Search results

This study uses instrumental stakeholder theory to explore the relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and financial performance in various market sectors. It aims to show how CSP, driven by stakeholder demands in different markets, affects financial outcomes.

Using panel data analysis on data from 2007 to 2020, this research examines how stakeholder demand impacts a firm's ability to turn social performance into financial gains. The study ensures reliable results by addressing methodological and endogeneity issues related to CSP.

The results show that a firm's success in converting social performance into financial benefits depends on stakeholder demands in different markets. While better CSP generally leads to improved financial performance, the extent of this benefit varies based on stakeholder expectations. This highlights the importance of managers strategically addressing stakeholder demands to maximize financial returns from social initiatives.

By examining the CSP–financial performance link through the lens of market and stakeholder demands, this research provides new insights into how firms can strategically gain stakeholder support for financial benefits. It shows the long-term value of CSP as an investment that gains stakeholder support over time. This approach broadens the understanding of CSP by considering diverse stakeholder influences across industries, filling a gap in long-term CSP research.

This study aims to evaluate the adequacy of climate risk disclosure by providing empirical evidence on whether corporate disclosure meets rising stakeholders’ demand for risk disclosure concerning climate change.

Drawing on a triangulated approach for collecting data from multiple sources in a longitudinal study, we perform a panel regression analysis on a sample of multinational firms between 2007 and 2021. Inspired by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) principles, our innovative and inclusive model of measuring firm-level climate risks underscores the urgent need to redefine materiality from a broader value creation (rather than only financial) perspective, including the impact on sustainable development.

The findings of this study provide evidence of limited corporate climate risk disclosure, indicating that organisations have yet to accept the reality of climate-related risks. An additional finding supports the existence of a nexus between higher corporate environmental disclosure and higher corporate resilience to material financial and environmental risks, rather than pervasive sustainability risk disclosure.

We argue that a mechanical process for climate-related risk disclosure can limit related disclosure variability, risk reporting priority selection, thereby broadening the short-term perspective on financial materiality assessment for disclosure.

This study extends recent literature on the adequacy of corporate risk disclosure, highlighting the importance of disclosing material sustainability risks from the perspectives of different stakeholder groups for long-term success. Corporate management should place climate-related risks at the centre of their disclosure strategies. We argue that reducing the systematic underestimation of climate-related risks and variations in their disclosure practices may require regulations that enhance corporate perceptions and responses to these risks.

This study emphasises the importance of reconceptualising materiality from a multidimensional value creation standpoint, encapsulating financial and sustainable development considerations. This novel model of assessing firm-level climate risk, based on the GRI principles, underscores the necessity of developing a more comprehensive approach to evaluating materiality.