Solving the choice puzzle: Financial and non-financial stakeholders preferences in corporate disclosures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper delves into the relationship between accounting conservatism, valued by financial stakeholders, and corporate social performance (CSP), esteemed by non-financial stakeholders. This study assesses the potential impact of financial reporting practices, specifically accounting conservatism, on a firm’s CSP activities, which has significant implications for diverse stakeholders. Employing an accrual-based proxy for accounting conservatism and the social contribution value per share from the Shanghai Stock Exchange as a proxy for CSP, the study utilizes a sample of 25,490 year-company observations of A-share listed companies on China’s Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges spanning from 2008 to 2019. Empirical findings indicate a negative correlation between accounting conservatism and CSP. The study suggests that higher levels of social performance are associated with reduced conservatism in financial reporting, indicating that firms prioritize CSP over the interests of financial stakeholders by adopting less conservative financial reporting policies. Aligned with agency theory, these results underscore that socially responsible firms are less inclined to employ accounting conservatism in reporting earnings. This study establishes a connection between firms’ unconventional and less traditional activities, such as CSP, and conservative financial reporting, offering valuable insights for investors, analysts, and regulators. AcknowledgmentThis paper is co-funded by the European Union through the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) within the project “Embracing EU corporate social responsibility: challenges and opportunities of business-society bonds transformation in Ukraine” – 101094100 – EECORE – ERASMUS-JMO-2022-HEI-TCH-RSCH-UA-IBA / ERASMUS-JMO-2022-HEI-TCHRSCH https://eecore.snau.edu.ua/
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".