English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

From a theoretical point of view, corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure actions have associated a large list of benefits as a result of the lower information asymmetry problems that provoke firms to enjoy better financial conditions and higher market value. However, empirically there is no unanimity in the academy about these positive impacts. In this paper, we consider that the possible discretionary decision that managers could have in the elaboration of CSR reporting implies distrust about the credibility and utility of sustainability information. In this regard, the presence of independence in boards and directors that ensure better control of management decision could moderate the relationship between the quality of CSR reports and their benefits. Independent directors, in their decision-making process, associate their personal image, reputation, and career with CSR disclosures. For an international sample of analysis, our empirical evidence supports the premise that the market only positively assesses the utility and comparability of corporate social responsibility information, giving firms a superior value when there is a complementary mechanism that guarantees information credibility.

Does Capital Market Distrust CSR Reporting? Economic Benefits in Presence of Complementary Monitoring Mechanism