Regulators have increasingly mandated firms to promptly disclose material cybersecurity incidents upon discovering these incidents. We find suggestive evidence indicating that some firms manipulate the discovery date (“misreport”) of a cybersecurity incident to postpone the disclosure of the incident, as evidenced by a pronounced spike in insider sales before the reported discovery date. We also find that misreporting is more prevalent among firms with weak internal control systems, when firms face low litigation risk, and when firms have greater pressure to meet a disclosure deadline. Further, firms suspected of misreporting tend to disclose their remedial actions and assert the restoration of business, mitigating negative market reactions upon disclosure of incidents. Collectively, our results suggest that firms might strategically misreport information about a cybersecurity incident to delay disclosure to gain additional time for remedial actions, which helps them prevent exposing vulnerabilities to malicious actors and alleviate stakeholder anxiety.
Using a novel measure that captures negative ESG incidents at both listed and private suppliers, we provide large-scale evidence on the value implications of supply chain ESG. We find that firms with fewer supply chain ESG incidents exhibit higher future accounting performance and that this effect is stronger in the presence of more conscious customers and vulnerable supply chains. We also find that firms with robust supply chain ESG exhibit higher future stock returns and that this effect is more pronounced when information frictions are higher, which suggests that it takes time for the market to understand the value implications of supply chain ESG. Overall, we highlight the benefits of managing supply chain ESG and the decision usefulness of the related information.