Cited by 547Corporate Social Responsibility ReportingEnvironmental Sustainability in BusinessCorporate Identity and Reputation

How firms respond to being rated

Open access
Chatterji, Aaron K., Toffel, Michael W.·2010·Strategic Management Journal

Abstract

While many rating systems seek to help buyers overcome information asymmetries when making purchasing decisions, we investigate how these ratings also influence the companies being rated. We hypothesize that ratings are particularly likely to spur responses from firms that receive poor ratings, and especially those that face lower‐cost opportunities to improve or that anticipate greater benefits from doing do. We test our hypotheses in the context of corporate environmental ratings that guide investors to select ‘socially responsible,’ and avoid ‘socially irresponsible,’ companies. We examine how several hundred firms responded to corporate environmental ratings issued by a prominent independent social rating agency, and take advantage of an exogenous shock that occurred when the agency expanded the scope of its ratings. Our study is among the first to theorize about the impact of ratings on subsequent performance, and we introduce important contingencies that influence firm response. These theoretical advances inform stakeholder theory, institutional theory, and economic theory. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/smj.840

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Organizations whose operations pose a greater risk to the environment are more likely to be heavily regulated and scrutinized by the state and will thus establish sophisticated reporting structures.

    “organizations whose operations pose a greater risk to the environment are more likely to be heavily regulated and scrutinized by the state (Bansal and Roth, 2000;Reid and Toffel, 2009;Chatterji and Toffel, 2010) and will thus establish sophisticated reporting structures and processes aimed at increasing the transparency of their operations and impacts (Lyon and Maxwell, 2011).”

    From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as Chatterji and Toffel, 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Toffel, Michael W.
Venue
Strategic Management Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07-06
Volume
31
Issue
9
Pages
917-945
ISSN
  • 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0266
OpenAlex
W3121378041
Cited by
547
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 23
FWCI
72.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Strategic Management Journal (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Identity and Reputation
Keywords
information asymmetry, socially responsible investment, firm performance, stakeholder theory, institutional theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review