Dr Sudipta Bose

This study examines the relationship between CEO power and corporate climate change disclosure and the moderating role of internal and external monitoring in this relationship. Using a sample of 3,512 United States firm-year observations, we find that firms with more powerful CEOs disclose less climate change information. However, this negative relationship is mitigated in firms with higher institutional ownership, greater financial analyst coverage, and stronger internal governance. Our results remain robust across a series of tests designed to address both observable and unobservable selection biases, as well as omitted variable biases. Further analysis reveals that reduced firm-level transparency is an underlying channel through which CEO power diminishes climate change disclosures. Additionally, we document that climate change disclosure acts as an underlying mechanism linking CEO power to firm value. The findings of our study have important implications for regulators, policymakers, researchers, investors, analysts, and company management, especially in the context of increasing regulatory pressure on firms to enhance their climate change disclosures.

We examine the value-relevance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) expenditure utilizing the Indian setting of mandatory CSR spending regulation which commenced in 2014. India is the only country where regulators mandate both CSR reporting and spending. Our interest is in two types of firms that meet the minimum specified thresholds: firms that voluntarily made CSR expenditures pre-regulation (voluntary spenders) and firms that did not (forced spenders). This separation in revealed preference allows researchers and investors to observe, at least on average, a firm's true CSR strategy type (proactive/leader versus reactive/follower) through their pre-regulation expenditure strategy. This unique quasi-experimental setting allows us to investigate whether CSR spending is positively associated with shareholders' value, both when spending was voluntary pre-regulation (for voluntary spenders) and after it became mandatory post-regulation (for voluntary and forced spenders). We find that for voluntary spenders, the markets assess CSR expenditure as valuation-enhancing pre-regulation, but post-regulation the valuation benefits are significantly weakened. The market's assessment is that a forced spender's (imposed) CSR expenditure is, on average, less valuable than that of voluntary spenders, consistent with such spending being viewed as a form of corporate taxation. Further, we find that shortfalls from the required spending amount are penalized by the market for voluntary spenders but rewarded for forced spenders. We also find that advertising appears to play an important communication role both pre- and post-regulation. We view the results as being consistent with the notion that mandated expenditures are viewed differently than those made voluntarily.

Research Question/Issue: We examine the association between foreign institutional ownership and climate change disclosure quality from 2006 to 2018 across 34 countries. We find that firms with a higher level of foreign institutional ownership demonstrate better quality climate change disclosures, whereas domestic institutional ownership has immaterial impacts on such disclosures. We utilize a difference-in-differences (DiD) analysis using a firm's addition to the Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) index as an exogenous shock to control for endogeneity. Our findings are robust to various other endogeneity controls. We also establish evidence on an indirect effect of climate change disclosure quality in mediating the positive association between foreign institutional investors and firm valuation. Research Findings/Insights: We find that the positive association between foreign institutional ownership and climate change disclosure quality is more pronounced for (1) firms domiciled in stakeholder-orientated countries, (2) firms domiciled in countries that adopt emission trading schemes, and (3) firms with a greater level of information asymmetry. Additionally, our results are more robust when foreign investors are domiciled in countries that care more about the environment. Theoretical/Academic Implications: Our study contributes to climate change disclosures, corporate governance, and international business literature by showing that foreign rather than domestic institutional investors contribute to improved corporate climate change disclosure quality in their portfolio firms. Practitioner/Policy Implications: Our study urges regulators to increase their market oversight, especially in firms with less foreign institutional ownership. This is required because such firms are prone to exhibiting poorer accountability for their climate risk management practices, and their disclosures are bereft of effective external monitoring mechanisms.

In the aftermath of World War II, Western nations witnessed unprecedented growth in university enrollments, particularly in business schools, driven by the expansion of the publicly funded higher education system. This growth has prompted higher education providers to re-evaluate the critical role of student satisfaction in shaping learning, engagement, and overall institutional success. While the impact of student satisfaction on engagement and academic outcomes is well documented, its influence on broader university enrollments remains underexplored. Using longitudinal data from the Australian Government-funded Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT) surveys and universities' annual reports (2012-2017), we find that universities with higher student satisfaction show significantly higher enrollment rates. Moreover, the positive impact of student satisfaction on enrollment is more pronounced in metropolitan universities. Beyond contributing to social justice theory, this study provides actionable insights for government and higher education management to improve equitable access to higher education and reduce social disparities through strategically allocating resources, capabilities, and support services.

We examine the impact of COVID-19 on changes in firm value, and the moderating role of firm-level sustainability performance on this relationship. We find that firms domiciled in countries where the COVID-19 impact is more devastating experienced greater decline in firm value. The negative impact of COVID-19 on firm value is less pronounced for firms with better sustainability performance. Firms domiciled in countries with higher levels of environmental- and stakeholder-value-oriented culture experienced less decline in firm value from the impact of COVID-19. Findings suggest a firm's stakeholder-value orientation contributes to preserving a firm's value when general stakeholder value declines.