Foreign firms and domestic multinationals have certain internal advantages which may spillover to domestic firms. However, due to heterogeneity across multinationals, it is not…
Abstract
Purpose
Foreign firms and domestic multinationals have certain internal advantages which may spillover to domestic firms. However, due to heterogeneity across multinationals, it is not necessary that the effect of the spillovers generated by the foreign firm and that generated by the domestic multinational be similar. The purpose of this paper is to empirically find out if the spillovers generated are similar or different in nature.
Design/methodology/approach
The study's results are based on a panel regression analysis of 578 firms in the Indian pharmaceutical industry from 1995‐2006. Fixed effects as well as the Levinsohn Petrin methodology are used to analyze the research question.
Findings
The paper finds that there are differences in the characteristics of foreign firms and Indian multinationals. It also finds differences in the research and development (R&D) spillover effects from foreign firms and those from Indian multinationals. The knowledge or R&D spillover effect of foreign firms on domestic firms is found to be negative, which is interpreted as movement of labor to foreign firms. Indian multinationals seem to have no spillover effect on domestic firms in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. The study also finds that the presence of foreign firms in the Indian pharmaceutical industry has not had a productivity hampering effect on domestic firms. Finally, the study finds some evidence to believe that spillovers in the Indian pharmaceutical industry may vary with size of the domestic firm.
Originality/value
There are very few papers in literature that empirically try to find similarity or differences between spillover effects due to foreign firms and those due to domestic multinationals. The study also tries to discern if these spillovers vary with respect to the size of the domestic firm.
Details
Keywords
This paper aims to investigate the implications of governance quality on a firm’s information environment in the context of voluntary changes in hedging disclosures made by oil…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to investigate the implications of governance quality on a firm’s information environment in the context of voluntary changes in hedging disclosures made by oil and gas companies.
Design/methodology/approach
The research utilizes a Factiva-guided search to hand-collect public disclosures related to changes in hedging policies along with the hand collection of financial derivatives positions and operational hedging contracts data using 10-K filings. The paper addresses self-selection bias, which typically plagues voluntary disclosure studies, by implementing a Heckman (1979) two-step model to estimate the decision process, make changes in their hedge program and, conditional on making changes to their hedging activities, provide disclosure.
Findings
Oil and gas firms with relatively poor governance are more likely to voluntarily disclose hedging changes and do so more frequently (substitution hypothesis). There is evidence that poorly governed firms in the presence of large shareholders (i.e. high institutional ownership) are more likely to provide transparency of hedging policy changes.
Originality/value
This is the first study to combine hand-collected changes in hedging voluntary disclosures and hand-collected derivative position data to investigate the interaction of corporate governance and voluntary disclosure. The sample allows for analysis between three sub-samples: companies that do not make changes in hedging and do not hedge, firms that make changes in their hedging policies but do not disclose the changes during a given year and companies that change their hedging activities and provide voluntary disclosure. This unique setting helps to alleviate concerns of self-selection bias associated with voluntary disclosure.
Details
Keywords
The study examines the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) non-compliance on firm value. It also investigates the moderating roles of ownership concentration and…
Abstract
Purpose
The study examines the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) non-compliance on firm value. It also investigates the moderating roles of ownership concentration and research and development (R&D) intensity in this relationship.
Design/methodology/approach
For hypothesis testing, the authors utilized panel data regression models on a dataset comprising 13,760 firm-years listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange, covering a period of nine years following the legislation (from March 2015 to March 2023).
Findings
Our findings reveal a detrimental effect of mandatory CSR spending on the value of non-compliance firms, consistent with the notion of deterrence theory. Further, we find that the negative impact is more pronounced among widely-held firms compared to closely-held firms, aligning with shareholder activism and information asymmetry theory. Our subsequent tests indicate that R&D intensity mitigates the negative impact, indicating a substitution relationship between CSR and R&D expenditure. Consistent with this finding, we find a lesser negative impact of CSR non-compliance on firm value of widely-held R&D intensified firms. Our findings are robust to the problem of endogeneity and self-selection bias.
Practical implications
Our findings highlight practical implications for managers regarding performance management. Managers should recognize that mandatory CSR spending can negatively impact performance, especially in widely-held firms, leading to shareholder dissatisfaction. To mitigate these effects, increasing R&D investment is likely to buffer against the adverse impacts of CSR mandates. Firm managers should align R&D efforts with CSR obligations to counterbalance costs and manage shareholder expectations, thereby maintaining performance and enhancing the perception of innovation among stakeholders.
Originality/value
It is the first study to consider the degree of compliance within firms while examining the impact of mandatory CSR spending on firm value. Also, the study is among pioneer attempts to investigate the moderating role of ownership structure and R&D intensity on the relationship.
Details
Keywords
Taral Pathak, Ruchi Tewari and Samuel Drempetic
With corporate social responsibility (CSR) becoming mandatory, several firms in India have been compelled into spending resources on CSR while their business strategy and…
Abstract
Purpose
With corporate social responsibility (CSR) becoming mandatory, several firms in India have been compelled into spending resources on CSR while their business strategy and processes were unprepared to take up CSR activities, effectively. In this light, the CSR relationship with other business functions would be altered. Using Thomson Reuters data from 2010 to 2018 (pre-mandate to post-mandate) this study aims to re-examine the relationship between CSR and financial performance.
Design/methodology/approach
The current study is rooted in the bandwagon-bias effect theory and uses a long-term data (2010–2018) of Indian firms. It uses Refinitiv Thomson Reuters ESG rating to measure CSR and accounting measures for financial performance (FP) to make a pre-post analysis of the impact that mandatory CSR regime has had on firms performance. The study uses the weighted panel regression method.
Findings
The relationship between CSR and FP is different when CSR was voluntary than when it has been mandated by Law. CSR has a positive effect over the FP during the voluntary phase but this positive relationship weakens during the mandatory phase. The waning effect of CSR over FP substantiates the presence of bandwagon bias effect which can be explained by the crowding-in of several companies engaged in CSR activities because of the mandatory CSR law.
Research limitations/implicationsv
Few countries have made CSR mandatory therefore CSR literature is limited. But mandating CSR is a growing phenomenon so this study augments to the body of knowledge. Until now literature generally converged on a positive relationship between CSR performance and FP but the current study shows altering directions to this relationship in a changing CSR environment. The use of the bandwagon-bias theory contributes to the theoretical approaches. Theoretically, the findings add to the body CSR literature and offer impetus to the evolving domain of impact measurement and reporting.
Practical implications
Results of the study offer a clear indication to managers that they need to re-strategise their CSR activities during the mandatory CSR environment if they wish to draw instrumental benefits of a positive impact on the FP of their firms. CSR expenditure is now a leveller so managers may either exceed the mandatory 2% expenditure as some firms did during the voluntary CSR phase or else design their CSR implementation plans to bring about a more impactful positive change. Communicating the impact of CSR to influential and powerful stakeholders beyond the mandatory reporting to the government is yet another way through which managers can draw benefits of CSR activities. Additionally to draw positive results from CSR activities firms may consider adopting international reporting and benchmarking standards such as the GRI and ISO 26000. Finally, the results of the study can be used by policymakers to make a note that the CSR law is causing a weakening of the financial benefits and therefore.
Social implications
The results of the study can be used by policymakers also need to make a note that the CSR law is causing a weakening of the financial benefits and therefore firms are adopting shortcuts, by donating the required amount of funds. But donation of funds defeats the real purpose of mandatory CSR which is social impact, therefore the regulators may want to make the necessary changes unplug the gaps in the CSR law to ensure better adherence to the law in spirit and a real impact on the ground activities.
Originality/value
While CSR–FP relationship has been extensively explored but limited studies have explored this relationship in a mandatory CSR environment and no other work presents a comparative view of the CSR–FP relationship, namely, before and after the mandatory CSR policy. The current study is one of the limited few studying the impact of mandatory CSR policy on FP, and the only one that uses the bandwagon-bias effect to explain the phenomenon of weakening impact of CSR on FP of firms. Bandwagon-bias effect has been used in studying consumer behaviour, where group effect impacts behaviour of individuals and with mandatory CSR policy, firms following the other firms leading to crowding in. Using the bandwagon-bias effect has found limited attention from the CSR scholars, the current study uses this theoretical basis and therefore augments the CSR literature.