IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/corsem/v30y2023i5p2304-2314.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of supplier cost stickiness on environmental, social, and governance: Moderating role of customer bargaining power

Author

Listed:
  • Li‐Yu Chen
  • Teng‐Shih Wang

Abstract

Firms with high selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) cost stickiness may maintain environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance, and customer firms that account for a large proportion of supplier firms' sales (main customers) have considerable bargaining power regarding sales terms. In this study, we examine the effect of SG&A cost stickiness of supplier firms on their ESG performance. We further examine the moderating effect of a customer's bargaining power on the relationship between cost stickiness and ESG performance. The findings reveal that supplier firms with high cost stickiness have higher ESG performance, whereas supplier firms with main customers have lower ESG investments. The influence of main customer firms mitigates the positive relationship between the SG&A cost stickiness and ESG investment of supplier firms. In additional analysis, we obtain consistent conclusions for large firms and firms with high production efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Li‐Yu Chen & Teng‐Shih Wang, 2023. "Effect of supplier cost stickiness on environmental, social, and governance: Moderating role of customer bargaining power," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 2304-2314, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:corsem:v:30:y:2023:i:5:p:2304-2314
    DOI: 10.1002/csr.2485
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2485
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/csr.2485?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shameek Konar & Mark A. Cohen, 2001. "Does The Market Value Environmental Performance?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(2), pages 281-289, May.
    2. Michel A. Habib & Alexander Ljungqvist, 2005. "Firm Value and Managerial Incentives: A Stochastic Frontier Approach," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(6), pages 2053-2094, November.
    3. Fatemi, Ali & Fooladi, Iraj & Tehranian, Hassan, 2015. "Valuation effects of corporate social responsibility," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 182-192.
    4. Samuel Drempetic & Christian Klein & Bernhard Zwergel, 2020. "The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(2), pages 333-360, November.
    5. Itay Kama & Dan Weiss, 2013. "Do Earnings Targets and Managerial Incentives Affect Sticky Costs?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 201-224, March.
    6. Mark C. Anderson & Rajiv D. Banker & Surya N. Janakiraman, 2003. "Are Selling, General, and Administrative Costs “Sticky”?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 47-63, March.
    7. Itzkowitz, Jennifer, 2013. "Customers and cash: How relationships affect suppliers' cash holdings," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 159-180.
    8. Nekhili, Mehdi & Nagati, Haithem & Chtioui, Tawhid & Rebolledo, Claudia, 2017. "Corporate social responsibility disclosure and market value: Family versus nonfamily firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 41-52.
    9. Xiaotao (Kelvin) Liu & Xiaoxia Liu & Colin D. Reid, 2019. "Stakeholder Orientations and Cost Management," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 486-512, March.
    10. Dorothée Baumann-Pauly & Christopher Wickert & Laura Spence & Andreas Scherer, 2013. "Organizing Corporate Social Responsibility in Small and Large Firms: Size Matters," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(4), pages 693-705, July.
    11. Clara Xiaoling Chen & Hai Lu & Theodore Sougiannis, 2012. "The Agency Problem, Corporate Governance, and the Asymmetrical Behavior of Selling, General, and Administrative Costs," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 252-282, March.
    12. Bocquet, Rachel & Le Bas, Christian & Mothe, Caroline & Poussing, Nicolas, 2013. "Are firms with different CSR profiles equally innovative? Empirical analysis with survey data," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 642-654.
    13. Hui, Kai Wai & Klasa, Sandy & Yeung, P. Eric, 2012. "Corporate suppliers and customers and accounting conservatism," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 115-135.
    14. Nguyen, Giao X. & Swanson, Peggy E., 2009. "Firm Characteristics, Relative Efficiency, and Equity Returns," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 213-236, February.
    15. Jacob Hörisch & Matthew P. Johnson & Stefan Schaltegger, 2015. "Implementation of Sustainability Management and Company Size: A Knowledge‐Based View," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(8), pages 765-779, December.
    16. Broadstock, David C. & Matousek, Roman & Meyer, Martin & Tzeremes, Nickolaos G., 2020. "Does corporate social responsibility impact firms' innovation capacity? The indirect link between environmental & social governance implementation and innovation performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 99-110.
    17. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    18. repec:hal:journl:hal-00918528 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Nicole Darnall & Irene Henriques & Perry Sadorsky, 2010. "Adopting Proactive Environmental Strategy: The Influence of Stakeholders and Firm Size," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(6), pages 1072-1094, September.
    20. repec:hal:journl:hal-02311990 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Jordi Surroca & Josep A. Tribó & Sandra Waddock, 2010. "Corporate responsibility and financial performance: the role of intangible resources," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 463-490, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anrafel de Souza Barbosa & Maria Cristina Crispim & Luiz Bueno da Silva & Jonhatan Magno Norte da Silva & Aglaucibelly Maciel Barbosa & Sandra Naomi Morioka, 2024. "How can organizations measure the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria? Validation of an instrument using item response theory to capture workers' perception," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 3607-3634, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Li, Tongxia & Lu, Chun, 2022. "Stakeholder orientation and cost stickiness: Evidence from a natural experiment," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 47(PA).
    2. Li, Tongxia & Lu, Chun & Chen, Zhihua, 2023. "The unintended consequence of collateral-based financing: Evidence from corporate cost behavior," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1).
    3. Mabel D. Costa & Ahsan Habib, 2021. "Trade credit and cost stickiness," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(1), pages 1139-1179, March.
    4. Ting Qian & Caoyuan Yang, 2023. "State-Owned Equity Participation and Corporations’ ESG Performance in China: The Mediating Role of Top Management Incentives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, July.
    5. Wulung Li & Ramachandran Natarajan & Yan Zhao & Kenneth Zheng, 2021. "The effect of management control mechanisms through risk-taking incentives on asymmetric cost behavior," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 219-243, January.
    6. Xiaotao (Kelvin) Liu & Xiaoxia Liu & Colin D. Reid, 2019. "Stakeholder Orientations and Cost Management," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 486-512, March.
    7. Wei Huang & Jaehyeon Kim, 2020. "Linguistically Induced Time Perception and Asymmetric Cost Behavior," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 60(5), pages 755-785, October.
    8. Peng Liang & Hasan Cavusoglu & Nan Hu, 2023. "Customers’ managerial expectations and suppliers’ asymmetric cost management," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(6), pages 1975-1993, June.
    9. Ibrahim, Awad Elsayed Awad & Ali, Hesham & Aboelkheir, Heba, 2022. "Cost stickiness: A systematic literature review of 27 years of research and a future research agenda," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    10. Sven Hartlieb & Thomas R. Loy, 2022. "The impact of cost stickiness on financial reporting: evidence from income smoothing," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(3), pages 3913-3950, September.
    11. Xin, Xianyang & Wong, Jin Boon & Hasan, Mostafa Monzur, 2021. "Stakeholder orientation and cost stickiness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    12. Namitha, Chakkappanthodiyil & Shijin, Santhakumar, 2016. "Managerial discretion and agency cost in Indian market," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 159-169.
    13. Long, Zhineng & Xuan, Wenshuang & Zhang, Yanyu, 2023. "The dilemma of hometown identity: Evidence from Chinese corporate cost behavior," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    14. Josep Mª. Argilés‐Bosch & Josep Garcia‐Blandón & Diego Ravenda, 2023. "Empirical analysis of the relationship between labour cost stickiness and labour reforms in Spain," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(S1), pages 1187-1221, April.
    15. Steffen Maas & Tassilo Schuster & Evi Hartmann, 2018. "Stakeholder Pressures, Environmental Practice Adoption and Economic Performance in the German Third-party Logistics Industry—A Contingency Perspective," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 88(2), pages 167-201, February.
    16. Costa, Mabel D’ & Opare, Solomon, 2022. "Cost asymmetry around seasoned equity offerings," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    17. Ahsan Habib & Mabel D Costa, 2022. "Cost stickiness and stock price crash risk," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(4), pages 4247-4278, December.
    18. Naoum, Vasilios-Christos & Ntounis, Dimitrios & Papanastasopoulos, Georgios & Vlismas, Orestes, 2023. "Asymmetric cost behavior: Theory, meta-analysis, and implications," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    19. Josep Mª Argilés-Bosch & Josep García-Blandón & Diego Ravenda & Maika M. Valencia-Silva & Antonio D. Somoza, 2017. "The influence of the trade-off between profitability and future increases in sales on cost stickiness," Estudios de Economia, University of Chile, Department of Economics, vol. 44(1 Year 20), pages 81-104, June.
    20. Thomas Guenther & Anja Riehl & Richard Rößler, 2014. "Cost stickiness: state of the art of research and implications," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 301-318, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:corsem:v:30:y:2023:i:5:p:2304-2314. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1535-3966 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.