How Firms Respond to Being Rated

By Aaron K. Chatterji, Michael W. Toffel. 2010

516 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Marketing, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/56da09e5b678a58fa52d8769e42c4a8649369d51

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Marketing

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social Responsibility (2012, background): “Regarding firm environment, increased regulation (Chatterji & Toffel, 2010) was found to strengthen the CSR–outcome relationship.”
Corporate Social Responsibility, Noise, and Stock Market Volatility (2012, background): “The current literature already mentions independent rating agencies as a mechanism that reduces information asymmetry (e.g., Chatterji & Toffel, 2010; Doh et al., 2010).”
Movements, Markets and Fields: The Effects of Anti-Sweatshop Campaigns on U.S. Firms, 1993–2000 (2011, background): “Vogel 2005), and recent research shows that KLD ratings, when negative, can generate powerful incentives for change (”
Corporate Social Responsibility and Access to Finance (2012, background): “Importantly, the results remain unchanged when we use the introduction of ESG ratings as a shock to CSR performance (Chatterji and Toffel, 2010) and subsequently investigate changes in the CSR Index and capital constraints for a paired sample of firms.”
When Does It Pay to be Good? Moderators and Mediators in the Corporate Sustainability–Corporate Financial Performance Relationship: A Critical Review (2017, background): “A commonly used explanation is that external third-party ratings are more reliable and transparent (Chatterji et al. 2009; Chatterji and Toffel 2010), whereas perceptual and disclosure-based information is labeled as being subjective (Cochran and Wood 1984).”
Information, Attention, and Decision Making (2015, background): “Organizations also respond to being rated by stakeholders (e.g., Chatterji & Toffel, 2010), and likely shift their behaviors in a more dynamic manner.”
Measuring the level and risk of corporate responsibility – An empirical comparison of different ESG rating approaches (2015, background): “Chatterji and Toffel (2010) discover that firms and their managers react on being rated.”
The Effects of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Attitudes (2014, methodology): “The majority of measures of CSR have been conducted using aggregate measures such as KLD (Chatterji & Toffel, 2010; Waddock, 2003).”