A comparison of analysts’ and investors’ information efficiency of corporate social responsibility activities

IF 5.2 4区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal Pub Date : 2024-01-02 DOI:10.1108/sampj-02-2023-0079
Grace Il Joo Kang, Kyongsun Heo, Sungmin Jeon
{"title":"A comparison of analysts’ and investors’ information efficiency of corporate social responsibility activities","authors":"Grace Il Joo Kang, Kyongsun Heo, Sungmin Jeon","doi":"10.1108/sampj-02-2023-0079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>This paper aims to examine the extent to which sell-side analysts efficiently incorporate firms’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities into their earnings forecasts. In addition, this paper also investigate the CSR information efficiency of analysts <em>vis-à-vis</em> that of investors.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>This paper measures CSR activities by using CSR strength and CSR concern scores from the Morgan Stanley Capital International Environmental, Social and Governance database. This paper uses analysts’ earnings forecast errors and dispersion as proxies for their information efficiency. To compare the CSR information efficiency of analysts to that of investors, this paper uses the Vt/Pt ratio, which is the equity value estimates inferred from analysts’ earnings forecasts (a proxy for analysts’ CSR information efficiency) to the stock price of the focal company (a proxy for investors’ CSR information efficiency).</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The regression analysis indicates that analysts’ earnings forecasts are optimistically biased and more dispersed for firms with positive CSR activities. The paper also finds that analysts’ forecasts are more optimistically biased than investors in interpreting CSR activities.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\n<p>The lack of standardized protocols in CSR reporting and activities has raised the risk of mispricing by analysts, threatening the stability of sustainable investments. This paper suggests that regulators and standard-setters should establish a uniform framework governing firms’ CSR activities, along with their reporting and measurement, to ensure more consistent and reliable evaluations of CSR practices.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Social implications</h3>\n<p>Analysts’ mispricing of CSR activities may distort sustainable investing, as it can overly focus on the positive impacts of stakeholder theory, overlooking agency theory’s warnings about managerial self-interest. Investors need to assess CSR efforts with a dual perspective, acknowledging their societal value but also examining their alignment with shareholder interests.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first to assess the efficiency of analysts versus investors in processing CSR information amidst growing sustainable investment interests. Furthermore, building on Dhaliwal <em>et al.</em> (2012), which found that voluntary CSR disclosures correlate with more accurate analyst forecasts, this research provides fresh perspectives on the evolving nature of how analysts assimilate CSR information over time.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-02-2023-0079","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to examine the extent to which sell-side analysts efficiently incorporate firms’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities into their earnings forecasts. In addition, this paper also investigate the CSR information efficiency of analysts vis-à-vis that of investors.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper measures CSR activities by using CSR strength and CSR concern scores from the Morgan Stanley Capital International Environmental, Social and Governance database. This paper uses analysts’ earnings forecast errors and dispersion as proxies for their information efficiency. To compare the CSR information efficiency of analysts to that of investors, this paper uses the Vt/Pt ratio, which is the equity value estimates inferred from analysts’ earnings forecasts (a proxy for analysts’ CSR information efficiency) to the stock price of the focal company (a proxy for investors’ CSR information efficiency).

Findings

The regression analysis indicates that analysts’ earnings forecasts are optimistically biased and more dispersed for firms with positive CSR activities. The paper also finds that analysts’ forecasts are more optimistically biased than investors in interpreting CSR activities.

Practical implications

The lack of standardized protocols in CSR reporting and activities has raised the risk of mispricing by analysts, threatening the stability of sustainable investments. This paper suggests that regulators and standard-setters should establish a uniform framework governing firms’ CSR activities, along with their reporting and measurement, to ensure more consistent and reliable evaluations of CSR practices.

Social implications

Analysts’ mispricing of CSR activities may distort sustainable investing, as it can overly focus on the positive impacts of stakeholder theory, overlooking agency theory’s warnings about managerial self-interest. Investors need to assess CSR efforts with a dual perspective, acknowledging their societal value but also examining their alignment with shareholder interests.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first to assess the efficiency of analysts versus investors in processing CSR information amidst growing sustainable investment interests. Furthermore, building on Dhaliwal et al. (2012), which found that voluntary CSR disclosures correlate with more accurate analyst forecasts, this research provides fresh perspectives on the evolving nature of how analysts assimilate CSR information over time.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分析师和投资者对企业社会责任活动的信息效率比较
目的 本文旨在研究卖方分析师在多大程度上有效地将公司的企业社会责任(CSR)活动纳入其盈利预测。本文使用摩根士丹利资本国际环境、社会和治理数据库中的企业社会责任强度和企业社会责任关注度评分来衡量企业社会责任活动。本文使用分析师的盈利预测误差和离散度作为其信息效率的代理变量。为了比较分析师与投资者的企业社会责任信息效率,本文使用了 Vt/Pt 比率,即从分析师的盈利预测(代表分析师的企业社会责任信息效率)推断出的股票价值估计值与目标公司的股票价格(代表投资者的企业社会责任信息效率)之比。本文还发现,在解释企业社会责任活动时,分析师的预测比投资者更偏向乐观。本文建议,监管机构和标准制定者应建立一个统一的框架,规范公司的企业社会责任活动及其报告和衡量标准,以确保对企业社会责任实践进行更加一致和可靠的评估。社会影响分析师对企业社会责任活动的错误定价可能会扭曲可持续投资,因为它可能会过度关注利益相关者理论的积极影响,而忽视代理理论对管理者自身利益的警告。投资者需要以双重视角评估企业社会责任活动,既要承认其社会价值,又要考察其与股东利益的一致性。 原创性/价值 据作者所知,在可持续投资兴趣日益增长的背景下,本研究首次评估了分析师与投资者处理企业社会责任信息的效率。此外,Dhaliwal 等人(2012 年)发现自愿性企业社会责任披露与更准确的分析师预测相关,在此基础上,本研究为分析师如何吸收企业社会责任信息提供了新的视角。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Key stakeholders and their roles in modern slavery monitoring, detection and disclosure: a systematic literature review Catalyzing the carbon emission: the interplay of financial development and foreign investment in Asia-Pacific and Oceanian region Sustainability, business strategy and innovation: a thematic literature review Leveraging digital data to facilitate circular control in the aftermarket – experiences from an international manufacturing firm Assessing the carbon footprint of the agriculture, forestry, and fishing industry of Australia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1