the Standard Ethics Rating (SER) as a measure of firms’ non-financial disclosure rating, this study finds that SER ratings are positively related to firm value and are negatively related to firms’ risk and agency costs. This study also provides evidence that the adoption of Italian Legislative Decrees 231/2001 and 254/2016, along with external verifications from the SER of firms’ non-financial disclosure, has a positive impact on firm outcomes. Corporate managers and investors should recognize the value added from regulations that foster non-financial disclosures and ratings issued by an independent rating agency (e.g., Standard Ethics) as they both enhance firm performance and reduce risk and agency costs.

Keywords

Non-financial disclosures Standard ethics rating Firm performance Risk Agency costs 

JEL Classification

G23 G32 G34 M14 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers and the Editor, Wolfgang Kürsten, for their suggestions. The authors acknowledge and thank Massimiliano Pizzardi of the PricewaterhouseCoopers and Filippo Cecchi of the Standard Ethics Agency for providing part of the data used in this study. Harjoto acknowledges the financial support and release time from the 2019–2021 Denney Academic Chair Endowment at Pepperdine Graziadio Business School for this specific research project.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adhikari BK (2016) Causal effect of analyst following on corporate social responsibility. J Corp Finance 41:201–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albuquerque R, Durnev A, Koskinen Y (2016) Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: theory and empirical evidence. Working paper. http://capitalism.wfu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Koskinen-Paper.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2017
  3. Ang JS, Cole RA, Lin JW (2000) Agency costs and ownership structure. J Finance 55(1):81–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angrist JD (2001) Estimation of limited dependent variable models with dummy endogenous regressors: simple strategies for empirical practice. J Bus Econ Stat 19(1):2–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58(2):277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arrfelt M, Mannor M, Nahrgang JD, Christensen AL (2018) All risk-taking is not the same: examining the competing effects of firm risk-taking with meta-analysis. Rev Manag Sci 12(3):621–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bargeron L, Lehn K, Zutter C (2010) Sarbanes-Oxley and corporate risk-taking. J Account Econ 49(1–2):34–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnea A, Rubin A (2010) Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. J Bus Ethics 97(1):71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17(1):99–120Google Scholar
  10. Barney J (2018) Why resource-based theory’s model of profit appropriation must incorporate a stakeholder perspective. Strateg Manag J 39(13):3305–3325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Becchetti L, Di Giacomo S, Pinnacchio D (2008) Corporate social responsibility and corporate performance: evidence from a panel of US listed companies. Appl Econ 40(5):541–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benlemlih M, Shaukat A, Qiu Y, Trojanowski G (2018) Environmental and social disclosures and firm risk. J Bus Ethics 152(3):613–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berle AA, Means GC (1932) The modern corporation and private property. Harcourt, Brace & World, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Bianchi M, Bianco M, Enriques L (2010) Pyramidal groups and the separation between ownership and control in Italy. In: Barca F, Becht M (eds) The control of corporate Europe. Oxford University Press. Oxford, pp 154–186. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=293882 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.293882. Accessed 30 May 2017
  15. Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment conditions in dynamic panel data models. J Econom 87(1):115–143Google Scholar
  16. Botosan CA (1997) Disclosure level and the cost of equity capital. Account Rev 72(3):323–349Google Scholar
  17. Botosan CA (2006) Disclosure and the cost of capital: what do we know? Account Bus Res 36:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Campbell JY, Hentschel L (1992) No news is good news: an asymmetric model of changing volatility in stock returns. J Financ Econ 31:281–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen Y, Hung M, Wang Y (2018) The effect of mandatory CSR disclosure on firm profitability and social externalities: evidence from China. J Account Econ 65(1):169–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cheng B, Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2014) Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strateg Manag J 35(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clark GL, Feiner A, Viehs M (2015) From the stockholder to the stakeholder: how sustainability can drive financial outperformance. University of Oxford Working Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2508281. Accessed 6 Apr 2019
  22. Conyon M, Judge MQ, Useem M (2011) Corporate governance and the 2008–2009 financial crisis. Corp Gov Int Rev 19(5):399–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cornell B, Shapiro AC (1987) Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financ Manag 16(1):5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cui J, Jo H, Na H (2016) Does corporate social responsibility affect information asymmetry? J Bus Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-3003-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dhaliwal DS, Zhen LO, Tsang A, Yang YG (2011) Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: the initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. Account Rev 86(1):59–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dhaliwal DS, Radhakrishnan S, Tsang A, Yang YG (2012) Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: international evidence on corporate social responsibility disclosure. Account Rev 87(3):723–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dhaliwal D, Zhen LO, Tsang A, Yang YG (2014) Corporate social responsibility disclosure and the cost of equity capital: the roles of stakeholder orientation and financial transparency. J Account Publ Policy 33(4):328–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Di Filippo T, Russo A (2012) Il Rating Etico: un’analisi Empirica del Modello Standard Ethics. Working paper. http://www.standardethics.eu/medias/file/51. Accessed 30 May 2017
  29. Diebecker J, Sommer F (2017) The impact of corporate sustainability performance on information asymmetry: the role of institutional differences. Rev Manag Sci 11(2):471–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0095
  31. Donato F, Izzo M (2012) The relation between corporate social responsibility and stock prices: an analysis of the Italian listed companies. Working Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1986324. Accessed 30 May 2017
  32. European Commission (2011) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee of the Regions: a renewed EU strategy 2011–2014 for corporate social responsibility. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/com/com_com(2011)0681_/com_com(2011)0681_en.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2017
  33. Fama E (1980) Agency problems and the theory of the firm. J Polit Econ 88(2):288–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fama E, Jensen M (1983) Separation of ownership and control. J Law Econ 26(2):301–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ferrell A, Liang H, Renneboog L (2016) Socially responsible firms. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2464561. Accessed 30 May 2017
  36. Fiori G, Donato F, Izzo M (2007) Corporate social responsibility and firms performance. An analysis of Italian listed companies. Working paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1032851. Accessed 30 May 2017
  37. Fombrun CJ, Gardberg NA, Barnett ML (2000) Opportunity platforms and safety nets: corporate citizenship and reputational risk. Bus Soc Rev 105(1):85–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Friede G, Busch T, Bassen A (2015) ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. J Sustain Finance Invest 5(4):210–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Godfrey P (2005) The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: a risk management perspective. Acad Manag Rev 304(4):777–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Godfrey P, Merrill C, Hansen J (2009) The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: an empirical test of the risk management theory. Strateg Manag J 30:425–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gregory A, Tharyan R, Whittaker J (2014) Corporate social responsibility and firm value: disaggregating the effects on cash flow, risk and growth. J Bus Ethics 124(4):633–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Grewal J, Hauptmann C, Serafeim G (2017) Material sustainability information and stock price informativeness. Harvard Business School working paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2966144. Accessed 6 Apr 2019
  43. Gupta V, Mortal SC, Yang T (2018) Entrepreneurial orientation and firm value: does managerial discretion play a role? Rev Manag Sci 12(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hansen LP (1982) Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica 50:1029–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Harford J, Mansi SA, Maxwell WF (2008) Corporate governance and firm cash holdings in the US. J Financ Econ 87:535–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Harjoto M, Jo H (2011) Corporate governance and CSR nexus. J Bus Ethics 100(1):45–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Harjoto M, Laksmana I (2018) The impact of corporate social responsibility on risk taking and firm value. J Bus Ethics 151(2):353–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Harjoto M, Rossi F (2018) Religiosity, female directors, and corporate social responsibility for Italian listed firms. J Bus Res 95:338–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Harjoto M, Laksmana I, Yang Y (2018) Board diversity and corporate investment oversight. J Bus Res 90:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Healy PH, Palepu KG (2001) Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: a review of the empirical disclosure literature. J Account Econ 31(1–3):405–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hausman JA (1978) Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46(6):1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Heckman JJ (1979) Sample selection as a specification error. Econometrica 47:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Herremans IM, Akathaporn P, McInnes M (1993) An investigation of corporate social responsibility reputation and economic performance. Account Organ Soc 18(7–8):587–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hill CW, Jones TM (1992) Stakeholder–agency theory. J Manag Stud 29:131–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hope O (2002) Disclosure practices, enforcement of accounting standards, and analysts’ forecast accuracy: an international study. J Account Res 41(2):235–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jensen MC (1986) Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. Am Econ Rev 76(2):323–329Google Scholar
  57. Jensen M (2002) Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Bus Ethics Q 12(2):235–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Jensen M, Meckling W (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 3(4):305–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Jo H, Harjoto M (2011) Corporate governance and firm value: the impact of corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 103(3):351–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jo H, Harjoto M (2012) The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 106(1):53–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jo H, Kim H, Park K (2015) Controversial industries, regional differences, and risk: role of CSR. http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/298339/Paper.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2017
  62. Khlif H, Guidara A, Souissi M (2015) Corporate social and environmental disclosure and corporate performance: evidence from South Africa and Morocco. J Account Emerg Econ 5(1):51–69Google Scholar
  63. Kleimeier S, Viehs M (2018) Carbon disclosure, emission levels, and the cost of debt. The European Centre for Corporate Engagement (ECCE) Working paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2719665. Accessed 6 Apr 2019
  64. La Porta R, López-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1998) Law and finance. J Polit Econ 106(6):1113–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. La Porta R, López-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A (1999) Corporate ownership around the world. J Finance 54(2):471–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lee D, Faff R (2009) Corporate sustainability performance and idiosyncratic risk: a global perspective. Financ Rev 44:213–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Leland HE, Pyle DH (1977) Informational asymmetries, financial structure, and financial intermediation. J Finance 32(2):371–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Madorran C, García T (2016) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: the Spanish case. Rev Adm Empresas 56(1):26–28Google Scholar
  69. Margolis J, Walsh J (2003) Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business. Adm Sci Q 48:268–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Martínez-Ferrero J, Rodríguez-Ariza L, García-Sánchez I, Cuadrado-Ballesteros B (2018) Corporate social responsibility disclosure and information asymmetry: the role of family ownership. Rev Manag Sci 12(4):885–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mattingly JE, Berman SL (2006) Measurement of corporate social action: discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data. Bus Soc 45:20–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. McGuire J, Sundgren A, Schneeweis T (1988) Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Acad Manag J 31(4):854–872Google Scholar
  73. Merton RC (1987) Presidential address: a simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information. J Finance 42:483–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Miller E (1977) Risk, uncertainty and divergence of opinion. J Finance 32(4):1151–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mio C (2010) Corporate social reporting in Italian multi-utility companies: an empirical analysis. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 17:247–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Moscariello N, Pizzo M, Govorun D, Kostuyk N (2019) Independent minority directors and firm value in a principal–principal agency setting: evidence from Italy. J Manag Gov 23(1):165–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Nenova T (2003) The value of corporate voting rights and control: a cross-country analysis. J Financ Econ 68:325–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. O’Brien RM (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quant 41(5):673–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Oikonomou I, Brooks C, Pavelin S (2012) The impact of corporate social performance on financial risk and utility: a longitudinal analysis. Financ Manag 41:483–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Orlitzky M, Benjamin J (2001) Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: a metaanalytic review. Bus Soc 40(4):369–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Orlitzky M, Schmidt FL, Rynes SL (2003) Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organ Stud 24(3):403–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Perrini F (2007) Encouraging CSI in Italy: the enabling role of government in mandating, motivating, and supporting responsible business practices. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative. Working paper no. 35. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
  83. Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  84. Prowse SD (1990) Institutional investment patterns and corporate financial behavior in the United States and Japan. J Financ Econ 27(1):43–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rausch A (2011) Reconstruction of decision-making behavior in shareholder and stakeholder theory: implications for management accounting systems. Rev Manag Sci 5(2–3):137–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Riverte C (2016) Corporate social responsibility disclosure and market valuation: evidence from Spanish listed firms. Rev Manag Sci 10(2):411–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Roberts RW (1992) Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: an application of stakeholder theory. Account Organ Soc 17(6):595–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Romolini A, Fissi S, Gori E (2014) Scoring CSR reporting in listed companies—evidence from Italian best practices. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 21:65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rossi F, Barth J, Cebula R (2018) Do shareholder coalitions affect agency costs? Evidence from Italian-listed companies. Res Int Bus Finance 46:181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Salama A, Anderson K, Toms JS (2011) Does community and environmental responsibility affect firm risk? Evidence from UK panel data 1994–2006. Bus Ethics A Eur Rev 20(2):192–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sargan JD (1958) The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables. Econometrica 26:393–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Secchi D (2006) The Italian experience in social reporting: an empirical analysis. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 13:135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Servaes H, Tamayo A (2013) The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: the role of customer awareness. Manag Sci 59(5):1045–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Singh M, Davidson WN III (2003) Agency costs, ownership structure and corporate governance mechanisms. J Bank Finance 27:793–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Stern JM, Stewart GB III, Chew D Jr (1995) The EVA financial management system. J Appl Corp Finance 8(2):32–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Stewart BG III (1998) EVA clarified. Manag Account 80(6):8Google Scholar
  97. Venturelli F (2013) Corporate social responsibility and performance. University of Florence working paper. http://www.standardethics.eu/medias/file/50. Accessed 30 May 2017
  98. Villarón-Peramato Ó, Martínez-Ferrero J, García-Sánchez I (2018) CSR as entrenchment strategy and capital structure: corporate governance and investor protection as complementary and substitutive factors. Rev Manag Sci 12(1):27–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Waddock SA, Graves SB (1997) The corporate social performance financial performance link. Strateg Manag J 18(4):303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wall F, Greiling D (2011) Accounting information for managerial decision-making in shareholder management versus stakeholder management. Rev Manag Sci 5(2–3):91–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wintoki MB, Linck JS, Netter JM (2012) Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. J Financ Econ 105(3):581–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  103. World Bank Group (2016) Protecting minority investors. http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploretopics/protecting-minority-investors#close. Accessed 4 Feb 2017
  104. Zingales L (1994) The value of the voting right: a study of the Milan stock exchange experience. Rev Financ Stud 7:125–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Information EngineeringUniversity of Cassino and Southern LazioCassinoItaly
  2. 2.Pepperdine Graziadio Business SchoolPepperdine UniversityMalibuUSA

Personalised recommendations