The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in economic and financial hardships on firms, forcing them to make tough decisions regarding their social and ethical behavior. The purpose of this study is to examine whether the COVID-19 pandemic affected the corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and disclosures of the US S&P 500 firms. In particular, this study examined the relationship between both CSR performance and COVID-19 and the relationship between CSR disclosures and COVID-19 along with the dimensions of environmental, social, and governance. Using t-tests and panel data analysis for the years 2018 through 2021, we found that CSR performance and CSR disclosure increased after the start of the pandemic for total CSR and for the dimensions of environmental, social, and governance. We also found that CSR performance was impacted by a larger change than CSR disclosures for all dimensions of CSR. This study is one of the first to examine the impact of COVID-19 on CSR and helps stakeholders understand the role that it played on firm decisions. The results further illustrate the importance that firms' managements place on CSR performance and disclosures, even during a time of significant challenge and uncertainty.

This research is one of the first studies to examine the effects of CSR disclosures on a firm’s decision to purchase back their own shares of stocks. Additionally, the authors examine whether the effect of CSR disclosures is stronger than the effect of CSR performance on the decision to repurchase shares. Examining firms in the United States, the authors find that total CSR disclosures and the CSR disclosures related to the dimensions of social, environmental, and governance are significantly and positively related to the number of shares that a firm buys back. Additionally, the authors find that the effects of CSR disclosures are stronger for total and the CSR dimensions of social and governance than for CSR performance. For the environmental dimension of CSR, both disclosure and performance scores are significant. This research expands our understanding of the impact of CSR disclosure by showing the importance it plays in the decision to buy back stock and implies that firms that repurchase their stock are more socially responsive than firms that do not. Finally, it contributes to the growing literature on how CSR disclosure has a different impact than CSR performance on firm decisions and outcomes.

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to validate the Matten and Moon (2008) implicit-explicit corporate social responsibility (CSR) model by examining whether the respective differences in CSR practices between Europe and the USA reflect their respective societal expectations.Design/methodology/approachThe principal component analysis is used to develop an innovative societal expectations index (SEI). This study tests the relationship between SEI and CSR through panel data andt-tests.FindingsThe empirical findings show a significant association between the SEI and all forms of CSR, which provides empirical support for Matten’s and Moon’s implicit-explicit framework.Originality/valueThis study is the first to develop an SEI to validate the Matten and Moon (2008) model that predicts implicit countries would adopt and conform to broader societal expectations for CSR, and therefore be more likely to embrace CSR activities than their counterparts in explicit countries.

Increasingly, U.S. firms voluntarily issue standalone corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports to demonstrate to society a commitment to social and environmental activities (Bebbington, Larrinaga, & Moneva, 2008; Erusalimsky, Gray, & Spence, 2006). To ascertain the effect of standalone CSR reports on investors, we compared the association between CSR performance scores and subsequent stock returns for firms that issue standalone CSR reports versus those that do not. Consistent with a signaling perspective (Akerlof, 1970), we found that firms that voluntarily issue standalone CSR reports have a stronger association between total CSR and CSR strengths and subsequent stock returns than firms that do not. Our findings indicated that investors are relying on standalone CSR reports because they reward CSR performance for firms that issue standalone CSR reports CSR performance for those that do not issue standalone CSR reports.

The rate of alliance formation by firms has greatly increased over the past two decades. Congruently, firm interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives has also increased. Signaling theory suggests that firms may be increasing their CSR strategies in an effort to signal their willingness to operate within social mores. However, firms are faced with the problem of how to communicate their social commitment objectively to stakeholders. We argue that firms are forming CSR alliances in an attempt to signal an objective message to stakeholders concerning their commitment to CSR. To provide insight into these explanations, we compare the Total CSR performance (TCSR) scores of firms that form CSR alliances with those firms that do not. We control for firm size, leverage, profitability, and industry. We find that firms that form CSR alliances generally have higher TCSR scores, which suggests that one of the reasons that firms form these alliances is to publicize their stronger social and environmental records to stakeholders.

Over the past two decades, more and more U.S. firms are voluntarily issuing costly standalone Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reports. Nevertheless, firms' motivations for issuing standalone CSR Reports are not clear. In this paper, we consider two different explanations: signaling and greenwashing. The first explanation, signaling, proposes that firms use standalone CSR Reports as a signal of their superior commitment to CSR, which suggests firms with stronger social and environmental records will be more likely to issue standalone CSR Reports as compared to those without. The second explanation, greenwashing, proposes that firms use standalone CSR Reports to pose as "good" corporate citizens even when they do not have stronger social and environmental records. To provide insight into these explanations we compare the CSR performance scores of firms that issue CSR reports to those firms that do not. We control for firm size, leverage, profitability and industry. We find that firms that voluntarily issue standalone CSR Reports generally have higher CSR performance scores, which suggests that firms are using voluntary CSR Reports to publicize stronger social and environmental records to stakeholders. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Prior research shows that after financial restatement, firms' corporate governance practices are strengthened (Farber, 2005; LaGore, 2008) as firms respond by increasing their disclosure practices and making executives more accountable (Arthaud-Day, Certo, Dalton, & Dalton, 2006). Nevertheless, it has not been established whether the impact of restatement extends to the domain of voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures. To address this question, we compare firms CSR scores and the association between executives' compensation and firms CSR scores before and after restatement. We use a sample of 44 U.S. firms in the two-year period before and after a financial restatement announcement. In firms that had undergone restatement, we found a significant increase in CSR strengths and CSR weaknesses that resulted in a net decrease in total CSR. In addition, we found a stronger association between bonus and CSR after restatement. This contributes by furthering our understanding by suggesting that voluntary CSR disclosures are indirectly impacted by restatement. Our findings are useful in understanding the pervasiveness of restatement on a firm's disclosures and operations and also in gaining insight into the comparability of CSR disclosures after restatement.

This study examines corporate social performance (CSP) in firms that restate their financial statements and, using a match pair design, compares their performance to firms that do not restate their financial statements. Utilizing a randomized block design (two years prior to the restatement and two years after the restatement) for a sample of 44 U.S. firms, we found that CSP Strengths, CSP Weaknesses, CSP People Strengths, and CSP People Weaknesses all increased after restatement though weaknesses increased at a greater rate than strengths. Additionally, using panel data and a match pair design we found, we found that restating firms had a greater increase in CSP Strengths, CSP Weaknesses, CSP Product Strengths, CSP People Strengths and a greater decrease in Total CSP People than non-restating firms after the restatement period. When comparing the relationships between CSP and financial performance (FP), we found that the positive relationship between ROA and CSP Strengths is greater for restatement firms than non-restating firms. In particular, we find that this positive relationship is a result of the People dimension of CSP, in particular CSP People Strengths.