Skip to main content
Log in

The Corporate Social Responsibility Information Environment: Examining the Value of Financial Analysts’ Recommendations

Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR)-related information and the value of financial analysts’ stock recommendations. The information environment in which analysts operate in is affected by CSR-related reports that companies voluntarily issue as well as information that becomes available through third-party analysis and rating institutions. We find an inverse relationship between the value of both upgrade and downgrade revisions and the supply of CSR-related information compiled by third-party institutions, suggesting that CSR-related data are associated with a richer information environment that makes it more challenging for analysts to issue informative recommendations, thereby mitigating their contribution to the price discovery process. We further find that the value of analysts’ recommendation revisions is lower for companies that voluntarily issue CSR-related reports compared to those that do not make such disclosures and that the overall effect of CSR on the informativeness of analysts is stronger in the recent years. Our findings have implications for the evolution of CSR reporting as the incorporation of CSR-related information into market prices legitimizes the relevance of such reports. Furthermore, these findings contribute to our understanding of the role and value of information intermediaries in changing information environments.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The US SIF Foundation’s 2014 “Report on Sustainable and Responsible Investing Trends in the United States” states that as of the end of 2013, nearly 17 percent of all capital under professional management in the U.S. is invested according to sustainable, responsible, and impact investing (SRI) strategies. Further, SRI investing experienced a growth rate above 76 percent during the period from 2012 to 2014.

  2. The relevance of CSR-related information to the capital market is also evident by the 1991 formation of the commercially available database MSCI ESG KLD STATS which was formerly known as KLD Research & Analytics, Inc. This database offers annual snapshots of the environmental, social, and governance performance of companies rated by MSCI ESG KLD STATS. Given the growing demand for CSR-related information, the universe covered by MSCI ESG KLD STATS grew from 650 companies in 1991 to approximately 3100 in 2014. A key reason for the existence of MSCI ESG KLD STATS is that investors demand CSR information and CSR disclosure is not mandatory in the U.S.

  3. We focus on analysts’ recommendation revisions because recommendation revisions reflect the culmination of analysts’ valuations and are generally the output that investors pay the most attention to.

  4. For robustness we also produce results based on the sum of the strengths (STRENGTHS) and concerns (CONCERNS).

  5. In untabulated analysis, we identify companies that voluntarily disclose CSR information through the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) dataset and find that firms that disclose have significantly higher number of strengths and concerns. This finding suggests that our primary variable of interest, CSRIS, the sum of the strengths and concerns, is positively associated with the supply of CSR information.

  6. We use two-year changes in CSR ratings as opposed to one because of the sticky nature of CSR ratings. Specifically, we find that there is no change in the CSR strength and concern variables for 72.19 and 66.33 percent of the sample, respectively.

  7. We use 250 days of return data ending 40 days prior to the recommendation date to avoid the recommendation announcement from biasing the estimated risk parameters.

  8. For an expanded discussion of these variables and the full model, please refer to Fama and French (1992), Fama and French (1993), and Carhart (1997).

  9. We exclude cases where the analyst reiterates the existing recommendation rating.

  10. We thank Professor Fama and Professor French for making their data available to the public.

  11. We eliminate such revisions because they were potentially confounded by other events or because the revisions may have been deemed irrelevant by market participants.

  12. We find that there is no change in the CSR strength and concern variables for 72.19 and 66.33 % of the sample, respectively.

  13. The GRI is a leading organization in the sustainability field. GRI promotes the use of sustainability reporting as a way for organizations to become more sustainable and contribute to sustainable development.

  14. We thank the reviewer for suggesting this analysis.

References

  • Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amir, E., Lev, B., & Sougiannis, T. (2003). Do financial analysts get intangibles? European Accounting Review, 12(4), 635–659.

  • Ang, A., Hodrick, R. J., Xing, Y., & Zhang, X. (2009). High idiosyncratic volatility and low returns: International and further US evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 91(1), 1–23.

  • Arya, B., & Zhang, G. (2009). Institutional reforms and investor reactions to CSR announcements: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Management Studies, 46(7), 1089–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asquith, P., Mikhail, M. B., & Au, A. S. (2005). Information content of equity analyst reports. Journal of Financial Economics, 75(2), 245–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attig, N., Ghoul, S. E., Guedhami, O., & Suh, J. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and credit ratings. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(4), 679–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, O. E., Kim, O., Lim, S. C., & Stevens, D. E. (1998). Using analysts’ forecasts to measure properties of analysts’ information environment. The Accounting Review, 73(4), 421–433.

  • Barron, O. E., Byard, D., Kile, C., & Riedl, E. J. (2002). High-technology intangibles and analysts’ forecasts. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(2), 289–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhushan, R. (1989a). Collection of information about publicly traded firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 11(2/3), 183–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhushan, R. (1989b). Firm characteristics and analyst following. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 11(2–3), 255–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boni, L., & Womack, K. L. (2006). Analysts, industries, and price momentum. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 41(01), 85–109.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carhart, M. M. (1997). On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance, 52(1), 57–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, M. B. (1999). Analyst forecast accuracy: Do ability, resources, and portfolio complexity matter? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 27(3), 285–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, M. B., & Tse, S. Y. (2005). Financial analyst characteristics and herding behavior in forecasting. Journal of Finance, 60(1), 307–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datar, V. T., Naik, N. Y., & Radcliffe, R. (1998). Liquidity and stock returns: An alternative test. Journal of Financial Markets, 1(2), 203–219.

  • de Colle, S., Henriques, A., & Sarasvathy, S. (2014). The paradox of corporate social responsibility standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(2), 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 59–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal, D. S., Radhakrishnan, S., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2012). Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: International evidence on corporate social responsibility disclosure. The Accounting Review, 87(3), 723–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, S., & Vieira, E. T. (2012). Striving for legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: Insights from oil companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 413–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1992). The cross-section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & MacBeth, J. D. (1973). Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flammer, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 758–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J., & Soffer, L. (1997). The relative informativeness of analysts’ stock recommendations and earnings forecast revisions. Journal of Accounting Research, 35(2), 193–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J., Schipper, K., & Vincent, L. (2002). Earnings announcements and competing information. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33(3), 313–342.

  • Frankel, R., Kothari, S. P., & Weber, J. (2006). Determinants of the informativeness of analyst research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 41(1), 29–54.

  • Gregory, A., Tharyan, R., & Whittaker, J. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and firm value: Disaggregating the effects on cash flow, risk and growth. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(4), 633–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grullon, G., Kanatas, G., & Weston, J. P. (2004). Advertising, breadth of ownership, and liquidity. Review of Financial Studies, 17(2), 439–461.

  • Gu, F., & Wang, W. (2005). Intangible assets, information complexity, and analysts’ earnings forecasts. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 32(9−10), 1673–1702.

  • Harjoto, M. A., & Jo, H. (2011). Corporate governance and CSR nexus. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 45–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R. P., Ainscough, T., Shank, T., & Manullang, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and socially responsible investing: A global perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(2), 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J. R., Nath, L., & Wood, D. (2009). The supply of corporate social responsibility disclosures among U.S. firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 497–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2012). What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(9), 834–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2015). The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts’ perceptions and shifting institutional logics. Strategic Management Journal, 36(7), 1053–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janney, J. J., & Gove, S. (2011). Reputation and corporate social responsibility aberrations, trends, and hypocrisy: Reactions to firm choices in the stock option backdating scandal. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1562–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jegadeesh, N., & Titman, S. (1993). Returns to buying winners and selling losers: Implications for stock market efficiency. The Journal of Finance, 48(1), 65–91.

  • Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. (2012). The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Park, M. S., & Wier, B. (2012). Is earnings quality associated with corporate social responsibility? The Accounting Review, 87(3), 761–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., & Swaminathan, B. (2000). Price momentum and trading volume. The Journal of Finance, 55(5), 2017–2069.

  • Loh, R. K., & Stulz, R. (2011). When are analyst recommendations influential? Review of Financial Studies, 24, 593–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., Wang, H., Raithel, S., & Zheng, Q. (2015). Corporate social performance, analyst stock recommendations, and firm future returns. Strategic Management Journal, 36(1), 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, J. E., & Berman, S. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action: Discovering taxonomy in the kinder lydenburg domini ratings data. Business and Society, 45(1), 20–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, J. J., & Muscarella, C. J. (1985). Corporate capital expenditure decisions and the market value of the firm. Journal of Financial Economics, 14(3), 399–422.

  • McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menz, K. (2010). Corporate social responsibility: Is it rewarded by the corporate bond market? A critical note. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1), 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, S., & Modi, S. (2013). Positive and negative corporate social responsibility, financial leverage, and idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 431–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oikonomou, I., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2014). The financial effects of uniform and mixed corporate social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 51(6), 898–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, R., & Galan, J. (2010). The effect of R&D intensity on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(3), 407–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmon, D., & Yezegel, A. (2012). R&D intensity and the value of analysts’ recommendations. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(2), 621–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reverte, C. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by spanish listed firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, M., & Yuthas, K. (2008). Moral discourse and corporate social responsibility reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(1), 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scalet, S., & Kelly, T. (2010). CSR rating agencies: What is their global impact? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 69–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschopp, D., & Huefner, R. (2015). Comparing the evolution of CSR reporting to that of financial reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3), 565–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yezegel, A. (2015). Why do analysts revise their stock recommendations after earnings announcements? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 59(2–3), 163–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Zhu, H., & Ding, H. (2013). Board composition and corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 381–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ari Yezegel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, C., Palmon, D. & Yezegel, A. The Corporate Social Responsibility Information Environment: Examining the Value of Financial Analysts’ Recommendations. J Bus Ethics 150, 279–301 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3197-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3197-4

Keywords

Navigation