Skip to main content
Log in

Corporate social responsibility and annual report reading difficulty

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We use more than 21,000 firm-year observations for 2534 U.S. companies between 1993 and 2018 to investigate the relationship between corporate social responsibility performance and the reading difficulty of annual reports. We find a significant negative relationship, suggesting that the annual reports of socially responsible firms are more readable (i.e., easier to read and understand). Overall, our results suggest that socially responsible firms are more ethical and transparent, which is consistent with the stakeholder view.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data are available from sources identified in the paper.

Notes

  1. Readability is related to transparency; however, they are not the same concept. Based on prior research (e.g., Kim, Park, and Wier 2012), transparency refers to the tendency of a firm to disclose truthful facts to stakeholders. Hence, such firms are less likely to engage in opportunistic behavior. Readability refers to the extent how easy or difficult for readers to understand corporate disclosures. Therefore, transparency is more related to corporate behavior, while readability is more related to the complexity of corporate disclosures. In general, annual reports of transparent firms are more readable.

  2. Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) database.

  3. https://kelley.iu.edu/bpm/activities/bogindex.html

  4. The final year of CSR data from MSCI ESG in Compustat is 2018 as of March 23, 2022.

  5. Perhaps closet to our study are the findings of Bacha and Ajina (2020), who find that CSR is positively related to annual report readability among French firms. Our study complements Bacha and Ajina (2020) but differs along several important dimensions. First, our results rely on U.S. data rather than French dada. Second, Bacha and Ajina (2020) use the Fog Index to measure readability, while we use the Bog Index, which is suggested by many recent studies such as Bonsall et al. (2017) as a more comprehensive readability measure than the Fog Index. Third, our sample period covers the period of 1993–2018, while that of Bacha and Ajina (2020) covers only 4 years (i.e., 2013–2016). Hence, our findings may be more robust, relative to Bacha and Ajina (2020).

  6. We thank Professor Feng Li for providing the Fog Index data and Professor McDonald for providing file size data.

  7. We do not include bond ratings and corporate governance in the baseline model because adding these two variables greatly reduces our sample size.

  8. Bebchuk et al. (2009) construct this index using six components including staggered boards, limits to shareholder amendments of the bylaws, supermajority requirements for mergers, supermajority requirements for charter amendments, poison pills, and golden parachute arrangements. A high E-index suggests weak corporate governance.

References

  • Arouri M, Pijourlet G (2017) CSR performance and the value of cash holdings: International evidence. J Bus Ethics 140(2):263–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attig N, Ghoul SE, Guedhami O, Suh J (2013) Corporate social responsibility and credit ratings. J Bus Ethics 117:679–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle KE, Carroll AB, Hartfield JD (1985) An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Acad Manag J 28(2):446–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axjonow A, Ernstberger J, Pott C (2018) The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure on corporate reputation: a non-professional stakeholder perspective. J Bus Ethics 151(2):429–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacha S, Ajina A (2020) CSR performance and annual report readability: evidence from France. Corp Gov 20(2):201–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebchuk LA, Cohen A, Ferrell A (2009) What matters in corporate governance? Rev Financ Stud 22(2):783–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Amar W, Belgacem I (2018) Do CSR firms provide more readable financial disclosures? Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 25(5):1009–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman SL, Wicks AC, Kotha S, Jones TM (1999) Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Acad Manag J 42:488–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beurden PV, Gossling T (2008) The worth of values—a literature review on the relation between corporate social and financial performance. J Bus Ethics 82(2):407–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield R (2002) The incomplete revelation hypothesis: implications for financial reporting. Account Horiz 16(3):233–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonsall SB, Leone AJ, Miller BP, Rennekamp K (2017) A plain English measure of financial reporting readability. J Account Econ 63:329–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonsall SB, Miller BP (2017) The impact of narrative disclosure readability on bond ratings and the cost of debt capital. Rev Acc Stud 22(2):608–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozanic Z, Thevenot M (2015) Qualitative disclosure and changes in sell-side financial analysts’ information environment. Contemp Account Res 32(4):1595–1616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozzolan S, Fabrizi M, Mallinand CA, Michelon G (2015) Corporate social responsibility and earnings quality: international evidence. Int J Account 50(4):361–396

    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. Strateg Manag J 29:1325–1343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan NM, Merkl-Davies DM (2018) Do firms effectively communicate with financial stakeholders? A conceptual model of corporate communication in a capital market context. Account Bus Res 48(5):553–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmeli A, Gilat G, Waldman D (2007) The role of perceived organizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. J Manage Stud 44:972–992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A (1979) A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad Manag Rev 4(4):497–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarthy J, deHaan E, Rajgopal S (2014) Reputation repair after a serious restatement. Account Rev 94(4):1329–1363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y-C, Hung M, Wang Y (2018) The effect of mandatory CSR disclosure on firm profitability and social externalities: Evidence from China. J Account Econ 65:169–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung A (2016) Corporate social responsibility and corporate cash holdings. J Corp Finan 37:412–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho SY, Lee C, Pfeiffer RJ (2013) Corporate social responsibility performance and information asymmetry. J Account Public Policy 32:71–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho CH, Patten DM (2007) The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: a research note. Acc Organ Soc 32:639–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho CH, Patten DM (2010) Environmental reporting on the internet by America’s toxic 100: legitimacy and self-presentation. Int J Account Inf Syst 11:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen DM (2016) Corporate accountability reporting and high-profile misconduct. Account Rev 91(2):377–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen HB, Floyd E, Liu LY, Maffett M (2017) The real effects of mandated information on social responsibility in financial reports: Evidence from mine-safety records. J Account Econ 64:284–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church BK, Jiang W, Kuang XJ, Vitalis A (2019) A dollar for a tree or a tree for a dollar? The behavioral effects of measurement basis on managers’ CSR investment decision. Account Rev 94(5):117–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis AK, Guenther DA, Krull LK, Williams BM (2016) Do socially responsible firms pay more taxes? Account Rev 91(1):47–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deckop JR, Merriman KK, Gupta S (2006) The effect of CEO pay structure on corporate social performance. J Manag 32(3):329–342

    Google Scholar 

  • De Franco C, Hope O, Vyas D, Zhou Y (2015) Analyst report readability. Contemp Account Res 32(1):76–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demerjian P, Lev B, McVay S (2012) Quantifying managerial ability: a new measure and validity tests. Managerial Science 58(7):122–1248

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng X, Kang J, Low BS (2013) Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value maximization: evidence from mergers. J Financ Econ 110:87–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal D, Li D, Tsang A, Yang Y (2011) Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: the initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. Account Rev 86(1):59–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal D, Li OZ, 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 Public Policy 33:328–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal D, Radhakrishnan S, Tsang A, Yang YG (2012) Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: international evidence on corporate social responsibility disclosure. Account Rev 87(3):723–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertugrul M, Lei J, Qiu J, Wan C (2017) Annual report readability, tone ambiguity, and the cost of borrowing. J Financ Quant Anal 52(2):811–836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fatima T, Elbanna S (2022) Corporate social responsibility implementation: a review and a research agenda towards an integrative framework. J Bus Ethics (forthcoming)

  • Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M (1970) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine (September 13)

  • Godfrey PC (2005) The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: a risk-management perspective. Acad Manag Rev 30(4):777–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey PC, Merrill CB, Hansen JM (2009) The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strateg Manag J 30:425–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin JJ, Mahon JF (1997) The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: twenty-five years of incomparable research. Bus Soc 36(1):5–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves S, Waddock SA (1994) Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Acad Manag J 18(4):303–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Guay W, Samuals D, Taylor D (2016) Guiding through the FOG: Financial statement complexity and voluntary disclosure. J Account Econ 62(2–3):234–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasan MM (2020) Readability of narrative disclosure in 10-K reports: Does managerial ability matter? Eur Account Rev 29(1):147–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoi CK, Wu Q, Zhang H (2013) Is corporate social responsibility associated with tax avoidance: evidence from irresponsible CSR activities? Account Rev 88(6):2025–2059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen MC (2001) Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. J Appl Corp Financ 14(3):8–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiraporn P, Jiraporn N, Boeprasert A, Chang K (2014) Does corporate social responsibility improve credit ratings? Evid Geogr Identif Financ Manag 43(3):505–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo H, Harjoto MA (2011) Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 103(3):351–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson RA, Greening DW (1999) The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Acad Manag J 42(5):564–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karnani A (2010) The case against corporate social responsibility. Wall Street Journal (August 23)

  • Khan M, Serafeim G, Yoon A (2016) Corporate sustainability: first evidence on materiality. Account Rev 91(6):1697–1724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kile CO, Phillips ME (2009) Using industry classification codes to sample high-technology firms: analysis and recommendations. J Acc Audit Financ 24(1):35–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim Y, Li H, Li S (2014) Corporate social responsibility and stock price crash risk. J Bus Financ 43:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim Y, Park MS, Wier B (2012) Is earnings quality associated with corporate social responsibility? Account Rev 87(3):761–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kothari SP, Leone A, Wasley CE (2005) Performance matched discretionary accrual measures. J Account Econ 35(1):163–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang M, Stice-Lawrence L (2015) Textual analysis and international financial reporting: large sample evidence. J Account Econ 60(2):110–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanis R, Richardson G (2015) Is corporate social responsibility associated with tax avoidance? J Bus Ethics 127(2):439–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence A (2013) Individual investors and financial disclosure. J Account Econ 56:130–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehavy R, Li F, Merkley K (2011) The effect of annual report readability on analyst following and the properties of their earnings forecasts. Account Rev 86(3):1087–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li F (2008) Annual report readability, current earnings, and earnings persistence. J Account Econ 45(2):221–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo K, Ramos F, Rogo R (2017) Earnings management and annual report readability. J Account Econ 63:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran T, McDonald B (2011) When is a liability not a liability? Textual analysis, dictionaries, and 10-Ks. J Financ 66(1):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran T, McDonald B (2014) Measuring readability in financial disclosures. J Financ 69(4):1643–1671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundholm RJ, Rogo R, Zhang JL (2014) Restoring the tower of Babel: How foreign firms communicate with U.S. investors. Account Rev 89(4):1453–1485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo JH, Li X, Chen H (2018) Annual report readability and corporate agency costs. China J Account Res 11:187–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lys T, Naughton JP, Wang C (2015) Signaling through corporate accountability reporting. J Account Econ 60:56–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney L, Thorn L (2006) An examination of the structure of executive compensation and corporate social responsibility: a canadian investigation. J Bus Ethics 69(2):149–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malik M (2015) Value-enhancing capabilities of CSR: a brief review of contemporary literature. J Bus Ethics 127(2):419–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manchiraju H, Rajgopal S (2017) Does corporate social responsibility (CSR) create shareholder value? Evidence from the Indian Companies Act 2013. J Account Res 55(5):1257–1300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis JD, Walsh JP (2003) Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Adm Sci Q 48:268–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maso LD, Lobo GJ, Mazzi F, Paugam L (2019) Implications of the joint provision of CSR assurance and financial audit for auditors’ assessment of going concern risk. Contemporary Accounting Research (forthcoming)

  • Martinez-Ferrero J, Garcia-Sanchez IM, Cuadrado-Ballestero B (2015) Effect of financial reporting quality on sustainability disclosure strategies. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 22(1):45–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire JB, Sundgren A, Schnessweis T (1988) Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Acad Manag J 31(4):854–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser DV, Martin PR (2012) A broad perspective on corporate social responsibility research in accounting. Account Rev 87(3):797–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelling E, Webb E (2009) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: the “virtuous circle” revisited. Rev Quant Financ Acc 32(2):197–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky M, Schmidt FL, Rynes SL (2003) Corporate social and financial performance: a meta analysis. Organ Stud 24(3):403–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen MA (2009) Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Rev Financ Stud 22(1):435–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME, Van der Linde C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect 9(4):97–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Securities and Exchange Commission (1998) A plain English handbook: How to create clear SEC disclosure. SEC Office of Investor Education and Assistance

  • Securities and Exchange Commission (2013) The path forward on disclosure. Speech given by SEC chairperson Mary White to the National Association of Corporate Directors

  • Securities and Exchange Commission (2014) Disclosure effectiveness: remarks before the American Bar Association Business Law Section Meeting

  • Shank T, Manullang D, Hill R (2005) Doing well while doing good revisited: a study of socially responsible firms’ short term versus long-term performance. Manag Financ 30:33–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith NC (1994) The new corporate philanthropy. Harv Bus Rev 6:105–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith NC (2003) Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? Calif Manage Rev 45(4):52–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun L, Johnson G, Bradley W (2022) CEO power and annual report reading difficulty. J Contemp Account Econ (forthcoming)

  • Ullman AE (1985) Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure and economic performance of U.S. firms. Acad Manag Rev 10(3):540–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock S, Graves S (1997) The corporate social performance – financial performance link. Strateg Manag J 18(4):303–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls JL, Berrone P, Phan PH (2012) Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link? Strateg Manag J 33(8):885–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang C, Qureshi I, Guo F, Zhang Q (2022) Corporate social responsibility and disruptive innovation: the moderating effect of environmental turbulence. J Bus Res 139:1435–1450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood DJ, Jones RE (1995) Stakeholder mismatching: a theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. Int J Org Anal 3(3):229–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye K, Zhang R (2011) Do lenders value corporate social responsibility? Evidence from China. J Bus Ethics 104(2):197–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • You H, Zhang X (2009) Financial disclosure complexity and investor underreaction to 10-K information. Rev Acc Stud 14(4):559–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Li Sun.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: CSR components (publicly available at www.msci.com)

CSR components

CSR strengths items

CSR concerns items

Community relations

Charitable giving

Innovative giving

Support for housing

Support for education

Non-U.S. charitable giving

Volunteer programs

Other strengths

Investment controversies

Negative economic impact

Tax disputes

Other concerns

Diversity

CEO

Promotion

Board of directors

Work–life benefits

Women and minority contracting

Employment of the disabled

Gay and lesbian policies

Other strengths

Controversies

Non-representation

Other concerns

Employee relations

Union relations

No-layoff policy

Cash profit sharing

Employee involvement

Retirement benefits

Health and safety

Other strengths

Union relations

Health and safety concerns

Workforce reductions

Retirement benefits concern

Other concerns

Environment

Beneficial products

Pollution prevention

Recycling

Clean energy

Property, plant, and equipment

Management systems

Other strengths

Hazardous waste

Regulatory problems

Ozone depleting chemicals

Substantial emissions

Agricultural chemicals

Climate change

Other concerns

Product

Quality

Research and development innovation

Benefits to economically disadvantaged

Other strengths

Product safety

Marketing/contracting concern

Antitrust

Other concerns

Corporate governance

Limited compensation

Ownership strength

Transparency strength

Political accountability strength

Public policy strength

Other strengths

High compensation

Ownership concern

Accounting concern

Transparency concern

Political accountability concern

Public policy concern

Other concerns

Human rights

Positive record in S. Africa

Indigenous peoples’ relations

Labor rights strength

Other strengths

S. Africa

Northern Ireland

Mexico

Burma concern

Labor right concern

Indigenous peoples’ relations concern

Other concerns

Appendix 2: Variable definitions

Variable

 

Definition

READ_DIFF

 = 

The Bog Index by Bonsall et al. (2017) to measure reading difficulty;

CSR_NET

 = 

Total strengths of Community Relations, Corporate Governance, Diversity, Employee Relations, Environment, Human Rights, and Product – Total concerns of Community Relations, Corporate Governance, Diversity, Employee Relations, Environment, Human Rights, and Product;

CSR_STR

 = 

Total strengths of Community Relations, Corporate Governance, Diversity, Employee Relations, Environment, Human Rights, and Product;

CSR_CON

 = 

Total concerns of Community Relations, Corporate Governance, Diversity, Employee Relations, Environment, Human Rights, and Product;

SIZE

 = 

The natural log of total firms assets (AT);

LEV

 = 

Leverage ratio, measure as the ratio of long-term liabilities (DLTT) to total assets (AT);

ROA

 = 

Profitability, measured as income before extraordinary items (IB) scaled by total assets (AT);

MTB

 = 

Market-to-book ratio, measured as market value of outstanding common shares [Outstanding common shares (CSHO) × price at fiscal year-end (PRCC_F)] divided by total book value of outstanding common shares (CEQ);

CFO

 = 

Cash flows from operating activities (OANCF) scaled by total assets (AT);

CAPINT

 = 

Capital expenditures (CAPX) scaled by total assets (AT);

FIRMAGE

 = 

The natural log of the number of firms since the firm has been listed in the Compustat database;

MARANK

 = 

Decile ranks of managerial ability scores by Demerjian et al. (2012);

VOLATILITY

 = 

Volatility of sales (SALE);

SPEITEM

 = 

Special items (SPI) scaled by total assets (AT);

MER_ACQ

 = 

An indicator variable that equals one if a firm engages in merger & acquisition transactions and zero otherwise;

ACCRUALS

 = 

The absolute value of discretionary accruals using performance-matched modified Jones model;

LOSS

 = 

An indicator variable that equals one if a firm reports a loss and zero otherwise;

SEGMENT

 = 

The natural log of the number of business segments;

BIG4

 = 

An indicator variable that equals one if a firm uses a Big 4 accounting firm and zero otherwise;

FSZIE

 = 

The natural log of the gross file size of 10-K reports by Loughran and McDonald (2011);

FOG

 = 

The Fog Index of reading difficulty;

HCSR

 = 

An indicator variable that equals one if an observation’s net CSR score (CSR_NET) is greater than zero and zero otherwise;

CSR_ALT

 = 

Total strengths of Community Relations, Diversity, Employee Relations, Environment, and Product – Total concerns of Community Relations, Diversity, Employee Relations, Environment, and Product;

ΔREAD_DIFF

 = 

READ_DIFF in year t – READ_DIFF in year t − 1;

ΔCSR_NET

 = 

CSR_NET in year t – CSR_NET in year t − 1;

ΔSIZE

 = 

SIZE in year t—SIZE in year t − 1;

ΔLEV

 = 

LEV in year t—LEV in year t − 1;

ΔROA

 = 

ROA in year t—ROA in year t − 1;

ΔMTB

 = 

MTB in year t—MTB in year t − 1;

ΔCFO

 = 

CFO in year t—CFO in year t − 1;

ΔCAPINT

 = 

CAPINT in year t—CAPINT in year t − 1;

ΔFIRMAGE

 = 

FIRMAGE in year t—FIRMAGE in year t − 1;

ΔMARANK

 = 

MARANK in year t – MARANK in year t − 1;

ΔVOLATILITY

 = 

VOLALITITY in year t – VOLALITITY in year t − 1;

ΔSPEITEM

 = 

SPEITEM in year t – SPEITEM in year t − 1;

ΔMER_ACQ

 = 

MER_ACQ in year t – MER_ACQ in year t − 1;

ΔEARNINGS

 = 

EARNINGS in year t—EARINGS in year t − 1;

ΔACCRUALS

 = 

ACCRUALS in year t—ACCRUALS in year t − 1;

ΔLOSS

 = 

LOSS in year t—LOSS in year t − 1;

ΔSEGMENT

 = 

SEGMENT in year t—SEGMENT in year t − 1;

ΔBIG4

 = 

BIG4 in year t – BIG4 in year t − 1;

BOND RATING

 = 

The bond credit ratings from S&P’s;

GOVERNANCE

 = 

The entrenchment index;

CSR_COMMUNITY

 = 

Total strengths of Community Relations – Total concerns of Community Relations;

CSR_GOVERNANCE

 = 

Total strengths of Corporate Governance – Total concerns of Corporate Governance;

CSR_DIVERSITY

 = 

Total strengths of Diversity – Total concerns of Diversity;

CSR_EMPLOYEE

 = 

Total strengths of Employee Relations – Total concerns of Employee Relations;

CSR_ENVIRONMENT

 = 

Total strengths of Environment – Total concerns of Environment;

CSR_HUMAN RIGHTS

 = 

Total strengths of Human Rights – Total concerns of Human Rights;

CSR_PRODUCT

 = 

Total strengths of Product – Total concerns of Product;

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bajaj, A., Leonard, L.N.K., Sun, L. et al. Corporate social responsibility and annual report reading difficulty. Rev Quant Finan Acc 60, 1393–1428 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-023-01132-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-023-01132-9

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation