The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Truth-telling by Third-party Auditors and the Response of Polluting Firms: Experimental Evidence from India*
Abstract
In many regulated markets, private, third-party auditors are chosen and paid by the firms that they audit, potentially creating a conflict of interest. This article reports on a two-year field experiment in the Indian state of Gujarat that sought to curb such a conflict by altering the market structure for environmental audits of industrial plants to incentivize accurate reporting. There are three main results. First, the status quo system was largely corrupted, with auditors systematically reporting plant emissions just below the standard, although true emissions were typically higher. Second, the treatment caused auditors to report more truthfully and very significantly lowered the fraction of plants that were falsely reported as compliant with pollution standards. Third, treatment plants, in turn, reduced their pollution emissions. The results suggest reformed incentives for third-party auditors can improve their reporting and make regulation more effective.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
Cited by
The Lancet Commission on pollution and health
Landrigan, P. J., Fuller, R., Acosta, N. J. R., Adeyi, O., Arnold, R., Basu, N. (., Baldé, A. B., Bertollini, R., Bose-O'Reilly, S., Boufford, J. I., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32345-0 · Cited by 4,929
Self-citationCorporate Governance and Pollution Externalities of Public and Private Firms*
Shive, S. A., & Forster, M. M. (2020) · The Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhz079 · Cited by 343
Envirodevonomics: A Research Agenda for an Emerging Field
Greenstone, M., & Jack, B. K. (2015) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.53.1.5 · Cited by 300
Self-citationPromises and Perils of Pre-Analysis Plans
Olken, B. A. (2015) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.29.3.61 · Cited by 299
Auditing large language models: a three-layered approach
Mökander, J., Schuett, J., Kirk, H. R., & Floridi, L. (2024) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00289-2 · Cited by 289
Metadata
- Authors
- Duflo, E., Greenstone, M., Pande, R., & Ryan, N.
- Venue
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-09-26
- Volume
- 128
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1499-1545
- ISSN
- 0033-5533 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-4650
- OpenAlex
- W2081446015
- Cited by
- 511
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 59.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Truth-telling by Third-party Auditors and the Response of Polluting Firms: Experimental Evidence from India*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/qje/qjt024
- The paper
- Duflo, E., Greenstone, M., Pande, R., & Ryan, N. (2013). Truth-telling by Third-party Auditors and the Response of Polluting Firms: Experimental Evidence from India*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjt024
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.