Search

In recent years, the area of environmental information disclosure has been developing as a way for listed corporations in China to adopt the concept of social responsibility. There are views that proposals to legislate corporate social responsibility must depend on existing legal rules of securities and corporate law. However, the foundation of structuring a legal system on environmental information disclosure by listed corporations is essentially incompatible with the legislative aim of securities law, which mainly focuses on protecting investors. As a result, it is hard to coordinate environmental law and securities law to regulate environmental information disclosure of listed corporations. Moreover, rules on environmental information disclosure by listed corporations would trigger a clash of institutional goals between stockholder protection and stakeholder protection, creating further tension with existing corporate law: via the principle of fiduciary duty. Thus, there are visible institutional barriers to introduce a mandatory environmental information disclosure system for listed corporations via existing securities law and company law. It is not that simple to legislate corporate social responsibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

China's public enforcement regime has long been blamed for insufficiently and ineffectively deterring securities crime. We collect data on public enforcement outcomes from documents disclosed by listed firms and find that law enforcement outputs have increased significantly since 2011, thanks to the efforts of the China Securities Regulatory Commission's 38 regional offices. However, due to the lack of a reliable private enforcement regime and the limitations of monetary penalties, the general enforcement of securities law is still regarded as weak. In addition, there exists a salient pattern of selective enforcement. Privately owned listed firms face a harsher regulatory environment in terms of both the number and severity of sanctions from regulators, whereas state-owned, and particularly central-government-controlled firms enjoy the most favourable treatment, although the gap has been reduced in recent years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]