Purpose This paper aims to investigate the motivations behind the publication of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports, and particularly the effect of information asymmetry between firms and their owners. Design/methodology/approach A natural experiment contrasting the CSR reporting of private vs public firms is used to test whether the degree of information asymmetry is a significant factor in the decision to publish CSR reports. Using a hand-collected sample of the 239 largest US private companies matched with publicly-traded firms, the effect of these inherently different information environments on CSR reporting is tested through logistic regression. Factors suggested by stakeholder and legitimacy theories are tested for their differential impact on private vs public firms’ decisions to publish a CSR report. Findings Results indicate that private firms are less likely to publish a CSR report than similar public firms. Public firms also follow Global Reporting Initiative guidelines more frequently, consistent with signaling report quality to dispersed investors. A subsample of private companies facing greater information asymmetry is found to be similar to public firms in their reporting behavior, reinforcing the link between information asymmetry and CSR disclosure. Further analysis suggests that non-owner stakeholders play an important role in private companies’ CSR reporting decisions. Practical implications In addition to accounting and governance scholars, the findings should interest private firm managers preparing for an initial public offering (IPO), as the evidence suggests that CSR reporting is used to communicate information to dispersed investors. The insight into reporting motivations should be useful to accountants engaged in CSR consultation and assurance. Social implications With the growing attention paid to the CSR performance of firms, demonstrated by the growth in socially responsible investing, the study provides evidence that effective communication of CSR information to investors may play a key role in CSR-engaged firms’ disclosure strategies. Originality/value To the best of the author’s knowledge, this study is the first to analyze the CSR reporting decisions of a large sample of publicly-traded and privately-held firms. The results add to our understanding of what motivates firms to publish CSR reports, highlighting the importance of information asymmetry between the firm and its owners.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of CEO gender on the performance of Indian firms and to explain the economic channel for any such effect. Design/methodology/approach Using a panel of 100 Indian firms, the authors test whether there is a significant difference in the performance – measured as return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE) – of firms with male vs female CEOs, in both time and space dimensions, using the difference-in-differences approach. Findings The average ROA of the sample firms decrease by about 10 percent after a female enters the CEO role. This negative result remains robust in both the time series as well as cross-sectional analyses. The decline is also observed when using ROE to measure performance. Further, the authors show that this negative effect is associated with an increase in agency costs that is observed following the appointment of a female CEO. Originality/value Previous studies have produced mixed results regarding the effect of having a female CEO on firm performance, and the research to date has not explored the economic channel through which this effect occurs. In this study, the authors show that the decline in performance observed among Indian firms flows from an increase in agency costs under female management.

No abstract

Purpose The Indian Companies Act 2013 mandated auditor rotations in the financial year 2018–2019. Similar regulations are being considered in many countries, based on the assumption that longer tenure is detrimental to audit quality; yet, the evidence from investigations of this assumption is inconclusive. This paper aims to examine the effect of moderating factors on the relation between audit quality and audit tenure, given the regulatory trend and the lack of consensus in extant literature. Design/methodology/approach This paper examines the relationship between audit quality and audit tenure among Indian firms from 2001 to 2015 and tests for moderating factors including auditor compensation, business group affiliation and chief executive officer (CEO) duality. Findings Contrary to the objective of mandatory rotations, this study finds that longer auditor tenure generally enhanced audit quality among Indian firms prior to mandatory rotations. However, for companies paying abnormally high compensation to auditors, this paper finds that longer tenure decreases audit quality, particularly if the firm is affiliated with a business group or firms where the CEO also serves as the board chair. Thus, the potential benefits of mandated shorter tenure appear to be confined to high-fee paying companies with a business group affiliation and/or a dual-role CEO. Originality/value This study is one of the first to examine conditioning factors that affect the relationship between audit quality and auditor tenure. Results suggest that regulations limiting auditor tenure would be beneficial only to the shareholders of a narrow group of firms; while for the majority of firms, limiting auditor tenure may actually be counter-productive.