nach oben

Journal of Business Ethics

Erschienen in:

19.03.2020 | Original Paper

Stakeholder Perceptions of Risk in Mandatory Corporate Responsibility Disclosure

verfasst von: Lisa Baudot, Zhongwei Huang, Dana Wallace

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 1/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The extraction of natural resources is a controversial business practice that has profound ethical and economic risk implications for both firms involved in extractive activities and society at large. In response to these implications, the Dodd–Frank Act of 2010 directed the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to create the first ever rules requiring annual corporate responsibility disclosures. The two proposed rules, requiring disclosure of the source of “conflict minerals” and of payments to foreign governments by extractive firms, conjured intense debate among stakeholders, largely related to the risks of firms providing (or not providing) the information. These risks span from required disclosures increasing compliance costs for firms to non-disclosure threatening human rights. In this study, we seek to understand the way in which stakeholders perceive the risks associated with corporate responsibility disclosures. We analyze comment letters submitted to the SEC related to the two disclosure rules through the lens of Douglas’s (Douglas, Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986) cultural perspectives of risk. We find consistencies across the two proposed disclosures with regard to the presence of three risk perspectives within the comment letter discourse for each proposal. We find inconsistencies, however, in the underlying nature of risk perceived across the two rules, which we argue reveals an aspect of risk that incorporates ethicality and is ultimately linked to reputational considerations. We complement these insights by analyzing the market reaction to the proposed regulations. Overall, our analysis suggests that stakeholders’ perceptions of risk have consequences for how risk is perceived and acted upon in the market.

Vorheriger Artikel Doing Good While Behaving Badly: Checkout Charity Process Mechanisms

Nächster Artikel Behavioral Integrity: Examining the Effects of Trust Velocity and Psychological Contract Breach

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

The SEC defines the term “conflict mineral” as “cassiterite, columbite-tantalite, gold, wolframite, or their derivatives, or any other minerals or their derivatives determined by the Secretary of State to be financing conflict in the Covered Countries” (mainly, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) (SEC 2012).

We provide more details in the “Regulation Background” section.

We refer to the government payments and conflict minerals disclosures as “corporate responsibility disclosures.” The disclosures differ to some extent from traditional CSR disclosures, such as a firm’s carbon emissions, diversity and equal opportunity initiatives, or customer health and safety practices. We contend, however, that underlying both the government payment and conflict minerals sourcing disclosures is a corporate social responsibility rationale. With regard to the government payment disclosure, “undisclosed payments may be perceived as corrupt” (S.1700, p. 3). Thus, Congress intends to “support the commitment of the Federal Government to international transparency promotion efforts relating to the commercial development of oil” (Dodd–Frank Act, p. 847). With regard to the conflict minerals disclosure, Congress intends to guide firms “to exercise due diligence on and formalize the origin…of conflict minerals used in their products and on their suppliers to ensure that conflict minerals used in the products of such suppliers do not…finance armed conflict or result in labor or human rights violations” (Dodd–Frank Act, p. 841). Indeed, recent research also refers to both supply chain due diligence (Arikan et al. 2017; Hoffmann et al. 2018) and government payment disclosure (Aaronson 2005) as corporate social responsibility concerns.

Note that we are not examining the firms’ risk disclosures. Our paper also does not seek to assess the efficacy of the lobbying activities of stakeholders on regulatory proposals. Rather, we seek to understand the way in which stakeholders perceive risk related to a proposed set of corporate responsibility disclosures. The stakeholders we examine include (but are not limited to) firms, who generally voice the risks of corporate responsibility disclosure associated with compliance costs and competitive harm; investors, who express the risks of the SEC promulgating disclosure rules outside of its traditional boundaries; and NGOs or society at large, who focus on the risks of non-disclosure threatening peace, human rights, government stability, and wealth distribution.

For instance, in the 2019 proxy season, shareholders submitted proposals for increased disclosure regarding board of directors racial and ethnic diversity, community engagement and social impacts, environmental sustainability efforts, greenhouse gas emissions reduction information, and political spending (Westcott 2019). Although the SEC has issued guidance on some disclosures (e.g., climate change disclosures in 2010 and board diversity disclosures in 2019), the SEC has yet to explicitly require any corporate responsibility disclosures. Section 1503 of the Dodd–Frank Act also required mining firms to disclose mine safety information, but only a limited number of comment letters were submitted for this proposal, so we do not include it in our study.

In brief, individualists value freedom and view the constraints of regulation as risky. Hierarchists respect authority and tradition and perceive risk in a lack of standards. Egalitarians revere ethics and view risk in self-promotion at the expense of broader groups. Fatalists resign themselves to fate and see risk in a world that is unpredictable. We provide more detail related to these worldviews in the “Theoretical Foundations” section.

The lack of research regarding stakeholder reactions to SEC-mandated corporate responsibility disclosures stems from the lack of SEC regulation requiring this type of disclosure. We note that within Regulation S-K, Items 101, 103, and 103, the SEC provides rules for disclosing material environmental information. The materiality requirement, however, allows firms the flexibility to not provide such disclosures. Indeed, prior research shows the disclosure of environmental capital spending (and other environmental information) is quite limited (see, for example, Cho et al. 2012).

Several studies provide extensive descriptions of the conflict minerals disclosure requirements. See Herda and Snyder (2013) and Sankara et al. (2016) for summaries of the rule.

For details regarding the conflict minerals disclosure rules, see SEC Release No. 34-67716; File No. S7-40-10, Final Rule: “Conflict Minerals,” issued August 22, 2012 (available online at: https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2012/34-67716.pdf). Within the final rule, the SEC provides the Form SD Specialized Disclosure Report template and instructions (p. 343).

In particular, the court decided the portion of the rule that required disclosure regarding whether products were “DRC conflict free” or “not conflict free” was unconstitutional.

Both the conflict minerals and the government payment disclosure rules have been effectively rolled back by executive order under the current US administration in February 2017. As of December 2017, the US Congress advanced votes to repeal both section 1502 on conflict minerals and section 1504 on government payments. Neither the court outcomes nor the roll-back of the laws impact our study as we focus on understanding stakeholder reaction to the enactment of regulation; however, it suggests a broader research focused on the phases of the regulatory cycle.

For details regarding the government payment disclosure rules, see SEC Release No. 34-78167; File No. S7-25-15, Final Rule: “Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers,” Issued July 27, 2016 (available online at: https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2016/34-78167.pdf). Within the final rule, the SEC provides the Form SD Specialized Disclosure Report template and instructions (p. 257).

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/319488-trump-signs-repeal-of-transparency-rule-for-oil-companies.

Note that the notion of “culture” within Douglas’ cultural perspectives is not at the country-level. In fact, cultural theory proposes that within any community (or organization or nation), the four cultural worldviews are present and at war with one another (Douglas 1999). As Linsley and Shrives (2014) explain, “…the notion of cultural dialogues implies that culture is not static and cultural theory does not equate nation states and cultures.”

The idea is not that individualist and hierarchical worldviews favor risk taking or that egalitarians are risk averse.

Table 2 summarizes the link between cultural perspectives and risk concepts as well.

See https://www.nltk.org/.

Young (2001) distinguishes the following eight risk metaphors, risk as a: quality, direction, substance, change, burden, exposure, disease and adversary.

The 34 risk terms are represented here within the appropriate metaphorical category: risk as a quality (extreme, significant); risk as a direction (implicate, effect, impact, affect); risk as a substance (consequence, exception, concern, situation); risk as something changing (instable, ambiguous, uncertain, insecure); risk as burden (burden, penalty, cost, expense, liability, pressure); risk as exposure (exposure, chance, vulnerable, likely, likelihood, threat), risk as disease (harm, damage, suffer, detriment, violence); and risk as adversary (problem, challenge, deal).

A large number of studies examine the stock market response to increased accounting and business regulation (e.g., Chow 1983—1933 and 1934 Securities Acts; Karpoff and Malatesta 1989—takeover laws; Atkas et al. 2004—business combination regulation; Weber 2004—Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 96; Wintoki 2007—Sarbanes–Oxley Act; Larcker et al. 2011—corporate governance regulation; Reid and Carcello 2016—mandatory audit firm rotation).

The SEC estimated initial costs of complying with the conflict minerals (government payments) disclosure rules ranging from $3 billion to $4 billion ($44 millon to $1 billion) for affected firms (SIFMA 2017).

We provide the industry composition for each of our samples in Table 5.

We note that matching the SICs listed in Congressional documents and other reports with SICs listed for firms within CRSP is not a perfect process. Several academic studies note the lack of cohesion between the SIC codes assigned to firms listed in CRSP, Compustat, and the SEC’s EDGAR system (Bhojraj et al. 2003; Guenther and Rossman 1994; Kahle and Walkling 1996).

We list the events included in each market test in Table 6.

Results are similar when we use the CRSP equal-weighted market portfolio as the benchmark.

Alternatively, we estimate the parameters over a common estimation window for each sample, prior to the first legislative event related to each rule. We use the 200-day window ending on December 31, 2009 for the conflict minerals sample and ending December 31, 2008 for the government payments sample. Our results remain significant and in the same direction and are generally more significant using this alternative approach.

We also consider two other approaches to measuring abnormal returns. First, we follow prior research that uses simple market-adjusted abnormal returns (e.g., Armstrong et al. 2010; Larcker et al. 2011). We measure market returns using the CRSP value-weighted index. Second, we utilize a methodology developed by Schipper and Thompson (1983), which estimates a seemingly unrelated regression that explicitly accounts for the cross-correlation of error terms across equations (Fernandes et al. 2010). Our results are qualitatively similar using either of these approaches.

Although our event selection procedures likely minimize any bias related to the inclusion (exclusion) of non-(relevant) events, it is possible confounding events occurred on the event dates under examination. To alleviate some of this concern, we follow prior research (e.g., Armstrong et al. 2010) and read the daily Wall Street Journal headline summaries for our event dates. Overall, we do not observe an alternate news pattern that might bias our inferences.

The average CAR is − 0.005 (p value < .001) using the CRSP equal-weighted index.

We acknowledge that our market response evidence is concentrated in just one of the event dates, which implies the market remained indifferent regarding the conflict minerals rule until the SEC’s final adoption of the rule.

The average CAR is 0.017 (p value < .001) using the CRSP equal-weighted index.

Aaronson, S. (2005). Minding our business: What the United States Government has done and can do to ensure that US multinationals act responsibility in foreign markets. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1–2), 175–198.CrossRef

Adams, J. (2006). The failure of seat belt legislation. In M. Verweij & M. Thompson (Eds.), Clumsy solutions for a complex world: Governance, politics and plural perceptions. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Annisette, M. (2017). Discourse of the professions: The making, normalizing and taming of Ontario’s “foreign-trained accountant”. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 60, 37–61.CrossRef

Arikan, O., Reinecke, J., Spence, C., & Morrell, K. (2017). Signposts or weathervanes? The curious case of corporate social responsibility and conflict minerals. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(3), 469–484.CrossRef

Armstrong, C. S., Barth, M. E., Jagolinzer, A. D., & Riedl, E. J. (2010). Market reaction to the adoption of IFRS in Europe. The Accounting Review, 95(1), 31–61.CrossRef

Atkas, N., de Bodt, E., & Roll, R. (2004). Market response to European regulation of business combinations. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 39(4), 731–757.CrossRef

Audit Analytics. (2014). An initial look at conflict minerals and Dodd Frank Section 1502. https://www.auditanalytics.com/blog/an-initial-look-at-conflict-minerals-dodd-frank-section-1502/.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.

Bhojraj, S., Lee, C., & Oler, D. K. (2003). What's my line? A comparison of industry classification schemes for capital market research. Journal of Accounting Research, 41(5), 745–774.CrossRef

Birkey, R. N., Guidry, R. P., Islam, M. A., & Patten, D. M. (2016). Mandated social disclosure: An analysis of the response to the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(3), 1–15.

Blacconiere, W. G., & Northcut, W. D. (1997). Environmental information and market reactions to environmental legislation. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 12(2), 149–178.CrossRef

Brivot, M., Gendron, Y., & Guénin, H. (2017). Reinventing organizational control: Meaning contest surrounding reputational risk controllability in the social media arena. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(4), 795–820.CrossRef

Brunk, K. H., & de Boer, C. (2018). How do consumers reconcile positive and negative CSR-related information to form an ethical brand perception? A mixed method inquiry. Journal of Business Ethics, 161, 443–458.CrossRef

Bushee, B. J., & Leuz, C. (2005). Economic consequences of SEC disclosure regulation: Evidence from the OTC bulletin board. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39(2), 233–264.CrossRef

Canning, M., Gendron, Y., & O’Dwyer, B. (2018). Auditing in a changing environment and the constitution of cross-paradigmatic communication channels. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 37(2), 165–174.CrossRef

Cho, C., Freedman, M., & Patten, D. (2012). Corporate disclosure of environmental capital expenditures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(3), 486–507.CrossRef

Chow, C. W. (1983). The impacts of accounting regulation on bondholder and shareholder wealth: The case of the Securities Acts. The Accounting Review, 58(3), 485–520.

Cooper, C., Coulson, A., & Taylor, P. (2011). Accounting for human rights: Doxic health and safety practices: The accounting lesson from ICL. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(8), 738–758.CrossRef

Cormier, D., Magnan, M., & van Velthoven, B. (2005). Environmental disclosure quality in large German companies: Economic incentives, public pressures or institutional conditions? European Accounting Review, 14(1), 3–39.CrossRef

Deephouse, D. L., & Heugens, P. (2009). Linking social issues to organizational impact: The role of infomediaries and the infomediary process. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(4), 541–553.CrossRef

Development International. (2016). Dodd-Frank section 1502: Filing evaluation RY 2015, Report Version 3. Retrieved November 15, 2016 from https://www.developmentinternational.org/conflict-minerals.

Diamond, D. W., & Verrecchia, R. E. (1991). Disclosure, liquidity, and the cost of capital. The Journal of Finance, 46(4), 1325–1359.CrossRef

Dillard, J. F., Rigsby, J. T., & Goodman, C. (2004). The making and remaking of organization context: Duality and the institutionalization process. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(4), 506–542.CrossRef

Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. New York: Praeger.

Douglas, M. (1986). Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Douglas, M. (1994). Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge.

Douglas, M. (1999). Four cultures: The evolution of a parsimonious model. GeoJournal, 47(3), 411–415.CrossRef

Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1983). Risk and Culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Chicago: University of California Press.CrossRef

Durocher, S., & Gendron, Y. (2011). IFRS: On the docility of sophisticated users in preserving the ideal of comparability. European Accounting Review, 20(2), 233–262.CrossRef

Ericson, R. V., & Doyle, A. (2003). Risk and morality. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRef

Fernandes, N., Lel, U., & Miller, D. P. (2010). Escape from New York: The market impact of loosening disclosure requirements. Journal of Financial Economics, 95(2), 129–147.CrossRef

Froud, J. (2003). The private finance initiative: Risk, uncertainty and the state. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(6), 567–589.CrossRef

Gallhofer, S., Haslam, J., & van der Walt, S. (2011). Accountability and transparency in relation to human rights: A critical perspective reflecting upon accounting, corporate responsibility and ways forward in the context of globalisation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(8), 765–780.CrossRef

GAO (United States Government Accountability Office). (2007). The Democratic Republic of the Congo. https://www.gao.gov/assets/280/270407.pdf.

Gendron, Y. (2009). Discussion of “The Audit Committee Oversight Process”: Advocating openness in accounting research. Contemporary Accounting Research, 26(1), 123–134.CrossRef

Gendron, Y., Brivot, M., & Guénin-Paracini, H. (2015). The construction of risk management credibility within corporate boardrooms. European Accounting Review, 25(3), 549–578.CrossRef

Gephart, R. P., van Maanen, J., & Oberlechner, T. (2009). Organizations and risk in late modernity. Organization Studies, 30(2/3), 141–155.CrossRef

Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R., & Rajgopal, S. (2005). The economic implications of corporate financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 40(1–3), 3–73.CrossRef

Green, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 2255–2274.

Guenther, D. A., & Rosman, A. J. (1994). Differences between COMPUSTAT and CRSP SIC codes and related effects on research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 18(1), 115–128.CrossRef

Healy, P., Hutton, A., & Palepu, K. (1999). Stock performance and intermediation changes surrounding sustained increases in disclosures. Contemporary Accounting Research, 16(2–3), 485–520.CrossRef

Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1–3), 405–440.CrossRef

Healy, P., & Serafeim, G. (2016). An analysis of firms’ self-reported anticorruption efforts. The Accounting Review, 91(2), 489–511.CrossRef

Heflin, F. L., Shaw, K. W., & Wild, J. J. (2005). Disclosure policy and market liquidity: Impact of depth quotes and order sizes. Contemporary Accounting Research, 22(4), 829–865.CrossRef

Herda, D. N., & Snyder, H. W. (2013). Independent audits of conflict minerals reports. Current Issues in Auditing, 7(2), A24–A32.CrossRef

Hoffmann, H., Schleper, M., & Blome, C. (2018). Conflict minerals and supply chain due diligence: An exploratory study of multi-tier supply chains. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(1), 115–141.CrossRef

Howe, K. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis, or, dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10–16.CrossRef

Hughes, J. S., Magat, W. A., & Ricks, W. E. (1986). The economic consequences of the OSHA cotton dust standards: An analysis of stock price behavior. The Journal of Law & Economics, 29(1), 29–59.CrossRef

Juncker, X. (2014, December 13). The Openness Revolution: As multinationals are forced to reveal more about themselves, where should the limits of transparency lie? The Economist.

Kahle, K. M., & Walkling, R. A. (1996). The impact of industry classifications on financial research. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 31(3), 309–335.CrossRef

Karpoff, J. M., & Malatesta, P. H. (1989). The wealth effects of second-generation state takeover legislation. Journal of Financial Economics, 25(2), 291–322.CrossRef

Kasperson, J. X., & Kasperson, R. E. (2005). The social contours of risk: Volume 1: Publics, risk communication & the social amplification of risk. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Koonce, L., McAnally, M. L., & Mercer, M. (2005). How do investors judge the risk of financial items? The Accounting Review, 80(1), 221–241.CrossRef

Larcker, D. F., Ormazabal, G., & Taylor, D. J. (2011). The market reaction to corporate governance regulation. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(2), 431–448.CrossRef

Lauwo, S., & Otusanya, O. J. (2014). Corporate accountability and human rights disclosures: A case study of Barrick Gold Mine in Tanzania. Accounting Forum, 38(2), 91–108.CrossRef

Linsley, P. M., & Shrives, P. J. (2009). Mary Douglas, risk and accounting failures. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(4), 492–508.CrossRef

Linsley, P. M., & Shrives, P. J. (2014). Douglasian cultural dialogues and the financial reporting council complexity project. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(8), 757–770.CrossRef

Lo, K. (2003). Economic consequences of regulated changes in disclosure: The case of executive compensation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 35(3), 285–314.CrossRef

Lopez-Gamero, M. D., Claver-Cortez, E., & Monlin-Azorin, J. F. (2008). Complementary resources and capabilities for an ethical and environmental management: A qual/qual study. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 701–732.CrossRef

Lupton, D. (1999). Risk and sociocultural theory: New direction and perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Malsch, B., Tremblay, M.-S., & Gendron, Y. (2012). Sense-making in compensation committees: A cultural theory perspective. Organization Studies, 33(3), 389–421.CrossRef

Martinov-Bennie, N., & Mladenovic, R. (2015). Investigation of the impact of an ethical framework and an integrated ethics education on accounting students’ ethical sensitivity and judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 189–203.CrossRef

Matisoff, D. C. (2013). Different rays of sunlight: Understanding information disclosure and carbon transparency. Energy Policy, 55, 579–592.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Mitchell, M. L., & Mulherin, J. H. (1988). Finessing the political system: The cigarette advertising ban. Southern Economic Journal, 54(4), 855–862.CrossRef

Moerman, L. C., & van der Laan, S. L. (2012). Risky business: Socializing asbestos risk and the hybridization of accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(2), 107–116.CrossRef

Mufson, S. (2017). Financial firms lead shareholder rebellion against ExxonMobil climate change policies. Retrieved May 31, 2017 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/31/exxonmobil-is-trying-to-fend-off-a-shareholder-rebellion-over-climate-change.

Murphy, D. F., & Bendell, J. (1999). Partners in time? Business, NGOs, and sustainable development. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Sustainable Development.

Povaddo. (2017). A Povaddo survey examining corporate activism and employee engagement inside Fortune 1000 companies. https://www.povaddo.com/downloads/Povaddo_Corporate_America's_POV_May_2017.pdf.

Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes and social construction. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRef

Power, M., Scheytt, T., Soin, K., & Sahlin, K. (2009). Reputational risk as a logic of organizing in late modernity. Organization Studies, 30(2–3), 301–324.CrossRef

Prior, L. (2003). Using documents in social research. London: Sage Publications.CrossRef

Prior, L. (2004). In C. Seale., G. Gobo, J. Gubrium, D. Silverman. (Eds.) Qualitative research practice (pp. 375–390). London: Sage Publications.

Radcliffe, V. S., Spence, C., & Stein, M. (2017). The impotence of accountability: The relationship between greater transparency and corporate reform. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(1), 622–657.CrossRef

Reid, L. C., & Carcello, J. V. (2016). Investor reaction to the prospect of mandatory audit firm rotation. The Accounting Review, 92(1), 183–211.CrossRef

Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. S. (2016). Taming wicked problems: The role of framing in the construction of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 299–329.CrossRef

Sankara, J., Lindberg, D. L., & Razaki, K. A. (2016). Conflict minerals disclosures: Reporting requirements and implications for auditing. Current Issues in Auditing, 10(1), A1–A23.CrossRef

Santora, M. (2015, June 9). SOCO Oil Company Paid Large Sums to Officer in Congo, Activists Say. The New York Times.

Schipper, K., & Thompson, R. (1983). The impact of merger-related regulations on the shareholders of acquiring firms. Journal of Accounting Research, 21(1), 184–221.CrossRef

Schwartz, J. (2016). The conflict minerals experiment. Harvard Business Law Review, 6, 129–183.

SEC. (2012). 17 CFR Parts 240 and 249b, Release No. 34-67716; File No. S7-40-10 [final rules]. https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/finalarchive/finalarchive2012.shtml.

SEC. (2014). Fact sheet: Disclosing the use of conflict minerals. https://www.sec.gov/opa/Article/2012-2012-163htm---related-materials.html.

Shane, P. B. (1995). An investigation of shareholder wealth effects of environmental regulation. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 10(3), 485–520.CrossRef

SIFMA (Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association). (2017). SEC approves conflict mineral, payment disclosure rules. https://www.sifma.org/resources/general/aug-sec-approves-conflict-mineral-payment-disclosure-rules/.

Sikka, P. (2011). Accounting for human rights: The challenge of globalization and foreign investment agreements. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(8), 811–827.CrossRef

Sustainable Brands. (2015, May 27). Study: 81% of consumers say they will make personal sacrifices to address social, environmental issues. https://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/stakeholder_trends_insights/sustainable_brands/study_81_consumers_say_they_will_make.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2000). Human Development Report 2000. https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/261/hdr_2000_en.pdf.

Verweij, M., & Thompson, M. (2006). Clumsy solutions for a complex world: Governance, politics and plural perceptions. New York: Springer.CrossRef

Weber, J. P. (2004). Shareholder wealth effects of pooling-of-interests accounting: Evidence from the SEC’s restriction on share repurchases following pooling transactions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37(1), 39–57.CrossRef

Welker, M. (1995). Disclosure policy, information asymmetry, and liquidity in equity markets. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11(2), 801–827.CrossRef

Westcott, S. (April 15, 2019). 2019 Proxy Season Preview. Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/04/15/2019-proxy-season-preview-2/.

Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 119(4), 41–60.

Wilkinson, I. (2001). Social theories of risk perception: at once indispensable and insufficient. Current Sociology, 49(1), 1–22.CrossRef

Wintoki, M. B. (2007). Corporate boards and regulation: The effect of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the exchange listing requirements on firm value. Journal of Corporate Finance, 13(2–3), 229–250.CrossRef

Young, J. (2001). Risk(ing) metaphors. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(5), 607–625.CrossRef

Young, J. (2014). Separating the political and technical: Accounting standard-setting and purification. Contemporary Accounting Research, 31(3), 713–747.CrossRef

Titel: Stakeholder Perceptions of Risk in Mandatory Corporate Responsibility Disclosure
verfasst von: Lisa Baudot
Zhongwei Huang
Dana Wallace
Publikationsdatum: 19.03.2020
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04476-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2021

Review of Honorable Business: A Framework for Business in a Just and Humane Society by James R. Otteson

Behavioral Integrity: Examining the Effects of Trust Velocity and Psychological Contract Breach

Doing Good While Behaving Badly: Checkout Charity Process Mechanisms

When Blame-Giving Crisis Communications are Persuasive: A Dual-Influence Model and Its Boundary Conditions

Between Morals and Markets? An Interdisciplinary Conceptual Framework for Studying Working Conditions at Catholic Social Service Providers in Belgium and Germany

A Pyramid of Hate Perspective on Religious Bias, Discrimination and Violence