2022 Tsang

The British Accounting Review 55 (2023) 101149
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The British Accounting Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bar
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) disclosure: A

literature review
Albert Tsang a, Tracie Frost b, Huijuan Cao c, *
a
SUSTech Business School, Southern University of Science and Technology, China
b
School of Accounting and Finance, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China
c
School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, China
A B S T R A C T
Voluntary nonfinancial Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) disclosure is a rapidly growing and increasingly important topic that has
attracted great attention from both academic researchers and capital market participants in recent years. The objective of this survey study is to
provide a comprehensive review of the ESG disclosure literature in accounting research with suggestions for the future. Specifically, we organize the
literature into four categories: motivations for and consequences associated with ESG information, in addition to disclosure- and user-level char
acteristics with the potential to affect the observed outcome of information disclosure. We also discuss the key role of nonfinancial rating agencies as
a new type of ESG information intermediary in capital markets and suggest opportunities for future research.
1. Introduction
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to the “commitment of businesses to contribute to sustainable economic development
by working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large to improve their lives in ways that are good for
business and for development” (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2002). During the past decades, stakeholders
have pushed firms to take more initiative with their sustainability agendas globally (UNGC 2019). Meanwhile, shareholders
increasingly call on firms to incorporate CSR into their business practices, and this is strongly reflected in the contents of their
proposals.1,2
Although shareholder demands for CSR initiatives are increasing in strength and frequency, the role of CSR in firms is still subject to
debate. In general, the main goal of firms is to maximize shareholder wealth. However, firms have another important goal in pursuing
CSR, that is, to provide benefits to society at large. Some scholars question this departure from the perspective of firm value maxi
mization (e.g., see Friedman, 1970; Jensen, 2001). For example, research suggests that the short-term costs of adopting CSR typically
outweigh the immediate financial benefits, and CSR activities can take years to improve a firm’s competitive position and eventually
benefit its shareholders (Meng & Wang, 2019).
Stakeholder theory offers an alternative view of firm value creation by explaining how firms integrate their value maximization
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: AlbertTsang_2022@outlook.com (A. Tsang), tracie.frost@polyu.edu.hk (T. Frost), huijuan_cao@outlook.com (H. Cao).
1
A review of shareholder proposals over the last decade consistently shows that shareholders make more proposals about social policy than
corporate governance. The data on shareholder proposals are from the Proxy Monitor database (https://www.proxymonitor.org/).
2
A closer look at shareholders’ proposals regarding CSR in recent years indicates that shareholders’ main concerns are the environment, political
spending, and human rights. A review of the categories of shareholder proposals related to socioenvironmental policies from the Proxy Monitor
database shows that approximately 40% of these shareholder proposals pertain to environmental issues, 35% to political spending and lobbying, and
18% to human and employment rights.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2022.101149
Received 27 July 2022; Received in revised form 16 November 2022; Accepted 17 November 2022
Available online 24 November 2022
0890-8389/© 2022 British Accounting Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Tsang et al. The British Accounting Review 55 (2023) 101149
goals with the interests of various stakeholders to create competitive advantages. Stakeholder theory suggests that a firm can do well
by doing good (Bénabou & Tirole, 2010) and that, depending upon the context-based incentives to behave responsibly, the concept of
CSR to influence outcomes driven by stakeholders may be consistent with shareholder wealth maximization (Kitzmueller & Shim
shack, 2012). According to stakeholder theory, to be successful and sustainable, a firm must create value for various stakeholders, such
as customers, suppliers, employees, communities, trade unions, political groups, shareholders, and banks, among others (Freeman,
1984). Therefore, it is not surprising that stakeholder theory is most often used to explain the relationship between firm performance
and CSR.
The findings in the literature broadly support stakeholder theory regarding CSR. Studies linking CSR and firm performance identify
several ways in which CSR creates value for firms, such as better access to finance (Cheng et al., 2014; Dhaliwal et al., 2011), lower cost
of capital (El Ghoul et al., 2011; Goss & Roberts, 2011; Ng & Rezaee, 2015; Tan et al., 2020), increased customer and employee
satisfaction (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006; Servaes & Tamayo, 2013), higher levels of institutional ownership (Dimson et al., 2015), and
greater social capital (Lins et al., 2017) in firms with good CSR performance. Nevertheless, despite numerous studies examining the
effect of CSR performance on various stakeholders, the relationship between CSR and firm value is still debated among researchers.
The past two decades have witnessed a rapidly growing demand for nonfinancial information about CSR and/or ESG activities
following the increasing interest in sustainable investments (Amel-Zadeh & Serafeim, 2018; Cohen et al., 2015; Dhaliwal et al., 2011).3
The KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2020 shows that 80% of all large- and mid-cap firms globally published CSR reports in
2020, which is up from only 12% in 1993.4 The quality assurance of such reports has also increased. In 2020, for instance, more than
50% of firms invested in independent third-party assurance of their sustainability reports, an increase of more than 50% from 2005.
These trends reflect a broad concern for social welfare in the corporate space in addition to increased attention to firms’ CSR activities
from investors, corporate managers, and regulators. However, US firms voluntarily disclose much of this information. As a result,
investors may have concerns about the comparability, credibility, and usefulness of voluntary disclosure (Bernow et al., 2019; Chen
et al., 2016; Christensen et al., 2018; Muslu et al., 2019).
The increased interest in CSR among capital market participants is accompanied by the expansion of academic research related to
CSR in the accounting literature In Appendix A we provide a summary of all CSR-related publications up to 2021 published in the
Accounting, Organizations and Society, British Accounting Review, Contemporary Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting Economics,
Journal of Accounting Research, Review of Accounting Studies, and The Accounting Review. Table 1 summarizes all CSR-related papers
published in these journals. Table 1, Fig. 1, and Fig. 2 also present the distribution of published CSR studies across journals, research
methods, and geographic regions. To better understand the importance and development of CSR literature, we further collect all
empirical accounting papers published with at least one citation during the past three decades from the Brigham Young University
Accounting Citation Rankings’ Website. Based on the information collected, in Fig. 3, we present the total number of published papers
in the accounting literature for each of the following three major research topics in accounting: accounting quality, corporate
governance, and CSR. The figure suggests that although studies related to accounting quality and corporate governance have domi
nated the accounting literature in the last 30 years in terms of the number of publications (Fig. 3A), citations associated with papers in
both of these areas have increased more slowly relative to citations associated with CSR studies in the last 10 years (Fig. 3B). Starting
from 2012 to 2013, the average citations associated with CSR studies even exceed significantly those associated with corporate
governance and accounting quality studies. Finally, Fig. 4 presents the total number of CSR-related publications and the number of new
publications in Accounting, Organizations and Society, British Accounting Review, Contemporary Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting
Economics, Journal of Accounting Research, Review of Accounting Studies and The Accounting Review since 1978, once again showing a
significantly growing interest in CSR studies, especially during the last 10 years.
Additionally, research on CSR reporting makes up a substantial proportion of all papers submitted to the most influential ac
counting conferences in recent years (e.g., the 2021 Midyear Meeting of the Financial Accounting and Reporting Section). Perhaps
more importantly, CSR is considered one of the most influential accounting research areas in the last decade. For example, 3 of the 10
most cited empirical accounting papers since 2010 examine the capital market implications of CSR reporting and/or performance5
with one of them being ranked globally number one in terms of citations received (i.e., Dhaliwal et al., 2011, 2012; Kim et al., 2012).
More recently, the first CSR study which examines the capital market implication of CSR reporting by Dhaliwal et al. (2011) has
received the 2022 Distinguished Contribution to Accounting Literature Award from the American Accounting Association.6 Thus, it
seems appropriate for this brief review to focus on the most important and debated issues related to CSR in accounting research.7
The scale and importance of CSR disclosure literature in the field of accounting demand a comprehensive review of the literature as
it currently exists and an examination of critical issues in CSR as well as areas for future research. Our goal is to review the accounting
literature that examines voluntary CSR disclosure and its determinants, consequences, and characteristics, as well as moderators in
3
In this study, we use ESG and CSR interchangeably because of our focus on nonfinancial information disclosure; however, the former includes
corporate governance while the latter does not.
4
The KPMG survey is based on a global sample of the top 100 firms by revenue in 52 countries and jurisdictions (see https://assets.kpmg/
content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/11/the-time-has-come.pdf).
5
As reported in the Brigham Young University Citation Rankings (see http://www.byuaccounting.net/rankings/articles/areaarticle_ct.php).
6
https://aaahq.org/About/Directories/Distinguished-Contributions-to-Accounting-Literature-Award-Winners.
7
To keep this review at a manageable length, we do not examine CSR studies in other disciplines, such as finance and corporate governance. For a
thorough review of CSR research in finance, see Gillan et al. (2021). In addition, Margolis et al. (2009) review the literature on the link between CSR
and firm performance, while Radhakrishnan et al. (2018) propose a CSR framework for accounting research.
2
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for CSR studies in accounting.
Panel A Studies in different journals
Journal Number of Studies Share
British Accounting Review 39 30%

Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 26%
The Accounting review 24 18%
Contemporary Accounting Research 16 12%
Journal of Accounting Economics 9 7%
Review of Accounting Studies 7 5%
Journal of Accounting Research 3 2%
Total 132 100%
Panel B Research type
Research Type Number of Studies Share
archival research 83 63%

experimental research 12 9%
survey 12 9%
case study 12 9%
literature review 4 3%
analytical research 1 1%
other 8 6%
Total 132 100%
Panel C Geographical distribution
Countries/regions Number of Studies Share
US 66 56%
Europe 22 19%
Asia 10 8%
Cross-country 11 9%
Australia 5 4%
Africa 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
Total 118 100%
We collect all articles related to CSR/ESG (using keywords "corporate social responsibility", "CSR", "environ
mental social governance", "ESG" "environment", "donation", etc.) from 1978-2021 published in the Accounting,
Organizations and Society, British Accounting Review, Contemporary Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting
Economics, Journal of Accounting Research, Review of Accounting Studies and The Accounting Review. Panel A shows
the distribution of papers published in different journals. In Panel B, we classify all CSR studies into seven groups
according to their research type. To simplify its classification, we classify a commentary paper (Dillard, 2011) into
the “literature review” group. In Panel C, according to the data used in the studies, we report the geographical
distribution. Appendix A details a listing of the 132 original articles.
these relationships. To that end, the purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive survey of the empirical CSR voluntary
disclosure literature in accounting. In order to accomplish this purpose, we draw on studies in the leading academic accounting
journals in the United States and the United Kingdom. By focusing on the top journals in the US and U.K., we ensure that our review
reflects the most highly cited and influential studies in CSR disclosure in accounting. This choice also encompasses the majority of CSR
disclosure research published in top accounting journals throughout the world. Our decision to focus on empirical literature related to
voluntary disclosure likewise reflects the majority of studies related to CSR disclosure in the major journals.
The literature on CSR disclosure seeks to answer whether investors find CSR data disclosure useful in their investment decision-
making. In examining the potential capital market consequences of CSR disclosure, studies show that firms issuing CSR information
can subsequently experience various economically significant effects. For example, a high level of CSR disclosure is associated with a
low cost of equity capital and fewer capital constraints (Dhaliwal et al., 2011), accurate analyst earnings forecasts (Dhaliwal et al.,
2012), better signaling for future financial performance (Lys et al., 2015), and a low level of corporate misconduct (Christensen, 2016).
Anecdotal evidence also supports the importance of CSR information; for example, findings from investor surveys and interviews
indicate that more than half of the surveyed investors consider firms’ CSR disclosures to be one of the most useful sources of
3
Fig. 1. CSR/ESG studies in different journals.
Fig. 2. Paper distribution.
information on firms’ ESG performance (SustainAbility, 2020).

Despite the various capital market consequences of voluntary nonfinancial CSR/ESG reporting, anecdotal evidence suggests that
many firms do not adequately disclose their ESG risks. For instance, the results of an Ernst & Young survey indicate that more than 60%
of investors consider firms’ ESG disclosures to be insufficient.8 Similarly, other studies show a significant variation in the supply of CSR
information across countries. For example, the KPMG report shows that while all of the top 100 firms in Japan and Mexico provide
8
Tomorrow’s Investment Rules 2.0 (available at: https://www.eticanews.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/EY-tomorrows-investment-rules-2.0.
pdf).
4
Fig. 3. Number and citations of research on CSR, accounting information quality, and corporate governance. This figure shows the total number
(Panel A) and citations (Panel B) of papers published on CSR, Accounting information quality, and Corporate governance. In Panel b, Average ci
tations per paper equal the aggregate yearly citations for each topic divided by the total number of published papers. We collect related studies from
the financial archival section of the BYU Accounting Rankings (see https://www.byuaccounting.net/rankings/main/main.php?). The yearly citation
data are from Google Scholar.
reports on CSR, the reporting rate in the US is much lower.9 These statistics suggest that there are several unsolved issues or research
areas that demand more attention. In particular, there is a need to provide greater research related to the widespread adoption of CSR
disclosure and reporting standards in individual countries and internationally (Christensen et al., 2018). Additionally, the extent to
which CSR disclosure has unintended or intended effects on third parties, and the ways in which CSR disclosure is moderated by
institutional setting and/or stakeholders are important questions that the literature has only just begun to address. Finally, the rise in
attention to CSR has been accompanied by an increase in CSR rating agencies. A problem in the literature involves the discrepancies
9
The Time Has Come: The KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2020 (available at: https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/11/the-
time-has-come-survey-of-sustainability-reporting.html).
5
Fig. 4. CSR studies from 1978 to 2021. This figure shows the number of CSR studies in accounting journals in different years. We collect all articles
related to CSR/ESG (using keywords "corporate social responsibility", "CSR", "environmental social governance", "ESG" "environment", "donation",
etc.) from 1978 to 2021 published in the Accounting, Organizations and Society, British Accounting Review, Contemporary Accounting Research, Journal
of Accounting Economics, Journal of Accounting Research, Review of Accounting Studies and The Accounting Review. Appendix A details a listing of the
132 original articles.
that exist among ratings and how CSR can be properly measured and disclosed.
Our study is distinguished from prior literature reviews in CSR in terms of scope of review, time period covered, and focus on top US
and U.K. accounting journals. First, we review archival literature related to voluntary disclosure of CSR activities whereas prior re
views include experimental, case studies, and surveys (Gray & Laughlin, 2012; Huang & Watson, 2015) or focus on areas other than
voluntary disclosure (e.g., mandatory disclosure by, for instance, Christensen et al. (2021), assurance of CSR reports by Cohen &
Simnett (2015), and environmental disclosures by Berthelot et al. (2003)). Secondly, our review covers a period of more than 40 years,
in contrast to several earlier reviews that are more restricted in analysis by length of time (i.e., Gray et al., 1995; Berthelot et al., 2003;
Cohen & Simnett, 2015; Huang & Watson, 2015). Finally, our focus on the top accounting journals in the US and U.K. distinguishes our
study from previous studies that draw their reviews from a smaller (Gray & Laughlin, 2012) or more diverse (Christensen et al., 2021;
Huang & Watson, 2015), and in some cases less prestigious array of journals (Cohen & Simnett, 2015).
To briefly review the major developments in CSR reporting research in this paper, we first provide an overview of CSR reporting
studies, prevalent research methods, and commonly-used theories to set the stage for our discussion. Next, we discuss the determinants
of CSR reporting, followed by the consequences associated with CSR reporting identified in previous studies. We then discuss
disclosure characteristics and other moderators with the potential to affect the role of CSR reporting in capital markets. Finally, we
discuss the more recent developments in the CSR literature and avenues for future research.
2. Disclosure overview
In response to the demand from investors and other stakeholders, many firms worldwide provide some kind of CSR disclosure.
While the number of CSR disclosures has significantly increased in recent decades, historically the majority of such disclosures are
voluntary and unaudited (Christensen et al., 2021).10 Researchers generally use the voluntary CSR disclosure setting to investigate the
circumstances under which firms find CSR disclosure useful. These studies broadly examine the determinants of voluntary CSR
reporting decisions and find that firms disclose their CSR activities to signal future financial performance, lower their cost of capital,
and reduce information asymmetry. In addition, researchers investigate the consequences of CSR disclosure on capital market par
ticipants and stakeholders, as well as the impact of CSR disclosure on certain externalities, such as the effect of disclosure on
managerial behavior, employees, and the environment.
Other studies investigate whether associations between disclosure and firm outcomes are related to disclosure characteristics, such
as whether markets find voluntary or mandatory disclosure more valuable or whether audited or unaudited disclosure is more credible.
10
See The KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting, https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/11/the-time-has-come.pdf. In 2020,
about 50% of the large and mid-cap firms have invested in third-party assurance of their sustainability information, a 30% increase since 2010.
6
Scholars also suggest that standalone disclosures are viewed differently by investors than disclosures included in financial statements.
Finally, several studies investigate the factors that moderate the relationship between CSR disclosure and firm outcomes and find that
type of investor, CSR performance, institutional and regulatory setting, stakeholder orientation, and firm credibility play a moderating
role in the CSR–firm performance relationship.
While voluntary CSR disclosure practices provide insights into when and why firms find CSR reporting beneficial, CSR disclosures
vary widely in quality and lack comparability. As a result, although most studies document a positive relationship between CSR
disclosure and market value, several studies find a negative or no relationship. Thus, it is unclear whether the lack of clear association
between disclosure and firm outcomes in some studies is a result of deficiency in disclosure quality (Pinnuck et al., 2021) or whether
investors do not find such disclosure relevant to their investment decision-making models. Lending support to this view, there is also
evidence that firms use CSR disclosure to manipulate investors’ perceptions, which raises questions of reliability. Relatedly, there is
some evidence that the association between disclosure and firm outcomes may vary by time frame of the study, measurement of the
CSR disclosure variable (Tsang, Hu, & Li, 2021), or research methods employed (Liu, Shao, et al., 2021), which we discuss in greater
detail in Section 4.1.
As the CSR literature has evolved, so have the measures used to assess CSR disclosure. In many studies, CSR disclosure is captured
with an indicator variable signifying whether a firm makes a voluntary CSR disclosure. Notably, Dhaliwal et al. (2011, 2012) capture
CSR disclosure as a standalone CSR report. Hoi et al. (2013), and Dai et al. (2021) capture the disclosure of positive or negative CSR as
an indicator variable. Another common way of measuring CSR disclosure is the number of CSR strengths disclosed minus CSR
weaknesses (e.g., Davis et al., 2016; Dube & Zhu, 2021; Khan et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2012). Finally, there are several studies which use
unique data sets from which they are able to create very specific CSR disclosure measures. An example is Johnston & Rock (2005) that
uses the number of Superfund cites a firm discloses as a measure of negative CSR disclosure. Other examples of unique measures are
greenhouse gas emissions per metric ton (Griffin et al., 2017), non-profit ratings (Harris & Neely, 2016), and corporate philanthropy
programs (Petrovits, 2006).11 In general the literature has moved from measures that indicate simple CSR disclosure to more complex
measures that capture the type of underlying CSR (e.g., positive or negative) and the quantity of CSR disclosures. Studies that are able
to address precise CSR disclosures related to specific stakeholders (employees, NGOs, institutional investors, regulators, communities)
or to specific industries (utilities, healthcare, and industrial) can explain relationships that have eluded prior researchers (O’Dwyer &
Unerman, 2016).
Because the choice to disclose CSR is voluntary, CSR disclosure studies can suffer from endogeneity due to self-selection, reverse
causality, and omitted variable bias. Assuming that firms make the optimal disclosures, there should be no association between future
firm outcomes and CSR disclosure in the cross-section (Manchiraju & Rajgopal, 2017). That empirical evidence on the association
between CSR disclosure and firm outcomes is inconclusive suggests that methodological concerns affect the findings in the literature,
making it difficult to determine whether the observed relationships are causal or if they are instead attributable to model mis
specification. Researchers address endogeneity in a number of ways, including regression discontinuity (Manchiraju & Rajgopal,
2017), Heckman models (Dhaliwal et al., 2011; Harris & Neely, 2016; Hoi et al., 2013), difference-in-difference designs (Chen et al.,
2018; Christensen et al., 2017; Downar et al., 2021; Dube & Zhu, 2021), and two-stage least squares analysis (Dal Maso et al., 2020;
Truong et al., 2021).
Theory-wise, a variety of theories have been tested and employed in CSR research. Perhaps the most common theory used to
explain the CSR disclosure and the influence of CSR disclosure upon firm outcomes is stakeholder theory. As we have indicated,
stakeholder theory suggests that firms make CSR disclosures in response to the demands of non-investor stakeholders. A natural
outcome of CSR disclosure, however, is better financial performance that results from improving the firm’s reputation with stake
holders. For example, improving the firm’s reputation with customers is likely to increase sales, and improving the firm’s reputation
with regulators may result in more favorable treatment (Moser & Martin, 2012).
As the CSR disclosure literature has matured, several additional theories have been advanced by CSR researchers to explain the
associations of CSR with various performance and disclosure outcomes. Legitimacy theory (Busco et al., 2019; Cho & Patten, 2007) is
used to explain why low-performing firms make CSR disclosures, the idea being that CSR disclosures legitimize and compensate for
their poor performance. On the other hand, legitimacy theory has been criticized as too broad to provide significant insight into CSR
disclosure (Islam & Van Staden, 2018; O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2016). Social movement theory (Islam & Van Staden, 2018) explains CSR
disclosure as an outcome of social pressure on firms to conform to disclosure practices and has intersections with stakeholder theory,
although Islam & Van Staden (2018) argue that social movement theory is superior to stakeholder theory when identifying casual
linkages with secondary stakeholders such as non-governmental organizations.
Agency theory (Ness & Mirza, 1991) explains CSR disclosure and CSR activities in terms of the self-interest of managers who may
use CSR to manipulate their firms’ reputations by biasing their disclosures to appear to be better CSR performers than they really are,
and, as such, agency theory is closely aligned with Friedman’s (1970) view that firms should prioritize shareholders over stakeholders.
Another way to explain the managerial CSR disclosure incentive, proprietary cost theory, claims that proprietary cost concerns reduce
managers’ incentives to report their competition-sensitive CSR activities (Ryou et al., 2022). The resource-based view (Qiu et al., 2016)
suggests that superior CSR performance and its effective disclosure can confer competitive advantages to the firm, including a strong
positive reputation. Thus, the resource-based view explains CSR disclosure in terms of a quest for competitive advantage by top CSR
performers. The theory of self-regulation (Zhang et al., 2021) explains CSR disclosure as an attempt to avoid stringent future
11
We review measures that capture the quality of CSR disclosure in Section 5.2 below.
7
governmental disclosure regulations and, therefore, calls into question stakeholder theory as an explanation for disclosure.
Studies adopting institutional theory suggest that firms’ disclosure choices are influenced by the rules and societal norms of their
operating environment, and that firms are motivated to make CSR disclosures to optimize the benefits to the firm within this specific
environmental context (e.g., de Villiers & Alexander, 2014). Finally, affect-as-information theory (Elliott et al., 2014; Guiral et al.,
2020) has been used to explain the effect that CSR disclosure has on investor decision-making. Each of the papers that we explore
below employs one or several of the theories that we have highlighted here. The broad range of theories adopted in CSR disclosure
research enables deep insights to be developed from a wide range of empirical situations, and prior work has called on CSR researchers
to identify the best theory for their research context (O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2016). As CSR disclosure research evolves, we expect
research to draw upon additional theories to explain associations that have not yet been identified.
We now proceed with this brief review in which we explore four primary areas of interest in the study of CSR disclosure: namely, its
determinants, consequences, characteristics, and moderators (see Fig. 5 for the framework of CSR reporting research). In the following
sections, we review each of these four areas of interest in more detail.
3. Determinants of disclosure
In this section, we review the key determinants of firms’ voluntary CSR reporting decisions based on the accounting literature.12 In
general, the early literature identifies many firm-level characteristics that are associated with CSR disclosure. Size (Cowen et al., 1987;
Roberts, 1992), industry (Cho & Patten, 2007; Cowen et al., 1987; Roberts, 1992), strategic orientation (Roberts, 1992), and envi
ronmental performance (Cho & Patten, 2007; Patten, 2002) are the primary firm-level characteristics associated with CSR disclosure.
More recently, studies find that firms with CSR governance committees make more voluntary CSR disclosures (Bui et al., 2020; Zhang
et al., 2021).
Here we concentrate on six major underlying determinants of CSR disclosure: namely, signaling future performance, reputation
insurance, reduction in information asymmetry, managerial attributes, demands by stakeholders, and disclosure cost.
3.1. Signaling future performance
Firms may use CSR strategically to create long-term competitive advantages.13 Firms’ CSR decisions are part of their strategic
initiatives and objectives (Bowman & Haire, 1975; Porter & Kramer, 2006). To the extent that firms engage in CSR strategically, their
CSR activities can be examined through the resource-based view, which posits that firms are bundles of heterogeneous resources and
capabilities. When these resources and capabilities are valuable, rare, inimitable, and nonsubstitutable, they constitute a source of
sustainable competitive advantage. Empirical and theoretical evidence suggests that CSR is a strategic asset (Branco & Rodrigues,
2006; McWilliams & Siegel, 2011; Reinhardt, 1998). For instance, research suggests that gaining a competitive advantage through CSR
may occur through a firm’s product and process innovation and marketing strategy (Ryou et al., 2022). Product innovation involves
the creation of socially responsible products, while process innovation involves the use of socially responsible production processes.
Green marketing strategies help customers to differentiate a firm’s sustainable products from those of its competitors.
CSR reports contain information about firms’ strategic assets; therefore, they provide important clues about their competitive
advantages. From this perspective, CSR reporting is important because it communicates information about firms’ strategic assets and
gives stakeholders and market participants the information they need to make informed decisions (Ryou et al., 2022). CSR disclosure
also contains information beyond what is contained in the CSR performance ratings provided by external rating agencies and firms’
financial statements. Firms that desire to provide additional information to their shareholders regarding performance, strategic
orientation, capabilities, or corporate reputation may use their CSR disclosures to signal information that is otherwise unobservable by
outside parties (DesJardine et al., 2021). Effective CSR reports suggest that firms are capable of acting with a long-term vision and
considering the interests of different stakeholders (Truong et al., 2021). These firms are generally characterized by their long-term
orientation and commitment to developing their reputation by engaging in practices such as CSR that may not generate immediate
profits.
CSR disclosure can also signal to investors that firms act in a more responsible manner in other areas such as earnings management
(Kim et al., 2012). Therefore, disclosure of CSR spending telegraphs the strategy of firms to minimize the risks of regulatory action or
penalties arising from noncompliance with standards (Baloria et al., 2019). Likewise, Dai et al. (2021) argue that CSR policies reveal
firm managers’ altruism or ethical orientation. However, the absence of CSR disclosure may be construed as signaling firms’ exposure
to risk and future regulatory costs (Blacconiere & Patten, 1994), while opportunistic CSR reporting may be a result of managers’
willingness to act opportunistically in other settings (Chakravarthy et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2012).
Firms voluntarily disclose CSR information to signal strong future financial performance (Lys et al., 2015), create
difficult-to-replicate reputation benefits (Melo & Garrido-Morgado, 2012), and provide insight into firms’ valuable CSR-related
12
Similar to other types of voluntary disclosure, such as management earnings forecasts, our review reveals a multi-period aspect of voluntary CSR
disclosure. That is, the disclosure consequences from one period can become the antecedents/determinants of such disclosures in a later period
(Hirst et al., 2008).
13
However, even when CSR is not linked directly to a product feature or production process, it can be viewed as a form of reputation building or
maintenance. For instance, sustainable behavior enables firms to gain a competitive advantage by developing lasting and productive relationships
with stakeholders (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001).
8
Fig. 5. Research framework of CSR reporting.
intangible resources (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006). Moreover, the value of signaling varies based on the type and credibility of CSR
disclosure. For example, standalone CSR disclosures signal confidence in firms’ CSR performance or allow them to explain their
mediocre performance (Dhaliwal et al., 2011). In addition, firms may adopt CSR measurement standards or have their CSR disclosures
audited to signal the credibility of their CSR information (Clarkson et al., 2019; Pinnuck et al., 2021). Such signaling behavior reduces
adverse selection and information asymmetry.
3.2. Reputation insurance
Reputation insurance is closely related to signaling future performance. The positive role that CSR plays in insuring against possible
future reputational damage could be a determinant of CSR disclosure. Indeed, CSR reporting may offer a form of ex-ante “insurance” in
case something subsequently goes wrong (Christensen et al., 2021). A firm’s CSR reputation insures against negative investor reactions
related to CSR or financial misconduct; for example, Christensen (2016) reports that when high-profile CSR misconduct occurs, firms
that have previously issued CSR disclosures suffer a less negative stock price reaction than firms without such disclosure, which is
consistent with prior CSR disclosures reducing the severity of the expected punishment. Blacconiere & Patten (1994) examine the
market reaction of firms in the same industry during a major CSR disaster and find that firms with more extensive environmental
disclosures in their financial reports before the disaster have a less negative reaction than firms in the same industry with less extensive
disclosures. Firms confronted with a high level of political exposure may also use CSR disclosure to manage their reputations with
regulators (Neu et al., 1998; Roberts, 1992) or to offset the potential reputational effects of poor environmental performance (Cho
et al., 2012).
The use of CSR disclosure to manage reputation may vary by firms with high or low CSR performance. Clarkson et al. (2004) find
that investors value environmental capital expenditure disclosures for low polluters but not for high polluters because expenditures by
low polluters result in “green goodwill”. Whereas, the same expenditures by high polluters represent a required expense with no
incremental return. Finally, firms may invest in CSR after misconduct to repair their reputations. In line with this perspective,
Chakravarthy et al. (2014) find that firms engage in community-oriented environmental or nonprofit reputation-building actions after
a serious misstatement.
In contrast, firms with a strong CSR reputation may be held to a higher standard when misconduct occurs, which results in a
stronger penalty for misconduct. For instance, Bartov et al. (2021) argue that CSR performance may magnify the negative market
response to restatement announcements if such announcements erode stakeholders’ trust in the firm’s management and in its financial
reporting process, which results in a loss of the reputational premium that the firm’s stock once enjoyed. Thus, firms using CSR as a
9
form of reputation insurance must consider the potential impact of a loss in reputation following a negative event.
3.3. Reduction in information asymmetry
The signaling and insurance properties of CSR disclosure both rely upon the assumption that such CSR disclosure adds value to
investors’ decision-making. To examine the validity of this assumption, a large and robust body of accounting research investigates the
impact of the need to reduce information asymmetry on the decision to make CSR disclosures. The consensus in this line of research is
that voluntary CSR disclosure is determined in part by a desire to reduce information asymmetry between a firm and its shareholders
and stakeholders and by a need for firms to reveal their CSR performance type (Clarkson et al., 2008). Firms may choose CSR disclosure
to reduce information asymmetry and access a number of benefits that extend from low information asymmetry, including reduced
costs of capital and debt, increased firm value, low risk, and increased liquidity (Baloria et al., 2019; Dhaliwal et al., 2011; Simnett
et al., 2009; Truong et al., 2021).
In general, the literature supports the value relevance of CSR disclosure based on outcomes associated with lower information
asymmetry, which underlies the decision to make CSR disclosures in high information asymmetry settings. For example, Dhaliwal et al.
(2011) find that CSR disclosure is associated with a lower cost of equity capital. They argue that when the level of disclosure is
inadequate, investors become less willing to trade. The resulting illiquidity increases the bid-ask spread and transaction costs, which
leads to a higher cost of equity capital. Similarly, Truong et al. (2021) find that sustainable practices related to customer satisfaction
mitigate information asymmetry and lower firms’ cost of equity capital. Matsumura et al. (2014) suggest that providing transparent
nonfinancial information to investors that informs them of future costs related to carbon emissions and saves them the trouble of
performing costly information searches drives voluntary carbon emission disclosures.
3.4. Managers’ agency issues
CSR disclosure may also be motivated by managerial preferences (Ness & Mirza, 1991). Scholars extensively investigate the effect
of managerial attributes on CSR activities and disclosure. To the extent that managers drive decisions regarding CSR initiatives, their
personal motives and objectives can be important determinants of CSR performance and disclosure. Supporting the theory that
managers play a crucial role in the determination of firms’ CSR activities, Davidson et al. (2019) find that CEO fixed effects explain
59% of the variation in CSR scores, whereas firm fixed effects explain 23% of the variation in CSR scores. They also show that
managerial characteristics affect CSR outcomes, with firms led by materialistic CEOs exhibiting lower CSR scores, fewer strengths, and
more weaknesses than firms led by frugal CEOs. In contrast, managers may invest in CSR to enhance shareholder wealth, build their
reputations, or because they derive higher utility from CSR activities, but they may not necessarily invest to enhance shareholder value
(Friedman, 1970; Martin & Moser, 2016).
Managers may use CSR disclosure to manipulate their firms’ reputations by biasing their disclosures to appear to be better CSR
performers than they really are (Ingram & Frazier, 1980). Known as “greenwashing,” this bias may result in a weak association be
tween CSR disclosure and CSR performance on the one hand (Ingram & Frazier, 1980; Pinnuck et al., 2021) and between CSR
disclosure and relevance to investors’ decisions on the other hand (Griffin et al., 2017; Guiral et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2016). In
addition, CSR may be used to manipulate firm performance. For example, Grieser et al. (2021) show that utility firms use charitable
donations to achieve earnings goals and Petrovits (2006) finds that firms use their corporate-sponsored foundations to manage their
earnings reports.
Ioannou et al. (2016) suggest that performance measurement is difficult for long-term activities, such as CSR, and it is problematic
to encourage specific CSR-related behaviors through setting targets and compensation. Long-term targets require long-term perfor
mance measurement; therefore, the baseline impact on the performance of monetary incentives linked to longer-term targets is likely
to be weaker. Furthermore, firms that must balance multiple objectives may find that managers with high financial targets do not have
the flexibility to be top CSR performers (Wei, 2021). Therefore, managerial agency concerns can be a key determinant of CSR
disclosure, activities, and performance.
3.5. Information demand
Another important determinant of CSR disclosure is the stakeholders’ demand for information. Naughton et al. (2019) suggest that
this information demand incentivizes managers to disclose CSR information when investor sentiment for CSR is strong. Firms’ desire to
respond to their investors’ and stakeholders’ demands for information drives CSR disclosures (Cowen et al., 1987; Islam & Van Staden,
2018; Michelon et al., 2020). For example, firms’ CSR disclosures may be affected by institutional investors’ preferences (Pawliczek
et al., 2021) or by activist shareholders (Baloria et al., 2019). CSR disclosures may also be motivated by nonshareholder constituents,
may serve different or broader purposes than other traditional corporate financial disclosures (Moser & Martin, 2012), and may differ
between public and private firms (Chi et al., 2020). For example, managers who disclose unprofitable CSR activities focus their dis
closures on the societal benefits of the investment rather than on the net cost to their firms (Moser & Martin, 2012).
3.6. Costs of CSR disclosure
The final determinant of CSR disclosure to be discussed in this review is the potential costs associated with disclosing CSR activities.
The desire to avoid certain costs may influence the amount of information disclosed in firms’ CSR reports. For example, firms may
10
withhold CSR information to lower their proprietary costs. In line with this perspective, Ryou et al. (2022) show that the likelihood,
frequency, and length of voluntary CSR disclosures decrease in response to increased product market competition. They conclude that
proprietary cost concerns reduce firms’ incentives to report their competition-sensitive CSR activities. Similar to other types of
voluntary disclosure, firms may voluntarily provide fewer disclosures to reduce litigation costs. During recent years, legal professionals
observe that voluntary CSR disclosure can increase firms’ litigation risks if such disclosure is perceived by stakeholders to contain
materially misleading or false information (e.g., Henriques, 2022; Kuratek et al., 2020). Similarly, Deloitte (2016) points out that
firms’ CSR reporting decisions are affected strongly by concerns about the potential legal risks associated with voluntary CSR
disclosure. The rise of ESG-related litigation risks during recent years following the substantial increase in voluntary CSR reporting
provided by firms is also well observed by financial press and professional practitioners (see e.g., Henriques, 2022; Kishan, 2022).
More recently, several papers present evidence suggesting that firms’ CSR can be associated with litigation considerations (Chakra
borty et al., 2022; Choi & Jung, 2021; Freund et al., 2022).
3.7. Insights on studies examining underlying determinants of CSR disclosure
In general, research to date has focused on information needs as determinants of CSR disclosure – i.e., the need to signal CSR type,
to reduce information asymmetry with stakeholders, or as a result of information demands made by stakeholders. A new and growing
literature in this space identifies costs of CSR disclosure as another determinant of disclosing CSR activities. Future research can
examine when and what types of cost concerns are associated with firms’ CSR reporting decisions (such as proprietary costs, litigation
costs, and even regulatory costs).
Moreover, often research in this space uses broad measures of standalone disclosure or CSR performance from rating services to
identify CSR disclosure determinants. Future research may consider more granular measures or investigate how determinants vary for
different groups of stakeholders or industries.
4. Consequences of disclosure
Empirical studies show that the benefits of CSR reporting are related to several types of stakeholders, including shareholders,
managers, employees, and society in general. In addition, the benefits are related both to voluntary and mandatory CSR disclosures. In
this section, we discuss the potential consequences of CSR disclosure on various stakeholders. We begin by briefly reviewing the
relationship between CSR and firm performance to set the stage for our discussion. We then discuss findings related to CSR disclosure
and firm value. Next, we examine the effects of CSR disclosure on various capital market participants. We start with investors and then
review the literature on financial analysts and debt markets. After our discussion of capital market participants, we turn our attention
to the externalities of CSR disclosure. These are perhaps unintended, peripheral effects of CSR disclosure that are outside the reporting
process and include managers, other employees, the environment, and regulators.
4.1. Effect on firm performance
Two competing perspectives relate to whether CSR affects shareholder value. First, Friedman (1970) notes that firms’ most
important goal is to maximize their profits. According to this line of thinking, there are few readily measurable economic benefits to
socially responsible behavior, while there are numerous costs that reduce profits and shareholder wealth. Thus, the relationship be
tween CSR and financial performance is expected to be negative (Ramanathan, 1976). In contrast, strategic CSR spending can increase
firm value. In this perspective, CSR contributes to firm profitability through its favorable influence on a firm’s relationship with
important stakeholders. Under this framework, CSR is an investment in reputation, customer satisfaction, and stakeholder manage
ment with financial returns (Radhakrishnan et al., 2018). This stakeholder perspective expects a positive relationship between CSR and
financial performance.
In a closer look at the CSR–firm value debate, Tsang, Hu, and Li (2021) investigate whether researchers’ decisions related to
different CSR measures, CSR categories, and sample periods affect the observed relationship between CSR and firm value. Using five
common measures of CSR performance with data from Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini Research & Analytics (KLD), currently known as
MSCI ESG STATS,14 their results indicate that disclosure of CSR performance measures, despite being defined differently, all tend to
support a significant and positive relationship between CSR performance and firm value. However, they also find that the CSR–firm
value relationship is affected by the CSR categories and the sample period studied. For example, the CSR product category shows the
weakest relationship between CSR performance and firm value, potentially reflecting the high proprietary costs of disclosing
product-related CSR information. Conversely, the subcategories of environment, employee relations, community, and diversity each
have a strong relationship with firm value. Tsang, Hu, and Li (2021) also reveal that the positive link between CSR performance and
firm value tends to increase over time, suggesting that the findings in the literature regarding this relationship may also be partially
affected by the choice of sample period.
14
Tsang, Hu, and Li (2021) construct the following three measures to capture a firm’s CSR performance: the total number of strengths across the
selected CSR categories; the total number of strengths minus the total number of concerns across the selected CSR categories; the annual raw CSR
strength scores adjusted by industry medians across the selected CSR categories; and two measures of total scaled strengths minus total scaled
concerns across the selected CSR categories.
11
An important channel through which CSR practices can affect firms’ financial performance is through CSR disclosure. As such,
many scholars strive to identify the relationship between CSR disclosure and firm value. While their results lean to a positive asso
ciation, studies find both positive (Al-Tuwaijri et al., 2004; Dhaliwal et al., 2011, 2012; Matsumura et al., 2014; Naughton et al., 2019;
Qiu et al., 2016; Spicer, 1978) and negative (Hughes, 2000; Shane & Spicer, 1983) associations. In addition, other studies find no
relationship between firm value and CSR disclosure (Elliott et al., 2014; Griffin et al., 2017; Guiral et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2016). Some
studies also find that the relationship between CSR and firm value can be positive in some contexts and negative in others (Bartov et al.,
2021; Johnson et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021).
In what follows, we take a closer look at the impact of CSR disclosure on capital market participants.
4.2. Consequences for capital market participants
4.2.1. Investors
4.2.1.1. Positive effect. In evaluating the effect of voluntary CSR disclosure on firm value, scholars frequently show higher firm value
for firms that voluntarily make CSR disclosures (Bucaro et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2016; Martin & Moser, 2016; Matsumura et al., 2014;
Naughton et al., 2019). Even when firms disclose CSR weaknesses, disclosers can have higher market values than nondisclosers
(Blacconiere & Patten, 1994; Clarkson et al., 2004; Matsumura et al., 2014). For example, Matsumura et al. (2014) find that the median
value of firms that disclose their carbon emissions is significantly higher than that of comparable non-disclosing firms. A primary
takeaway from these studies is that CSR disclosure is value relevant for investors.
4.2.1.2. Negative effect. Although most CSR disclosure studies find a positive relationship between CSR disclosure and firm value, a
handful of studies show a negative relationship. A crucial factor to note is that in studies that document a negative association, CSR
disclosures are either mandatory or not generated by the firm. For instance, using externally produced information on firms’ pollution
control records, Shane & Spicer (1983) find that security price movements are negatively associated with CSR reports. Manchiraju &
Rajgopal (2017) show that involuntary spending on CSR in India results in a 4.1% drop in stock prices for the affected firms. Finally,
Chen et al. (2018) show that the mandatory CSR disclosure requirement in China reduces firm profitability. The reduction is
economically significant, with return on assets decreasing by 26% subsequent to the mandate.
4.2.1.3. No effect. Once other factors are considered, several studies do not find a relationship between CSR disclosure and firm value.
In particular, investors give different weights to CSR disclosures that are material to firm performance. Khan et al. (2016) find no
difference in the market performance of firms with good ratings on immaterial sustainability issues compared with firms with poor
ratings, while Guiral et al. (2020) find that when firms’ overall CSR performance is driven by material CSR issues, the effect of CSR
performance on investors’ fundamental value estimates is not affected by the presence or absence of their explicit assessments of CSR.
The type of information to which investors are exposed and the relationship between CSR and financial information may affect
whether investors find CSR disclosure to be value relevant. Investors who are only exposed to analysts’ CSR reports may pay more for
CSR stocks; however, there is no relationship between disclosure and willingness to pay for CSR stocks for investors who assess CSR
performance explicitly (Elliott et al., 2014). In particular, when the quality of disclosure related to financial fundamentals is better,
Friedman & Heinle (2016) suggest that the market does not react to CSR disclosure. Finally, Griffin et al. (2017) find no difference in
the valuation impact for disclosers and nondisclosers from greenhouse gas emissions. These findings suggest that investors do not
always find CSR reporting to be value relevant and that the circumstances under which investors incorporate CSR information into
their decisions are highly contextual (Dhaliwal et al., 2012).
4.2.2. Analysts
Financial intermediaries such as financial analysts also follow firms’ CSR disclosures. Using an international sample, Dhaliwal et al.
(2012) find that standalone CSR reports are associated with more analyst attention and lower analyst forecast error. Bernardi & Stark
(2018) confirm their results in a sample of South African firms. Similarly, Tsang et al. (2022) suggest that financial analysts play a key
role in the relationship between CSR disclosure and firm value in countries around the world. Analyst reports also impact the per
ceptions of other investors. For example, investors may unintentionally overestimate the fundamental value of positive CSR stocks
when they are only exposed to analysts’ CSR reports (Elliott et al., 2014).
4.2.3. Debt market

Like shareholders, lenders may also have a preference for CSR disclosure. Using US government data, Schneider (2011) finds that
firms disclosing lower pollution rates have lower yield spreads than high polluters, suggesting lower risk for firms that disclose better
CSR performance. Supporting this view, Truong et al. (2021) find that disclosure of higher customer satisfaction scores is associated
with lower corporate bond yields (although this result is not significant at conventional levels) and smaller bank loan spreads. In
contrast to findings that lenders care about CSR disclosures, Larcker & Watts (2020) show that there is no economic difference between
the price of green municipal bonds and nongreen issues. They conclude that bond investors are not willing to trade off wealth for
societal benefits. Tan et al. (2020) present evidence suggesting that public bond holders value firms’ CSR disclosure as well.
12
4.3. Externalities and peripheral effects
One objective of CSR disclosure for investor and non-investor stakeholders is to identify and measure a firm’s CSR contribution,
which includes not only the costs and benefits internalized to the firm but also those arising from externalities affecting different social
segments (Ramanathan, 1976). When a firm’s CSR disclosure has an impact on a third party that is not directly involved in its
disclosure or CSR activities, this constitutes an externality. Externalities produced by CSR activities and disclosure include the effect of
CSR disclosure on managerial behavior, the well-being of employees, the environment, and regulators.
4.3.1. Managers and employees

Making CSR disclosure may have a profound impact on managerial behavior because “what gets measured, gets managed”
(Christensen, 2016). Thus, the act of reporting CSR may cause managers to make certain efforts in the management of their firms. For
instance, Christensen (2016) finds a 24.8% reduction in the rate of high-profile misconduct when managers report on their corporate
accountability activities, which is consistent with the reporting process that helps firms to better manage their operations and risk.
Managers of firms whose positive CSR performance is disclosed also constrain earnings management (Kim et al., 2012). In addition, the
presentation of CSR information may impact managers: Dai et al. (2021) suggest that disclosure of positive CSR performance enhances
CEOs’ labor market potential.
In addition to managers, externalities arising from CSR disclosure may affect rank-and-file employees. In keeping with the theory
that the process of reporting CSR performance helps firms to manage their operations better, Christensen et al. (2017) find that when
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires mining firms to disclose mine-safety records, employee-related injuries
decrease between 12% and 16%. Similarly, when employer reviews are posted on social media, firms improve their employee relations
and diversity, which suggests that such disclosures create public awareness resulting in real-world effects for employees (Dube & Zhu,
2021). Employee actions may also be affected by the CSR orientation of their firm; for example, Balakrishnan et al. (2011) show that
employees give more to charity when their firm’s donations increase.
4.3.2. Environment
Not surprisingly, CSR disclosure also has environmental externalities. In particular, mandatory CSR disclosure is associated with
lower greenhouse gas emissions (Downar et al., 2021), enhanced carbon performance (Qian & Schaltegger, 2017), and improved water
quality (Chen et al., 2018). In contrast, an artifact of earnings pressure on firms is higher emissions (Liu, Shen, et al., 2021).
4.4. Insights on consequences of CSR disclosure
Existing literature documents that CSR disclosure has important capital market consequences, as well as externalities. The con
sequences of CSR disclosure on third parties is a growing area of study. Future work may continue to investigate a variety of third
parties that are affected by CSR disclosure. These may include non-governmental organizations, regulators, community engagement,
CSR rating agencies, etc. A question in this line of inquiry which is not well-answered is to what extent effects on third parties are
intended when firms make disclosures. Additionally, future research may identify theories besides stakeholder theory to explain the
consequences of CSR disclosure on financial market participants and third parties.
Another area of importance to future research regarding CSR disclosure consequences is the way in which studies approach
endogeneity. The potential endogeneity of CSR disclosure practices and some firm characteristics or outcome variables represents a
key challenge in quantitative/archival accounting studies including studies on voluntary disclosure. Existing studies employ various
ways of addressing the endogeneity concern including, for example, the use of an instrumental variable (Tan et al., 2020), the
identification of the first year in which a firm provides disclosure voluntarily (Dhaliwal et al., 2011), employing simultaneous esti
mation regression models (Chen et al., 2016), using a three-stage least squares approach (Hsu et al., 2019), applying a lead-lag research
design and propensity score matching (Christensen, 2016), including firm fixed effects (El Ghoul et al., 2017), and applying a Heckman
two-stage selection model (Sauerwald & Su, 2019). These are important considerations for future research as scholars seek to identify
causal relationships between CSR disclosure and its consequences. In addition, researchers may also seek for settings in which they can
utilize an exogeneous shock to reduce concerns related to causality.
Lastly, previous studies emphasize statistical significance but give little attention to the economic significance of their findings. In
order to ensure that CSR research is relevant to practitioners and regulators, future research may also document the economic sig
nificance of CSR disclosure on capital market participants. Further, considering the increased attention on CSR issues, knowing the
economic significance of CSR disclosure on capital market participants’ reactions, shareholder value, and managerial decisions is also
important.
5. Disclosure characteristics
Certain CSR reporting characteristics may affect the relationship between CSR disclosure and consequences for capital market
participants, among others. Here we review the findings in the literature related to four major characteristics of CSR disclosure:
namely, whether CSR disclosure is voluntary or mandatory; whether CSR disclosure is audited or not; whether the disclosed infor
mation is quantitative or qualitative; and whether CSR disclosure is standalone or presented as part of the financial statements. The
value relevance of CSR disclosure varies according to disclosure characteristics.
13
5.1. Voluntary disclosure
One concern about the voluntary provision of CSR-related information is its lack of credibility and the potential for impression
management of such information disclosure. The CSR information that firms disseminate through press releases, advertisements,
financial reports, and other voluntary disclosures, such as standalone CSR disclosure, are sometimes perceived as self-laudatory,
lacking credibility, and “greenwashing” (Dhaliwal et al., 2011, 2012). Ingram & Frazier (1980) examine the relationship between
CSR performance and CSR disclosure in firms’ annual reports and find that CSR performance is not significantly related to firms’
voluntary CSR disclosures. Furthermore, Christensen et al. (2022) show that a higher level of voluntary CSR disclosure leads to a higher
level of CSR rating disagreement across raters, while Pinnuck et al. (2021) report that a large number of standalone CSR reports are
restated. These findings cast doubt on the reliability of voluntary CSR reporting.
However, voluntarily disclosing CSR activities demonstrates firms’ confidence in their CSR performance and a commitment to
improving transparency and managing risk (Chen et al., 2016). Christensen (2016) suggests that voluntary CSR reporting is associated
with reductions in high-profile misconduct; hence, voluntary CSR reporting has the potential to improve firms’ actual CSR perfor
mance. In addition, firms that fail to voluntarily disclose their CSR performance may be penalized by investors who must undertake
costly information searches if firms do not disclose their CSR information themselves (Matsumura et al., 2014).
Studies of mandatory CSR reporting settings typically observe a negative relationship between CSR activities and firm value. In a
Chinese study, Chen et al. (2018) show that mandatory CSR disclosure reduces firm value for investors, but is also associated with a
reduction in pollution. Liu, Shen, et al. (2021) show the importance of mandatory CSR reporting with their finding that when firms in
the manufacturing industry are not mandated to issue CSR reports, they have higher sulfur dioxide emissions. Shane & Spicer (1983)
also show that firms whose pollution data are released involuntarily to the public suffer negative stock reactions. Khan et al. (2016)
find that firms with good ratings on material sustainability issues as disclosed in their mandatory SEC filings outperform firms with
poor ratings; however, they find no relationship for immaterial sustainability issues that are not reported to the SEC. These findings
suggest that investors value mandatory disclosure.
5.2. Audits/Assurance of CSR reporting
Unlike financial statements, CSR reports are voluntary and unregulated in most countries, with no generally accepted reporting
principles and standards. Therefore, managers have much discretion about how to measure and report their firms’ CSR performance
and can change the measurement methods from year to year. As a result, there have been calls to develop CSR assurance standards for
auditing sustainability reports (Dillard, 2011; O’Dwyer, 2011). The difficulty of auditing diverse, vague, and disconnected data along
with a lack of formal regulatory standards makes the assurance of such reporting more difficult (Moroney & Trotman, 2016). Pinnuck
et al. (2021) show a significant increase in the restatement of standalone CSR reports, particularly for firms that have their CSR reports
audited, which may relate to the difficulty of auditing CSR disclosures. However, there may also be benefits for audit firms that provide
CSR assurance services. When audit firms provide both CSR assurance and financial statement audits, the knowledge spillovers from
CSR assurance may provide valuable information that helps auditors assess going-concern risks (Dal Maso et al., 2020).
The concern about the quality and informativeness of voluntary CSR disclosure is well supported by the findings in the literature
(mentioned above) of a mixed relationship between CSR-related performance and CSR disclosure. Therefore, some firms elect to have
their CSR reports audited to overcome any concerns related to the credibility of their voluntary disclosures. Therefore, audited CSR
reports may be perceived as more credible. For example, Li et al. (2022) find that stakeholder lawsuits related to CSR disclosures are
attenuated for firms providing CSR disclosures with external assurance. Firms pursue assurance for their voluntary CSR reports when
they are seeking to build their corporate reputations and when stakeholder demand for CSR disclosure is high (Simnett et al., 2009).
However, firms with proprietary cost concerns are less likely to have their CSR reports audited by an external auditor (Ryou et al.,
2022).
5.3. Presentation
In addition to the audit of CSR reports, the presentation and make-up of CSR information have an impact on investor decisions. In
particular, whether CSR information is presented quantitatively or qualitatively seems to affect investors’ decision-making behavior.
In an experiment, for example, Martin & Moser (2016) find that investors respond more favorably when firms disclose their CSR
investments (qualitative) than when they disclose the cost of their CSR investments (quantitative). In another experiment, Elliott et al.
(2017) show that the presentation of CSR information matters especially to investors with low numeracy, who are more likely to invest
when the fit between the scope of CSR activities and the presentation style leads investors to experience processing fluency. The
presentation of CSR information in qualitative or quantitative format may also have an impact on litigation outcomes. For example, Li
et al. (2022) find that when CSR disclosure contains quantitative rather than qualitative information, there is an increase in the
likelihood and intensity of subsequent CSR-related stakeholder lawsuits.
5.4. Report types
The presentation of CSR disclosure is generally important in the relationship between CSR disclosure and investors’ decision-
making (Christensen et al., 2021; Dhaliwal et al., 2011, 2012; Elliott et al., 2017; Khan et al., 2016; Simnett et al., 2009). One
particular area of interest is the relationship between CSR disclosure and financial statements. CSR disclosure may be included as part
14
of a firm’s financial statements or created as a standalone report. Compared with CSR information provided in financial statements,
standalone CSR reports are more comprehensive and contain much more detail (Dhaliwal et al., 2011). Standalone CSR reports are
shown to provide incrementally useful information for investors. Firms that voluntarily publish standalone CSR reports tend to have
superior CSR performance (Christensen, 2016; Dhaliwal et al., 2011). On the one hand, Bucaro et al. (2020) show that CSR disclosure is
more value relevant to investors when presented in a separate report rather than integrated with financial information in a single
report. On the other hand, Pinnuck et al. (2021) raise doubts regarding the credibility of standalone reports, as their exploratory
analysis indicates that standalone CSR information may be unreliable and that firms under pressure to perform may have more
CSR-related restatements.
5.5. Insights on CSR disclosure characteristics
A significant number of studies related to CSR disclosure characteristics adopt experimental research methods (Bucaro et al., 2020;
Elliott et al., 2017; Guiral et al., 2020). Because experiments can more easily measure the nuanced characteristics of CSR reporting,
experiments are particularly well-suited for research into disclosure characteristics. Important work in the experimental setting in
cludes the fit between the strategy frame and the presentation style of a firm’s CSR report (Elliott et al., 2017); the degree of CSR
performance integration into a firm’s core business practices (Guiral et al., 2020); and the impact of separate CSR reports versus CSR
reports integrated with financial information (Bucaro et al., 2020). Another advantage of the experimental research method is to
overcome the endogeneity problem. In an experiment, the research method allows scholars to establish controlled conditions and
isolate the different influence mechanisms. For example, to understand why investors react favorably to corporate voluntary CSR
disclosure, Martin & Moser (2016) set up an experiment which fully controls the effect of CSR investments on a company’s future cash
flow, and ensures that the observed investor reaction to CSR disclosure is only based on investor’s perceived social benefits, rather than
the financial benefits.
Characteristics of CSR disclosures have broadly been shown to impact the relationship between CSR disclosure and firm outcomes.
Existing literature investigates several relationships with CSR disclosure (e.g., CSR performance, CSR-related litigation, investor
response, and financial reporting quality); however, the impact of CSR disclosure characteristics on firm outcomes related to third
parties such as employees, regulators, and customers has not yet been identified. Future research may investigate the role that CSR
disclosure characteristics have on specific external parties and whether these relationships vary according to industry or other factors.
There is also a need for theory-grounded literature in this space. Specifically, information diffusion theories and differential inter
pretation theories (see Christensen et al., 2021; Cookson & Niessner, 2020) have promise in this area of inquiry.
6. Moderators
So far, we have reviewed the literature showing that characteristics of CSR disclosure may affect investor decisions. We now turn to
a set of factors that are shown to moderate the relationship between CSR disclosure and the various CSR consequences discussed in
Section 4. We review the findings of the literature related to the three moderators of the disclosure–consequences relationship: namely,
firms’ CSR performance; perceived importance of CSR; and credibility of CSR disclosure. The findings in the literature provide
important evidence that the value relevance of CSR disclosure depends in large part on these known moderators.
6.1. Firms’ CSR performance
Because of the possibility that there may be some discrepancy between CSR performance and disclosure (Ingram & Frazier, 1980),
firms’ CSR performance is an important moderator of the relationship between CSR disclosure and its consequences. Prior studies
suggest an association between CSR performance and CSR disclosure (Cho & Patten, 2007; Clarkson et al., 2008; Patten, 2002). In
vestors’ assessments of stock value are influenced by CSR performance (Guiral et al., 2020). Sophisticated investors or those with
private information can discern whether a firm’s disclosures align with its actions, and they evaluate CSR disclosure considering a
firm’s actual CSR performance. Even when investors do not assess CSR performance explicitly, they derive lower fundamental value
estimates in response to negative CSR events (Elliott et al., 2014). In addition, Bartov et al. (2021) show that CSR performance may
intensify investors’ negative response to harmful non-CSR events.
Research suggests that superior CSR performance can moderate the relationship between CSR disclosure and firm outcomes
(Dhaliwal et al., 2011; Elliott et al., 2014). For example, investors find firms to be more valuable when their CSR disclosures conform
with their preferred CSR performance (Johnson et al., 2020). Li et al. (2022) find that CSR-related stakeholder lawsuits are attenuated
for firms that are highly committed to their CSR performance. Furthermore, managers may receive career benefits from CSR disclosure
backed up by CSR performance (Dai et al., 2021). It is also possible that the moderating role of CSR performance is not monotonic.
Although CSR performance is associated with bond pricing, the role of CSR performance in bond pricing declines as bond quality
increases (Schneider, 2011).
6.2. Stakeholder orientation
The perceived importance of CSR for stakeholders, including investors and regulators, plays an important role in the association
between CSR disclosure and its consequences. Examples of moderators linked to the perceived importance of CSR in the literature
include the stakeholder orientation of a country or community (Dhaliwal et al., 2012), the strength of investor sentiment for CSR
15
(Naughton et al., 2019), the strength of corporate governance (Liu et al., 2019), and the strength of regulatory enforcement (Liu, Shen,
et al., 2021; Pinnuck et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021).
Stakeholder orientation refers to the importance that stakeholders attribute to CSR activities and disclosure. For example, CSR
orientation is generally high in countries with strong stakeholder orientations. In addition, a country’s CSR-related laws and regu
lations reflect its social expectations regarding CSR issues (Dhaliwal et al., 2012; Simnett et al., 2009). Therefore, stricter CSR reg
ulations suggest a greater emphasis on and demand for CSR at the stakeholder and shareholder levels than under less stringent CSR
regulations. When there is a high level of stakeholder orientation, stakeholder groups can exercise a stronger influence on operational
decisions in firms by demanding more CSR activities and disclosure than when there is a low level of stakeholder orientation. In
keeping with this background on stakeholder orientation, the relationship between CSR disclosure and its consequences is stronger
when CSR orientation is high than when it is low. In addition, Dhaliwal et al. (2012) find that the negative relationship between CSR
disclosure and analyst forecast error is stronger in stakeholder-oriented countries. Similarly, Naughton et al. (2019) show higher
positive abnormal returns following CSR announcements during periods when investor sentiment for CSR is high rather than low.
6.3. Credibility
Another important moderator of the relationship between CSR disclosure and its consequences is the credibility of CSR reports.
Several studies cast doubt on the credibility of CSR disclosure (e.g., Cho et al., 2010; Ingram & Frazier, 1980; Pinnuck et al., 2021).
When a firm’s CSR disclosures are not credible, the link between such disclosures and firm outcomes is tenuous. If external users do not
perceive this correspondence, they might discount CSR disclosure, which would result in a lack of relationship between CSR disclosure
and firms’ performance outcomes.
In examining how often CSR reports for major global firms are restated, Pinnuck et al. (2021) find that 39% of the CSR reports in
their sample have one or more line-item restatements. Likewise, Ingram & Frazier (1980) find low correspondence between CSR
disclosure and activities. Furthermore, a firm’s poor CSR reputation may be a harbinger of financial irregularities, such as tax
avoidance and high book-tax differences (Hoi et al., 2013), suggesting that low CSR quality may also signal the low reliability of
financial disclosures. Correspondingly, firms with strong CSR performance may have a better reputation for properly presenting their
financial statements (Kim et al., 2012), which positively moderates the relationship between CSR disclosure and firm outcomes.
6.4. Insights on CSR disclosure moderators and mediators
Moderators of the relationship between CSR disclosure and firm outcomes include firms’ actual CSR performance, orientation of
stakeholders, and the credibility of the statements themselves. Prior literature finds that setting is important in studies that examine
moderators of the CSR disclosure-firm outcome relationship. International settings in particular have served researchers well in
examining the moderating influences of stakeholder orientation and regulatory requirements. Indeed, as researchers search for
additional moderators, a view to international settings or other settings in which heterogeneous characteristics of stakeholders exist,
may provide fertile ground for testing moderators of the CSR disclosure-firm outcome relationship. Determining the relative size effect
of different moderators and identifying additional moderators may be a focus of future research. For example, the moderating in
fluence of informal institutions is an area of potential inquiry, and the relative importance of informal versus formal institutions may
add to the body of knowledge investigating institutional moderators.
7. Emerging CSR topics and future research
Despite the vast literature, we do not yet fully understand the extent to which differences in CSR ratings and CSR disclosures affect
firm outcomes. Nor do we fully understand the mechanisms that firms use to encourage managers’ CSR behavior and how investors
and other stakeholders react to their CSR performance targets. Furthermore, without understanding the relationship between CSR
performance and measurement, we are unsure whether CSR disclosure is dependable. These topics are attracting increasing interest in
the CSR context. We discuss each below.
7.1. Rating disagreement
An emerging issue related to CSR reporting is the degree of agreement between independent third-party CSR ratings. While
voluntary CSR reports may vary significantly across firms, third-party raters attempt to establish consistent, reliable metrics to measure
firms’ CSR activities. However, their metrics are based on a wide variety of CSR data. Some rating agencies draw their information
from public CSR disclosures made by firms, while other agencies create metrics based on their own research, site visits, and interviews.
As a result, disagreement exists among rating agencies themselves regarding the CSR performance of the firms they monitor. Chris
tensen et al. (2022) address the question of rating disagreement and confirm substantial disagreement across rating agencies regarding
what rating to give to individual firms. They also identify firms’ voluntary CSR disclosures as a source of rating disagreement and
reveal that greater CSR disclosure leads to greater CSR rating disagreement.
7.2. CSR contracting
Little is known about how managerial behavior is affected by the integration of nonfinancial CSR performance targets into
16
executive compensation; however, two studies should be mentioned. Flammer et al. (2019) find that firms that adopt CSR targets in
CEO compensation contracting increase their value, socioenvironmental initiatives, and green innovation. Their findings are consis
tent with CSR contracting directing management’s attention to less salient but financially important stakeholders to the firm in the
long run. Similarly, Tsang, Wang, et al. (2021) use an international dataset to show that linking CSR criteria to executive compensation
is associated with greater innovation output. Because their results are stronger in countries with low stakeholder orientation and
without mandatory CSR reporting requirements, Tsang, Wang, et al. (2021) suggest that CSR contracting can compensate for insti
tutional voids.
7.3. Nonfinancial rating agencies
In an era characterized by increasing awareness of the importance of firms’ CSR performance to regulators, investors, and various
other stakeholders worldwide, CSR ratings have grown in popularity over the last two decades (SustainAbility, 2020). Following the
substantial growth of CSR-oriented investing activities among socially responsible investors in recent decades (Global Sustainable
Investment Alliance, 2020), investors are now placing greater emphasis on firms’ CSR ratings, which greatly increases the demand for
comprehensive CSR ratings and CSR performance score products from nonfinancial rating (NFR) agencies.15
To keep pace with the rapidly changing CSR investment landscape and to create competitive advantages in the burgeoning CSR
rating markets,16 many NFR agencies have begun to offer comprehensive CSR rating products and information to help market par
ticipants evaluate businesses’ adherence to CSR concerns and corporate sustainability. These NFR agencies (e.g., MSCI ESG STATS;
Sustainalytics ESG Risk Rating; Thomson Reuters ESG Score [ASSET4], currently known as Refinitiv ESG score; MSCI ESG Intangible
Value Assessment [IVA]; Standard & Poor’s Global Trucost; and RepRisk) provide global investors with comprehensive CSR rating data
covering a range of nonfinancial dimensions for a large number of firms based on the NFR agencies’ own data collection and in-depth
assessment of firms’ CSR activities.
Despite the increasing importance of NFR agencies in financial markets and the crucial role of CSR ratings in investors’ assessments
of firm value and corporate sustainability (Dhaliwal et al., 2011; Godfrey et al., 2009; Koh et al., 2014; Lins et al., 2017; Lys et al.,
2015), to date scholars have not examined the role of NFR agencies and their introduction of CSR ratings into stock markets for capital
market participants. This is surprising because the introduction of CSR ratings by NFR agencies is an ideal setting in which to examine
their role in investors’ assessment of firms’ financial performance. Thus, it will be important for future research to examine the role of
NFR agencies in capital markets.
Ideally, industry competition and reputation costs should incentivize NFR agencies to create and disseminate high-quality ESG
ratings and scores in capital markets. However, because of differences in ESG measurement criteria, the diversity of the collected data
across NFR agencies, and the lack of transparency and heterogeneity in NFR agencies’ rating methodologies, it is unclear whether ESG
ratings from different raters accurately and unbiasedly capture firms’ ESG efforts and risks (Avramov et al., 2022; Berg et al., 2022;
Christensen et al., 2022; Gillan et al., 2021; SustainAbility, 2020). Furthermore, policymakers around the world express concern that
credit rating agencies may publish biased ratings for capital markets (Fuchs & Gehring, 2017; Güttler & Wahrenburg, 2007; Shin &
Moore, 2003). The significant divergence in ESG ratings provided by different NFR agencies for the same firm lends support to this
concern (Berg et al., 2022; Chatterji et al., 2016; Christensen et al., 2022). Future research should examine whether and to what extent
the CSR/ESG ratings provided by NFR agencies may be affected by raters’ own incentives and/or attributes.
8. Conclusion
Following the growing awareness of the importance of CSR/ESG activities to corporate sustainability in recent decades, global
investors and other stakeholders are placing greater emphasis on firms’ nonfinancial CSR/ESG information provided by either firms or
NFR agencies. While we have some understanding of the role of these data for issuing firms, it is important to examine the possible
credibility-enhancing mechanism of such disclosures using either internal or external mechanisms because of the lack of reporting
guidelines and low level of comparability across CSR/ESG information provided by firms.
Prior research has delved into these issues and has documented the determinants of CSR disclosure, the consequences of that
disclosure, and the impacts of disclosure characteristics and moderators on firm and market outcomes. Given the extensive use of
standalone disclosure or CSR performance from rating services to identify CSR disclosure determinants, we have suggested that future
research may consider more granular measures. This analysis is necessary to gain a more nuanced understanding of the determinants of
CSR disclosure. Also, because we know particularly little about how companies decide about CSR activities and disclosures (i.e.
corporate procedures and decision-making), future research may necessitate use of research designs such as interviews and experi
ments, which are well-suited for such inquiries. Further, research into the consequences of CSR disclosure should identify third parties
15
ESG/NFR agencies are third-party organizations that examine firms’ socioenvironmental and corporate governance policies, commitments, or
practices to determine their sustainability. According to a recent survey of more than 300 sustainability professionals in corporate, nongovern
mental, government, academic, and other sectors (SustainAbility, 2020), investors consider CSR ratings from NFR agencies (e.g., MSCI) as the most
useful information in their evaluation of firms’ CSR performance; 65% of the surveyed investors use such ratings at least once per week.
16
According to an estimate by Standard & Poor’s Global Market Intelligence, total annual spending on ESG data in the US alone was as high as US
$1 billion in 2021, with an expected annual growth of 20% (see http://www.opimas.com/research/547/detail/). It is estimated that global
spending on ESG data/analytics will increase from US$2.2 billion in 2020 to US$5 billion in 2025 (PR Newswire, 2021).
17
that are affected by CSR disclosure. The CSR disclosure-consequence relationship is endogenous; therefore, it is important for future
research to address endogeneity by seeking unique settings in which an exogenous shock can reduce concerns related to causality. We
have also suggested a need for more targeted theories to explain the impact of CSR disclosure characteristics on the relationship
between CSR disclosure and firm outcomes. Finally, there is a need for research to identify more moderators of the relationship,
specifically in settings where such relationships can be more easily investigated, including international settings and comparisons of
inter-country localities in which stakeholder characteristics may differ. Potential moderators of the relationship between CSR
disclosure and firm outcomes may include current trends such as social movements (e.g. #metoo; #BlacklivesMatter), COVID-19,
energy crises, migration, and climate change. These moderators may be studied in connection with their influence on corporate
CSR disclosure policies, corporate accounting outcomes, monitoring costs, or audit procedures.17
Moreover, the increasing number of NFR agencies in capital markets suggests that it is important to examine their role as an
emerging type of nonfinancial information intermediary. This research is especially important given that NFR agencies in the ESG
rating market are not subject to regulatory oversight in most countries around the world. Given the heightened concern about ESG
practices among the investment community, the financial press, regulators, and academics, whether and how the ESG scores received
by a firm vary across different NFR agencies is a timely research topic. Future research examining this area will contribute to the debate
on the validity and relevance of these ratings.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2022.101149.
References
Al-Tuwaijri, S. A., Christensen, T. E., & Hughes Ii, K. E. (2004). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic
performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(5–6), 447–471.
Amel-Zadeh, A., & Serafeim, G. (2018). Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Financial Analysts Journal, 74(3), 87–103.
Avramov, D., Cheng, S., Lioui, A., & Tarelli, A. (2022). Sustainable investing with ESG rating uncertainty. Journal of Financial Economics, 145(2), 642–664.
Balakrishnan, R., Sprinkle, G. B., & Williamson, M. G. (2011). Contracting benefits of corporate giving: An experimental investigation. The Accounting Review, 86(6),
1887–1907.
Baloria, V. P., Klassen, K. J., & Wiedman, C. I. (2019). Shareholder activism and voluntary disclosure initiation: The case of political spending. Contemporary
Accounting Research, 36(2), 904–933.
Bartov, E., Marra, A., & Momenté, F. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and the market reaction to negative events: Evidence from inadvertent and fraudulent
restatement announcements. The Accounting Review, 96(2), 81–106.
Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77(305), 1–19.
Berg, F., Koelbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance. forthcoming.
Bernardi, C., & Stark, A. W. (2018). Environmental, social and governance disclosure, integrated reporting, and the accuracy of analyst forecasts. The British Accounting
Review, 50(1), 16–31.
Bernow, S., Godsall, J., Klempner, B., & Merten, C. (2019). More than values: The value-based sustainability reporting that investors want. McKinsey & Company. Available
at: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/more-than-values-the-value-based-sustainability-reporting-that-investors-want.
Berthelot, S., Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2003). Environmental disclosure research: Review and synthesis. Journal of Accounting Literature, 22, 1–44.
Blacconiere, W. G., & Patten, D. M. (1994). Environmental disclosures, regulatory costs, and changes in firm value. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 18(3),
357–377.
Bowman, E. H., & Haire, M. (1975). A strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 18(2), 49–58.
Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 111–132.
Bucaro, A. C., Jackson, K. E., & Lill, J. B. (2020). The influence of corporate social responsibility measures on investors’ judgments when integrated in a financial
report versus presented in a separate report. Contemporary Accounting Research, 37(2), 665–695.
Bui, B., Houqe, M. N., & Zaman, M. (2020). Climate governance effects on carbon disclosure and performance. The British Accounting Review, 52(2), Article 100880.
Busco, C., Malafronte, I., Pereira, J., & Starita, M. G. (2019). The determinants of companies’ levels of integration: Does one size fit all? The British Accounting Review,
51(3), 277–298.
Chakraborty, A., Gao, L. S., & Musa, P. (2022). Corporate social responsibility and litigation risk: Evidence from securities class action lawsuits. Accounting & Finance.
forthcoming.
Chakravarthy, J., DeHaan, E., & Rajgopal, S. (2014). Reputation repair after a serious restatement. The Accounting Review, 89(4), 1329–1363.
Chatterji, A. K., Durand, R., Levine, D. I., & Touboul, S. (2016). Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers. Strategic
Management Journal, 37(8), 1597–1614.
Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1–23.
Chen, Y. C., Hung, M., & Wang, Y. (2018). The effect of mandatory CSR disclosure on firm profitability and social externalities: Evidence from China. Journal of
Accounting and Economics, 65(1), 169–190.
Chen, L., Srinidhi, B., Tsang, A., & Yu, . W. (2016). Audited financial reporting and voluntary disclosure of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports. Journal of
Management Accounting Research, 28(2), 53–76.
17
We acknowledge the input of an anonymous reviewer in raising the prospect of current trends as moderators of the CSR disclosure and firm
performance relationship.
18
Chi, W., Wu, S. J., & Zheng, Z. (2020). Determinants and consequences of voluntary corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from private firms. The British
Accounting Review, 52(6), Article 100939.
Cho, C. H., Guidry, R. P., Hageman, A. M., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Do actions speak louder than words? An empirical investigation of corporate environmental
reputation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(1), 14–25.
Choi, S., & Jung, H. (2021). Effects of the litigation risk coverage on corporate social responsibility. Applied Economics Letters, 28(21), 1836–1841.
Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8),
639–647.
Cho, C. H., Roberts, R. W., & Patten, D. M. (2010). The language of US corporate environmental disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(4), 431–443.
Christensen, D. M. (2016). Corporate accountability reporting and high-profile misconduct. The Accounting Review, 91(2), 377–399.
Christensen, H. B., Floyd, E., Liu, L. Y., & Maffett, M. (2017). The real effects of mandated information on social responsibility in financial reports: Evidence from
mine-safety records. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 64(2–3), 284–304.
Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2018). Economic analysis of widespread adoption of CSR and sustainability reporting standards. Working paper. Available at:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3315673.
Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2021). Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review. Review of Accounting Studies, 26
(3), 1176–1248.
Christensen, D. M., Serafeim, G., & Sikochi, A. (2022). Why is corporate virtue in the eye of the beholder? The case of ESG ratings. The Accounting Review, 97(1),
147–175.
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., & Richardson, G. D. (2004). The market valuation of environmental capital expenditures by pulp and paper companies. The Accounting Review,
79(2), 329–353.
Clarkson, P., Li, Y., Richardson, G., & Tsang, A. (2019). Causes and consequences of voluntary assurance of CSR reports: International evidence involving Dow Jones
sustainability index inclusion and firm valuation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(8), 2451–2474.
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An
empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–327.
Cohen, J. R., Holder-Webb, L., & Zamora, V. L. (2015). Nonfinancial information preferences of professional investors. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 27(2),
127–153.
Cohen, J. R., & Simnett, R. (2015). CSR and assurance services: A research agenda. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 59–74.
Cookson, J. A., & Niessner, M. (2020). Why don’t we agree? Evidence from a social network of investors. The Journal of Finance, 75(1), 173–228.
Cowen, S. S., Ferreri, L. B., & Parker, L. D. (1987). The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency-based analysis.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(2), 111–122.
Dai, X., Gao, F., Lisic, L. L., & Zhang, I. X. (2021). Corporate social performance and the managerial labor market. Review of Accounting Studies. forthcoming.
Dal Maso, L., Lobo, G. J., Mazzi, F., & Paugam, L. (2020). Implications of the joint provision of CSR assurance and financial audit for auditors’ assessment of going-
concern risk. Contemporary Accounting Research, 37(2), 1248–1289.
Davidson, R. H., Dey, A., & Smith, A. J. (2019). CEO materialism and corporate social responsibility. The Accounting Review, 94(1), 101–126.
Davis, A. K., Guenther, D. A., Krull, L. K., & Williams, B. M. (2016). Do socially responsible firms pay more taxes? The Accounting Review, 91(1), 47–68.
Deloitte. (2016). Sustainability disclosure: Getting ahead of the curve. Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/risk/us-risk-
sustainability-disclosure.pdf.
DesJardine, M. R., Marti, E., & Durand, R. (2021). Why activist hedge funds target socially responsible firms: The reaction costs of signaling corporate social
responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 64(3), 851–872.
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.
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.
Dillard, J. (2011). Double loop learning; or, just another service to sell: A comment on “The case of sustainability assurance: Constructing a new assurance service.
Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(4), 1267–1277.
Dimson, E., Karakaş, O., & Li, X. (2015). Active ownership. Review of Financial Studies, 28(12), 3225–3268.
Downar, B., Ernstberger, J., Reichelstein, S., Schwenen, S., & Zaklan, A. (2021). The impact of carbon disclosure mandates on emissions and financial operating
performance. Review of Accounting Studies, 26(3), 1137–1175.
Dube, S., & Zhu, C. (2021). The disciplinary effect of social media: Evidence from firms’ responses to Glassdoor reviews. Journal of Accounting Research, 59(5),
1783–1825.
El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9),
2388–2406.
El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., & Kim, Y. (2017). Country-level institutions, firm value, and the role of corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of International
Business Studies, 48(3), 360–385.
Elliott, W. B., Grant, S. M., & Rennekamp, K. M. (2017). How disclosure features of corporate social responsibility reports interact with investor numeracy to influence
investor judgments. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(3), 1596–1621.
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. The Accounting Review, 89(1), 275–302.
Flammer, C., Hong, B., & Minor, D. (2019). Corporate governance and the rise of integrating corporate social responsibility criteria in executive compensation:
Effectiveness and implications for firm outcomes. Strategic Management Journal, 40(7), 1097–1122.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 1–21.
Freund, S., Nguyen, N. H., & Phan, H. V. (2022). Shareholder litigation and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. forthcoming.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. September. The New York Times.
Friedman, H. L., & Heinle, M. S. (2016). Taste, information, and asset prices: Implications for the valuation of CSR. Review of Accounting Studies, 21(3), 740–767.
Fuchs, A., & Gehring, K. (2017). The home bias in sovereign ratings. Journal of the European Economic Association, 15(6), 1386–1423.
Gillan, S. L., Koch, A., & Starks, L. T. (2021). Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 66,
Article 101889.
Global Sustainable Investment Alliance. (2020). Global sustainable investment review 2020. Global Sustainable Investment Alliance. http://www.gsi-alliance.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/08/GSIR-20201.pdf.
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), 425–445.
Goss, A., & Roberts, G. S. (2011). The impact of corporate social responsibility on the cost of bank loans. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(7), 1794–1810.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77.
Gray, R., & Laughlin, R. (2012). It was 20 years ago today: Sgt Pepper, accounting, auditing & accountability journal, green accounting and the blue meanies.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(2), 228–255.
Grieser, W., Hadlock, C. J., & Pierce, J. R. (2021). Doing good when doing well: Evidence on real earnings management. Review of Accounting Studies, 26(3), 906–932.
Griffin, P. A., Lont, D. H., & Sun, E. Y. (2017). The relevance to investors of greenhouse gas emission disclosures. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(2), 1265–1297.
Guiral, A., Moon, D., Tan, H. T., & Yu, Y. (2020). What drives investor response to CSR performance reports? Contemporary Accounting Research, 37(1), 101–130.
Güttler, A., & Wahrenburg, M. (2007). The adjustment of credit ratings in advance of defaults. Journal of Banking & Finance, 31(3), 751–767.
19
Harris, E. E., & Neely, D. G. (2016). Multiple information signals in the market for charitable donations. Contemporary Accounting Research, 33(3), 989–1012.
Henriques, M. (2022). No good deed goes unpunished: Growing ESG litigation risks. National Law Review, 11(159), 53. Available at: https://www.natlawreview.com/
article/no-good-deed-goes-unpunished-growing-esg-litigation-risks.
Hirst, D. E., Koonce, L., & Venkataraman, S. (2008). Management earnings forecasts: A review and framework. Accounting Horizons, 22(3), 315–338.
Hoi, C. K., Wu, Q., & Zhang, H. (2013). Is corporate social responsibility (CSR) associated with tax avoidance? Evidence from irresponsible CSR activities. The
Accounting Review, 88(6), 2025–2059.
Hsu, A., Koh, K., Liu, S., & Tong, Y. H. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and corporate disclosures: An investigation of investors’ and analysts’ perceptions.
Journal of Business Ethics, 158(2), 507–534.
Huang, X., & Watson, L. (2015). Corporate social responsibility research in accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature, 34, 1–16.
Hughes, K. E. (2000). The value relevance of nonfinancial measures of air pollution in the electric utility industry. The Accounting Review, 75(2), 209–228.
Ingram, R. W., & Frazier, K. B. (1980). Environmental performance and corporate disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 18(2), 614–622.
Ioannou, I., Li, S. X., & Serafeim, G. (2016). The effect of target difficulty on target completion: The case of reducing carbon emissions. The Accounting Review, 91(5),
1467–1492.
Islam, M. A., & Van Staden, C. J. (2018). Social movement NGOs and the comprehensiveness of conflict mineral disclosures: Evidence from global companies.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 65, 1–19.
Jensen, M. C. (2001). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. The Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8–21.
Johnson, J. A., Theis, J., Vitalis, A., & Young, D. (2020). The influence of firms’ emissions management strategy disclosures on investors’ valuation judgments.
Contemporary Accounting Research, 37(2), 642–664.
Johnston, D., & Rock, S. (2005). Earnings management to minimize superfund clean-up and transaction costs. Contemporary Accounting Research, 22(3), 617–642.
Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697–1724.
Kim, Y., Park, M. S., & Wier, B. (2012). Is earnings quality associated with corporate social responsibility? The Accounting Review, 87(3), 761–796.
Kishan, S. (2022). ESG litigation over social issues is poised to rise. Bloomberg. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-23/esg-lawsuits-
over-social-issues-are-poised-to-rise-green-insight.
Kitzmueller, M., & Shimshack, J. (2012). Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(1), 51–84.
Koh, P. S., Qian, C., & Wang, H. (2014). Firm litigation risk and the insurance value of corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(10),
1464–1482.
Kuratek, C., Hall, J., & Huber, B. (2020). Legal liability for ESG disclosures. The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. Available at: https://corpgov.law.
harvard.edu/2020/08/03/legal-liability-for-esg-disclosures/.
Larcker, D. F., & Watts, E. M. (2020). Where’s the greenium? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 69(2–3), Article 101312.
Lins, K. V., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2017). Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. The
Journal of Finance, 72(4), 1785–1824.
Li, X., Tsang, A., Wang, Y., & Xiang, Y. (2022). Voluntary corporate social responsibility disclosure and stakeholder litigation. Working paper.
Li, X., Tsang, A., Zeng, S., & Zhou, G. (2021). CSR reporting and firm value: International evidence on management discussion and analysis. China Accounting and
Finance Review, 23(2), 102–145.
Liu, X., Liu, X., & Reid, C. D. (2019). Stakeholder orientations and cost management. Contemporary Accounting Research, 36(1), 486–512.
Liu, W., Shao, X., De Sisto, M., & Li, W. H. (2021). A new approach for addressing endogeneity issues in the relationship between corporate social responsibility and
corporate financial performance. Finance Research Letters, 39, Article 101623.
Liu, Z., Shen, H., Welker, M., Zhang, N., & Zhao, Y. (2021). Gone with the wind: An externality of earnings pressure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 72(1), Article
101403.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.
Lys, T., Naughton, J. P., & Wang, C. (2015). Signaling through corporate accountability reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(1), 56–72.
Manchiraju, H., & Rajgopal, S. (2017). Does corporate social responsibility (CSR) create shareholder value? Evidence from the Indian companies act 2013. Journal of
Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2009). Does it pay to be good... And does it matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social and
financial performance. Working paper. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1866371.
Martin, P. R., & Moser, D. V. (2016). Managers’ green investment disclosures and investors’ reaction. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 61(1), 239–254.
Matsumura, E. M., Prakash, R., & Vera-Munoz, S. C. (2014). Firm-value effects of carbon emissions and carbon disclosures. The Accounting Review, 89(2), 695–724.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2011). Creating and capturing value: Strategic corporate social responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive
advantage. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1480–1495.
Melo, T., & Garrido-Morgado, A. (2012). Corporate reputation: A combination of social responsibility and industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 19(1), 11–31.
Meng, Y., & Wang, X. (2019). Do institutional investors have homogeneous influence on corporate social responsibility? Evidence from investor investment horizon.
Managerial Finance, 46(3), 301–322.
Michelon, G., Rodrigue, M., & Trevisan, E. (2020). The marketization of a social movement: Activists, shareholders and CSR disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 80, Article 101074.
Moroney, R., & Trotman, K. T. (2016). Differences in auditors’ materiality assessments when auditing financial statements and sustainability reports. Contemporary
Moser, D. V., & Martin, P. R. (2012). A broader perspective on corporate social responsibility research in accounting. The Accounting Review, 87(3), 797–806.
Muslu, V., Mutlu, S., Radhakrishnan, S., & Tsang, A. (2019). Corporate social responsibility report narratives and analyst forecast accuracy. Journal of Business Ethics,
154(4), 1119–1142.
Naughton, J. P., Wang, C., & Yeung, I. (2019). Investor sentiment for corporate social performance. The Accounting Review, 94(4), 401–420.
Ness, K. E., & Mirza, A. M. (1991). Corporate social disclosure: A note on a test of agency theory. The British Accounting Review, 23(3), 211–217.
Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3),
265–282.
Ng, A. C., & Rezaee, Z. (2015). Business sustainability performance and cost of equity capital. Journal of Corporate Finance, 34, 128–149.
O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2016). Fostering rigour in accounting for social sustainability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 49, 32–40.
O’Dwyer, B. (2011). The case of sustainability assurance: Constructing a new assurance service. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(4), 1230–1266.
Patten, D. M. (2002). The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(8),
763–773.
Pawliczek, A., Skinner, A. N., & Wellman, L. A. (2021). A new take on voice: The influence of BlackRock’s ‘Dear CEO’ letters. Review of Accounting Studies, 26(3),
1088–1136.
Petrovits, C. M. (2006). Corporate-sponsored foundations and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 41(3), 335–362.
Pinnuck, M., Ranasinghe, A., Soderstrom, N., & Zhou, J. (2021). Restatement of CSR reports: Frequency, magnitude, and determinants. Contemporary Accounting
Research, 38(3), 2376–2416.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
PR Newswire. (2021). Global ESG investing surge drives growth for data and index providers. PR Newswire. Available at: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-
releases/global-esg-investing-surge-drives-growth-for-data-and-index-providers-two-new-burton-taylor-reports-301404147.html#:~:text=%2D%20Global%
20ESG%20index%20revenues%20increased,of%20strategy%20for%20data%20providers.
20
Qian, W., & Schaltegger, S. (2017). Revisiting carbon disclosure and performance: Legitimacy and management views. The British Accounting Review, 49(4), 365–379.
Qiu, Y., Shaukat, A., & Tharyan, R. (2016). Environmental and social disclosures: Link with corporate financial performance. The British Accounting Review, 48(1),
102–116.
Radhakrishnan, S., Tsang, A., & Liu, R. (2018). A corporate social responsibility framework for accounting research. The International Journal of Accounting, 53(4),
274–294.
Ramanathan, K. V. (1976). Toward a theory of corporate social accounting. The Accounting Review, 51(3), 516–528.
Reinhardt, F. L. (1998). Environmental product differentiation: Implications for corporate strategy. California Management Review, 40(4), 43–73.
Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6),
595–612.
Ryou, J. W., Tsang, A., & Wang, K. T. (2022). Product market competition and voluntary corporate social responsibility disclosures. Contemporary Accounting Research,
39(2), 1215–1259.
Sauerwald, S., & Su, W. (2019). CEO overconfidence and CSR decoupling. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 27(4), 283–300.
Schneider, T. E. (2011). Is environmental performance a determinant of bond pricing? Evidence from the US pulp and paper and chemical industries. Contemporary
Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59(5), 1045–1061.
Shane, P. B., & Spicer, B. H. (1983). Market response to environmental information produced outside the firm. The Accounting Review, 58(3), 521–538.
Shin, Y. S., & Moore, W. T. (2003). Explaining credit rating differences between Japanese and US agencies. Review of Financial Economics, 12(4), 327–344.
Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3), 937–967.
Spicer, B. H. (1978). Investors, corporate social performance and information disclosure: An empirical study. The Accounting Review, 53(1), 94–111.
SustainAbility. (2020). Rate the raters 2020: Investor survey and interview results. SustainAbility. Available at: https://www.sustainability.com/thinking/rate-the-raters-
2020/.
Tan, W., Tsang, A., Wang, W., & Zhang, W. (2020). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure and the choice between bank debt and public debt. Accounting
Horizons, 34(1), 151–173.
Truong, C., Nguyen, T. H., & Huynh, T. (2021). Customer satisfaction and the cost of capital. Review of Accounting Studies, 26(1), 293–342.
Tsang, A., Hu, W., & Li, X. (2021). CSR and firm value: A comparative study of CSR performance measures. China Accounting and Finance Review, 23(1), 1–33.
Tsang, A., Wang, K. T., Liu, S., & Yu, L. (2021b). Integrating corporate social responsibility criteria into executive compensation and firm innovation: International
evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance, 70, Article 102070.
Tsang, A., Wang, K. T., Wu, Y., & Lee, J. (2022). Nonfinancial corporate social responsibility reporting and firm value: International evidence on the role of financial analysts.
European Accounting Review. forthcoming.
United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). (2019). The United Nations global compact—Accenture strategy CEO study on sustainability.
de Villiers, C., & Alexander, D. (2014). The institutionalisation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The British Accounting Review, 46(2), 198–212.
Wei, C. (2021). State ownership and target setting: Evidence from publicly listed companies in China. Contemporary Accounting Research, 38(3), 1925–1960.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2002). Corporate social responsibility: The WBCSD’s journey. World Business Council for Sustainable
Development. Available at: https://www.globalhand.org/en/browse/csr/resource/document/27942.
Zhang, L., Tang, Q., & Huang, R. H. (2021). Mind the gap: Is water disclosure a missing component of corporate social responsibility? The British Accounting Review, 53
(1), Article 100940.
Albert Tsang is a Chair Professor of Accounting at the SUSTech Business School, Southern University of Science & Technology. Before joining SUSTech, he worked in
Canada and Hong Kong. He is passionate about the capital market implications of global corporations’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) and/or environmental,
social, and governance (ESG) practices. He earned his Ph.D. in accounting at The University of Texas at Dallas. He has published more than 20 CSR-related articles and
has received numerous best paper awards for his work on CSR. In 2022, he received the Distinguished Contribution to Accounting Literature Award for his research on
CSR disclosure from the American Accounting Association.
Tracie Frost is an Assistant Professor (Research) at the School of Accounting and Finance, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. She has worked extensively in
practice, including 7 years in PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ Washington National Tax Services. She earned her PhD in accounting at Florida Atlantic University. She has
published several studies related to corporate social responsibility.
Huijuan Cao is an assistant professor at the School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology. Her primary research interests are in the areas of
macro accounting, corporate innovation, and CSR. She earned her Ph.D. degree in accounting at Sun Yat-sen University.
21

2022 Tsang

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022 Tsang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The British Accounting Review 55 (2023) 101149

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The British Accounting Review

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) disclosure: A

Journal Number of Studies Share

British Accounting Review 39 30%

Total 132 100%

Panel B Research type

Research Type Number of Studies Share

archival research 83 63%

Total 132 100%

Panel C Geographical distribution

Countries/regions Number of Studies Share

Total 118 100%

Fig. 1. CSR/ESG studies in different journals.

Fig. 2. Paper distribution.

information on firms’ ESG performance (SustainAbility, 2020).

3.1. Signaling future performance

Fig. 5. Research framework of CSR reporting.

3.2. Reputation insurance

3.3. Reduction in information asymmetry

3.4. Managers’ agency issues

3.5. Information demand

3.6. Costs of CSR disclosure

3.7. Insights on studies examining underlying determinants of CSR disclosure

4.1. Effect on firm performance

4.2. Consequences for capital market participants

4.2.3. Debt market

4.3. Externalities and peripheral effects

4.3.1. Managers and employees

4.4. Insights on consequences of CSR disclosure

5.1. Voluntary disclosure

5.2. Audits/Assurance of CSR reporting

5.4. Report types

5.5. Insights on CSR disclosure characteristics

6.1. Firms’ CSR performance

6.2. Stakeholder orientation

6.4. Insights on CSR disclosure moderators and mediators

7. Emerging CSR topics and future research

7.1. Rating disagreement

7.2. CSR contracting

7.3. Nonfinancial rating agencies

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2022.101149.

You might also like