We provide the first evidence that conflicts of interest arising from commercial ties lead to bias in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings. Using the acquisitions of Vigeo Eiris and RobecoSAM by Moody's and S&P as shocks to the commercial ties between ESG rating agencies and their rated firms, we show that, after their acquisitions by the credit rating agencies (CRAs), ESG rating agencies issue higher ratings to existing paying clients of the CRAs. This effect is greater for firms that have more intensive business relationships with the CRAs, but weaker for firms with more transparent ESG disclosures or higher long‐term institutional ownership. The upwardly biased ESG ratings help client firms issue more green bonds and enable the CRAs to maintain credit rating business. Finally, the upwardly biased ESG ratings are less informative of future ESG news. Overall, the business incentives of rating providers appear to engender ESG rating bias.

Using the staggered adoption of universal demand (UD) laws in the United States, we study the effect of shareholder litigation risk on corporate disclosure. We find that disclosure significantly increases after UD laws make it more difficult to file derivative lawsuits. Specifically, firms issue more earnings forecasts and voluntary 8‐K filings, and increase the length of management discussion and analysis (MD&A) in their 10‐K filings. We further assess the direct and indirect channels through which UD laws affect firms' disclosure policies. We find that the effect of UD laws on corporate disclosure is driven by firms facing relatively higher ex ante derivative litigation risk and higher operating uncertainty, as well as firms for which shareholder litigation is a more important mechanism to discipline managers.

Against the backdrop of an increasing threat of misinformation on social media, several countries have enacted regulations to curb the spread of misinformation. This study examines how corporate social media strategy responds to misinformation regulations. Using a large cross-country dataset of corporate tweets and a stacked regression analysis, we show that misinformation regulations lead to less corporate social media disclosure. This result suggests that, by deterring misinformation, these regulations reduce firms’ need to use social media to counteract its adverse effects. Additional analyses show that the effect strengthens among countries with higher social media usage and those with stronger investor protection but weakens for firms with stronger information environments. Finally, we provide direct evidence that firms post fewer tweets refuting misinformation about themselves following the enactment of these regulations.

We examine how common institutional investors (CIIs) facilitate the financial reporting comparability (FRC) of US firms. Common ownership increases FRC of firms that are directly owned by CIIs (via a direct effect) and has positive spillover effects on other firms in the same industry. We find spillover effects in two types of firms: (1) those that are commonly owned by different institutional investors but are connected through common firms, and (2) those that do not have any common ownership. These results suggest that the effect of common ownership goes beyond commonly owned firms and extends to non‐commonly owned firms. Furthermore, we find two mechanisms for the direct and spillover effects of common ownership on reporting comparability: firms' hiring of common auditors and their adoption of similar accounting practices. Overall, we provide comprehensive evidence on how common institutional ownership benefits the comparability of financial reporting in the United States.

Using data on the registration of clinical trials and the disclosure of trial results, we examine how firms respond to peer disclosures. We find that firms are less likely to disclose their own trial results if the results of a larger number of closely related trials are disclosed by their peers. This relation is stronger if the firms face higher competition (as measured by the number of competing trials). It is weaker if the firms are further along in their research than the peers (as measured by the trials’ phase) and if the peers’ disclosures convey more negative news (as measured by the firms’ stock price reaction). We also find that firms are more likely to abandon ongoing trials if a larger number of peers disclose the results of closely related trials. Additional tests suggest that this real effects channel does not drive the impact on the firms’ disclosure decisions. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.

We examine the relation between accounting quality and debt concentration in corporate capital structures (i.e., firms' tendency to rely predominantly on only a few types of debt). Motivated by theoretical and empirical research that supports a strong link between debt concentration and creditors' coordination costs and the importance of accounting quality in reducing these costs, we hypothesize that firms with higher accounting quality have less concentrated debt structures. Measuring accounting quality with a comprehensive index based on the occurrence of material internal control weaknesses, accounting restatements, SEC AAERs, and firms' reliance on small auditors, we find that higher accounting quality is indeed associated with less concentrated debt structures. This relation is stronger for firms with higher default risk, as the probability that creditors need to coordinate is higher, and for firms with lower liquidation values, as creditor coordination to avoid liquidation is more important. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.