Mandated Social Disclosure: An Analysis of the Response to the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010

  • Rachel N. Birkey
  • Ronald P. Guidry
  • Mohammad Azizul Islam
  • Dennis M. Patten
Review Paper


In this study, we examine investor and firm response to the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act (CTSCA) of 2010. The CTSCA requires large retail and manufacturing firms to disclose efforts to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from their supply chains and is a rare example of mandated corporate social responsibility disclosure. Based on a sample of 105 retail companies subject to the CTSCA, we find a significant negative market reaction to the passing of the CTSCA. Furthermore, we find that the reaction is significantly more negative for larger firms and companies facing greater supply chain risks (apparel and footwear retailers), suggesting that investors place a negative value on exposure to legitimacy threats in the social domain. With respect to company disclosure response, we document relatively high compliance with the legislation, although we also find that the disclosure response appeared to be more symbolic than substantive in nature. Finally, our analysis indicates that both disclosure choice and disclosure extensiveness were significantly higher for the high-supply chain risk companies, suggesting that the response was influenced by concerns with strategic legitimation. Overall, the limited quality of disclosure suggests that, without additional rules and guidance, mandates alone may not lead to meaningful social disclosure.


Supply chains Corporate social responsibility Disclosure Regulations 


  1. Aras, G., & Crowther, D. (2009). Corporate sustainability reporting: A study in disingenuity? Journal of Business Ethics, 87(6), 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bebbington, J., Kirk, E. A., & Larrinaga, C. (2012). The production of normativity: A comparison of reporting regimes in Spain and the UK. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(2), 78–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, C., Dumay, J., & Frost, G. (2015). In pursuit of a “single source of truth”: From threatened legitimacy to integrated reporting. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2423-1.Google Scholar
  4. Berthelot, S., Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2003). Environmental disclosure research: Review and synthesis. Journal of Accounting Literature, 22, 1–44.Google Scholar
  5. Bhaduri, G., & Ha-Brookshire, J. E. (2011). Do transparent business practices pay? Exploration of transparency and consumer purchase intention. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 29(2), 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blacconiere, W. G., & Northcut, W. D. (1997). Environmental information and market reactions to environmental legislation. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 12(2), 149–178.Google Scholar
  7. Blacconiere, W. G., & Patten, D. M. (1994). Environmental disclosure, regulatory costs, and changes in firm value. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 18, 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowen, R., Castanias, R., & Daley, L. (1983). Intra-industry effects of the accident at Three Mile Island. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 18, 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cahan, S. F., Chavis, B. M., & Elmendorf, R. G. (1997). Earnings management of chemical firms in response to political costs from environmental legislation. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 12(1), 37–65.Google Scholar
  10. California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 Senate Bill 657 (CTSCA). (2010). Available at
  11. Chauvey, J., Giordano-Spring, S., Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2015). The normativity and legitimacy of CSR disclosure: Evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4), 789–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chelli, M., Durocher, S., & Fortin, A. (2016). Normativity in environmental reporting: A comparison of three regimes. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3128-4.Google Scholar
  13. Chen, J. C., & Roberts, R. W. (2010). Toward a more coherent understanding of the organization–society relationship: A theoretical consideration for social and environmental accounting research. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(4), 651–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cho, C. H., Freedman, M., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Corporate disclosure of environmental capital expenditures: A test of alternative theories. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25(3), 486–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. (2015). CSR disclosure: The more things change…? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 28(1), 14–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deegan, C. (2014). An overview of legitimacy theory as applied within the social and environmental accounting literature. In J. Bebbington, J. Unerman, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability accounting and accountability (2nd ed., pp. 248–272). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Delbard, O. (2008). CSR legislation in France and the European regulatory paradox: An analysis of EU CSR policy and sustainability reporting practice. Corporate Governance, 8(4), 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dingwerth, K., & Eichinger, M. (2010). Tamed transparency: How information disclosure under the global reporting initiative fails to empower. Global Environmental Politics, 10(3), 74–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Doorey, D. J. (2011). The transparent supply chain: From resistance to implementation at Nike and Levi-Strauss. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(4), 587–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Freedman, M., & Patten, D. M. (2004). Evidence on the pernicious effect of financial report environmental disclosure. Accounting Forum, 28(1), 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability… and how would we know? An exploration of narratives on organizations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guidry, R. P., & Patten, D. M. (2010). Market reactions to the first-time issuance of corporate sustainability reports: Evidence that quality matters. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 1(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hackston, D., & Milne, M. J. (1996). Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(1), 77–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Higgins, C., & Larrinaga, C. (2014). Sustainability reporting: insights from institutional theory. In J. Bebbington, J. Unerman, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability Accounting and Accountability (2nd ed., pp. 273–285). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Hill, J., & Schneeweis, T. (1983). The effect of Three Mile Island on electric utility stock prices: A note. Journal of Finance, 38, 1285–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hrasky, S. (2012). Carbon footprints and legitimation strategies: Symbolism or action? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25(1), 174–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Islam, M. A., & Deegan, C. (2010). Media pressures and corporate disclosure of social responsibility performance information: A study of two global clothing and sports retail companies. Accounting and Business Research, 40(2), 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krueger, D. A. (2008). The ethics of global supply chains in China—Convergences of East and West. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(1/2), 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Larrinaga, C., Carrasco, F., Correa, C., Llena, F., & Moneva, J. M. (2002). Accountability and accounting regulation: The case of the Spanish environmental disclosure standard. The European Accounting Review, 11(4), 723–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loss, L. (1988). Fundamentals of securities regulations (2nd ed.). Boston: Little Brown & Company.Google Scholar
  32. Milne, M. J., & Patten, D. M. (2002). Securing organizational legitimacy: An experimental decision case examining the impact of environmental disclosures. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15(3), 372–405.Google Scholar
  33. Moneva, J. M., Archel, P., & Correa, C. (2006). GRI and the camouflaging of corporate unsustainability. Accounting Forum, 30, 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Not for Sale. (2012). Apparel industry trends: From farm to factory 2012. Retrieved from
  35. Park-Poaps, H., & Rees, K. (2010). Stakeholder forces of socially responsible supply chain management orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Patten, D. M. (1991). Exposure, legitimacy, and social disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 10(4), 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Patten, D. M. (1992). Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5), 471–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Patten, D. M. (2014). Environmental disclosure as legitimation: Is it in the public interest? In S. Mintz (Ed.), Accounting for the public interest (pp. 201–215). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Patten, D. M., & Nance, J. R. (1998). Regulatory cost effects in a good news environment: The intra-industry reaction to the Alaskan oil spill. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 17(4/5), 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Preuss, L., & Brown, D. (2012). Business policies on human rights: An analysis of their content and prevalence among FTSE 100 firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(3), 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roberts, S. (2003). Supply chain specific? Understanding the patchy success of ethical sourcing initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sethi, S. P., Veral, E. A., Shapiro, H. J., & Emelianova, O. (2011). Mattel Inc.: Global manufacturing principles (GMP)—A life-cycle analysis of a company-based code of conduct in the toy industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 483–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sneed, T. (2014). Why cleaning-up the fashion industry is so messy. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from
  44. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  45. Walden, W. D., & Schwartz, B. N. (1997). Environmental disclosures and public policy pressures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 16(2), 125–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Warsame, H., Neu, D., & Simmons, C. V. (2002). Responding to “discrediting” events: Annual report disclosure responses to environmental fines. Accounting and the Public Interest, 2, 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Watts, R., & Zimmerman, J. (1986). Positive accounting theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  48. White, G. B. (2015). All your clothes are made with exploited labor. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
  49. Wiseman, J. (1982). An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7(1), 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yu, X. (2008). Impacts of corporate codes of conduct on labor standards: A case study of Reebok’s athletic footwear supplier factory in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(3), 513–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414–431.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachel N. Birkey
    • 1
  • Ronald P. Guidry
    • 1
  • Mohammad Azizul Islam
    • 2
  • Dennis M. Patten
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AccountingIllinois State UniversityNormalUSA
  2. 2.School of AccountancyQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations