We propose that corporations should be subject to a legal obligation to identify and internalise their social costs or negative externalities. Our proposal reframes corporate social responsibility (CSR) as obligated internalisation of social costs, and relies on reflexive governance through mandated hybrid fora. We argue that our approach advances theory, as well as practice and policy, by building on and going beyond prior attempts to address social costs, such as prescriptive government regulation, Coasian bargaining and political CSR.

We investigate firm‐level determinants of capital structure using a large sample of 4,284 Japanese firms over a 19‐year period (i.e., over 61,000 firm‐year observations), a hitherto less examined sample for this purpose. We conduct our analysis and interpret our findings predominantly within the pecking order, the trade‐off and the agency theoretical frameworks. We uncover three new findings. First, our evidence indicates that insights derived from the extant literature on capital structure are cross‐national and are applicable in the context of Japan, despite the unique characteristics of Japanese firms. Second, financial crisis significantly impacts the relationship between leverage and firm‐level determinants, particularly accentuating the effect of asset tangibility and growth. Third, product market competition significantly impacts the observed relationship between firm‐level determinants and leverage. Our results are robust, controlling for the joint effects of competition and crisis.

This study investigates the pivotal policy question of whether a firm’s corporate governance influences its political spending disclosures. Using a sample of S&P 500 firms from 2011 to 2019, we find empirical evidence that a board of directors’ monitoring and resource provision roles affect a firm’s political spending disclosure. Extending agency theory-driven expectations, we provide evidence that measures of a board’s monitoring role such as female monitoring directors, shorter board tenure, audit committee size, audit committee meetings, and audit committee education enhance a firm’s political spending disclosures. Second, drawing from resource dependence theory and examining a board’s resource provisions, we find evidence that female advisory directors, CEO duality, additional directorships, and audit committee characteristics (i.e., size, number of meetings, age, and education) promote political spending disclosures. The study contributes to corporate governance and corporate political activity literatures by outlining different types of governance that may drive a firm’s political spending disclosures, a key component of a firm’s political responsibility.

This study examines the link between ownership structure and political spending disclosure (PSD). We break down ownership into four different groups of shareholders: institutional, insider, governmental and foreign. Using a unique dataset provided by CPA-Zicklin for PSD and a panel dataset from S&P 500 companies between 2015 and 2018, our results reveal that institutional and governmental ownership are positively associated with the level of PSD, while insider ownership is negatively associated with the level of PSD. Additionally, while prior literature mainly investigated how ownership structure influences disclosure practices, we analyse the mechanisms through which ownership characteristics influence PSD. Our cross-sectional tests provide evidence that insider owners exhibit more PSD if they are pursing tax-related lobbying expenses and tax avoidance practices. Additionally, governmental owners demand lower PSD in firms with higher nonfinancial and financial reporting quality. Finally, institutional owners demand more PSD in the case of lower industry concentration. Overall, we conclude that different owners have distinct impacts and preferences on a firm's political strategy and various mechanisms uniquely operationalise the interactions between different owners and political transparency. Through agency theory, our results advance heated debates on PSD – an emerging, yet hitherto less examined, category of voluntary disclosure.

This study explores the relationship between overconfident Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) and earnings management. Through the lens of upper echelons and overconfidence theories, and using a large sample of 14,156 observations of US firms from 1999 to 2021 inclusive, our study finds that overconfident CFOs are positively associated with earnings management. We show that overconfident CFOs use earnings management to reduce earnings volatility, given that a smooth performance can release their financing pressure. In doing this, we rule out another possible explanation of overconfident CFOs engaging in earnings management to pursue high compensation. Our findings pass a series of robustness tests, including entropy balancing, the Difference-in-Differences test based on the propensity score matching sample (PSM-DID), and alternative measures of main variables. Our study provides a new determinant of earnings management that has more explanatory power than CFO demographic traits – i.e. CFO cognitive biases. Our findings nonetheless show the “bright” side of CFO overconfidence, helping investors, regulators, and policymakers understand overconfident CFOs’ financial reporting decisions.