We investigate whether the disclosure of a firm’s decision to organize as a benefit corporation (BC) rather than a traditional C corporation (CC) influences investors. We survey 136 investors and 57 MBA students and find that they expect BCs to attain higher future corporate social responsibility (CSR) than CCs even when both have equal CSR ratings. Approximately one third of our sample prefers to invest in BCs when CCs have greater financial returns, indicating a willingness by some investors to sacrifice personal financial gain for social good. Our results suggest that investors weight the information contained in BC disclosures as reliable and value-relevant in their investment decisions. We extend the CSR disclosure literature by indicating how investors weight this new type of CSR information, which may affect how BCs fare as publicly traded companies.
Amazon Mechanical Turk. (2018). Human intelligence through an API. https://www.mturk.com
2.
AnselmssonJ.BondessonN.JohanssonU. (2014). Brand image and customers’ willingness to pay a price premium for food brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(2), 90–102.
3.
Barreda-TarrazonaI.Matallín-SáezJ. C.Balaguer-FranchM. R. (2011). Measuring investors’ socially responsible preferences in mutual funds. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 305–330.
4.
BealD.GoyenM.PhillipsP. (2005). Why do we invest ethically?Journal of Investing, 14, 66–78.
5.
BewleyK.LiY. (2000). Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian manufacturing companies: A voluntary disclosure perspective. Advances in Environmental Accounting & Management, 1, 201–226.
6.
BitektineA. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36, 151–179.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
12.
Capelle-BlancardG.MonjonS. (2014). The performance of socially responsible funds: Does the screening process matter?European Financial Management, 20, 494–520.
13.
ChoC. H.GuidryR. P.HagemanA. M.PattenD. M. (2012). Do actions speak louder than words? An empirical investigation of corporate environmental reputation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37, 14–25.
14.
ClarkW. H.Jr.BabsonE. K. (2011). How benefit corporations are redefining the purpose of business corporations. William Mitchell Law Review, 38, 817–851.
15.
ClarksonP. M.LiY.RichardsonG. D.VasvariF. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–327.
16.
CohenJ.Holder-WebbL.KhalilS. (2017). A further examination of the impact of corporate social responsibility and governance on investment decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 146, 203–218.
17.
CohenJ.Holder-WebbL.NathL.WoodD. (2011). Retail investors’ perceptions of the decision-usefulness of economic performance, governance, and corporate social responsibility disclosures. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 23(1), 109–129.
18.
CohenJ. R.SimnettR. (2014). CSR and assurance services: A research agenda. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 59–74.
DeeganC. (2014). An overview of legitimacy theory as applied within the social and environmental accounting literature. In BebbingtonJ.UnermanJ.O’DwyerB. (Eds.), Sustainability accounting and accountability (pp. 248–272). Routledge.
22.
ElliottW. B.HodgeF.KennedyJ.PronkM. (2007). Are MBA students a stronger proxy for nonprofessional investors?The Accounting Review, 82, 139–168.
23.
FlammerC. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 758–781.
24.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
25.
GödkerK.MertinsL. (2018). CSR disclosure and investor behavior: A proposed framework and research agenda. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 30(2), 37–53.
HaighM. M.ShapiroM. A. (2013). Do environmental policy instruments influence fiduciaries’ decisions?Environment and Planning A, 45(4), 853–871.
28.
HealyP. M.PalepuK. 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.
29.
HillerJ. S. (2013). The benefit corporation and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 287–301.
30.
Holder-WebbL.CohenJ. R.NathL.WoodD. (2009). The supply of corporate social responsibility disclosures among US firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 497–527.
31.
HummelK.SchlickC. (2016). The relationship between sustainability performance and sustainability disclosure: Reconciling voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 35(5), 455–476.
JeffreyH. J. (2006). Expanding the range of behavioral factors in economic simulations. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 7, 97–106.
34.
JonesT. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.
35.
LackmannJ.ErnstbergerJ.StichM. (2012). Market reactions to increased reliability of sustainability information. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(2), 111–128.
36.
LaplumeA. O.SonparK.LitzR. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34, 1152–1189.
37.
LyonT. P.MontgomeryA. W. (2015). The means and end of greenwash. Organization & Environment, 28, 223–249.
38.
MainesL. A.McDanielL. S. (2000). Effects of comprehensive-income characteristics on nonprofessional investors’ judgments: The role of financial-statement presentation format. The Accounting Review, 75(2), 179–207.
39.
MǎnescuC. (2011). Stock returns in relation to environmental, social and governance performance: Mispricing or compensation for risk?Sustainable Development, 19(2), 95–118.
40.
MattinglyJ. E. (2017). Corporate social performance: A review of empirical research examining the corporation–society relationship using Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini social ratings data. Business & Society, 56, 796–839.
MunchS. (2012). Improving the benefit corporation: How traditional governance mechanisms can enhance the innovative new business form. Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy, 7, 170–195.
43.
MurrayJ. H. (2012). Choose your own master: Social enterprise, certifications, and benefit corporation statutes. American University Business Law Review, 2, 1–54.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ.IpeirotisP. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.
47.
PasewarkW. R.RileyM. E. (2010). It’s a matter of principle: The role of personal values in investment decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 237–253.
48.
PelozaJ. (2009). The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 35, 1518–1541.
49.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
ShahzadA. M.SharfmanM. P. (2017). Corporate social performance and financial performance: Sample-selection issues. Business & Society, 56, 889–918.
52.
TurbanD. B.GreeningD. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.
VerbosA. K.BlackS. L. (2017). Benefit corporations as a distraction: An overview and critique. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 36, 229–267.
55.
VerrecchiaR. E. (1983). Discretionary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5, 179–194.
56.
WangQ.DouJ.JiaS. (2016). A meta-analytic review of corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance: The moderating effect of contextual factors. Business & Society, 55, 1083–1121.
57.
WindolphS. E. (2011). Assessing corporate sustainability through ratings: Challenges and their causes. Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 1, 37–57.
