Search results

The purpose of this paper is to understand differences between open-book accounting (OBA) using static prices and OBA using dynamic prices. The authors identify how these differences influence various aspects of customer–supplier relationships.

This paper is based on a case study involving a builders’ merchant and a wood manufacturer in the UK. The builders’ merchant under discussion has recently outsourced part of its production to the aforementioned wood manufacturer by using OBA with dynamic prices. For this case study, the authors have conducted interviews with multiple people from both parties in the agreement. Additional illustrative cases are provided through a study of other qualitative papers on OBA.

The authors find evidence supporting that, when dynamic prices are used in OBA, risk (unpredictability) is shifted from the supplier to the customer. Also, the customer frequently focuses on the supplier’s costs, both parties often aim for a long-term relationship and the customer becomes more dependent on the supplier, causing high interdependence. Furthermore, empirical evidence suggests that the customer finds price less important, and the reallocation of activities between the customer and supplier is easier in OBA setups in which dynamic prices are used.

This paper provides the first study of how differences between dynamic and static prices in OBA influence the customer–supplier relationship. This paper adds to the developing literature on OBA, in particular, as well as to literature on pricing, in general.

Despite the increasing demand for socially responsible investments (SRIs) and the importance of information intermediaries in providing corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance information through SRI screens, relatively little is known about the relationship between nonprofessional investors’ views regarding SRI, their use of SRI screens and their actual SRI behavior. This study aims to distinguish between investor views about the importance of corporate environmental responsibility (environmental performance importance views) and whether they view environmentally responsible firms as yielding higher returns (environmental performance return views). It examines the association between these views, SRI screen use and reported SRI holdings.

Nonprofessional investor participants completed an online survey about their SRI investment views, screen use and investment behavior. The survey yielded 201 usable responses.

The strength of participants’ environmental performance importance and environmental performance return views is positively associated with their use of SRI screens and the proportion of their portfolios held in SRIs. SRI screen use only partially mediates the association between investors’ environmental performance importance and return views and their SRI holdings.

The study does not precisely address what types of SRI screens nonprofessional investors may be using. It does not control for investors’ specific experience with SRIs, nor does it examine how or why investors come to believe that environmental responsibility may improve a company’s return potential.

The fact that SRI screen use only partially mediates the association between investors’ views and their SRI holdings suggests that either reliable, unfiltered CSR information is important for nonprofessional investors or some investors are choosing SRIs without obtaining adequate relevant information.

The study’s findings confirm earlier research findings which show an association between investors’ pro-environmental views and their decision to invest in SRIs (Williams, 2007; Nilsson, 2008) and suggest that nonprofessional investors are becoming aware of the positive relation between environmental performance and firm value (Dhaliwal et al., 2011; Clarkson et al., 2013; Hawn et al., 2014; Matsumura et al., 2014).

This study simultaneously examines the influence of environmental performance importance (an “alternative” investment perspective) and environmental performance return (a “traditional” investment perspective) on investors’ SRI behavior.