An Analysis of CSR on Firm Financial Performance in Stakeholder Perspectives
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
2.1.1. The Definition of CSR and CSR Motivation
2.1.2. Stakeholder Perspectives on CSR
2.1.3. CSR and Performance
2.1.4. Strategic CSR
2.2. R&D
2.3. Technology Commercialization
3. Hypothesis and Operational Definition of Variables
3.1. Hypothesis
- H1:
- CSR is positively related to a firm’s performance.
- H1–1:
- Traditional CSR is positively related to a firm’s performance.
- H1–2:
- Strategic CSR is positively related to a firm’s performance.
- H2:
- R&D capacity is positively related to CSR.
- H2–1:
- Organizational learning is positively related to traditional CSR.
- H2–2:
- Organizational learning is positively related to strategic CSR.
- H2–3:
- R&D intensity is positively related to traditional CSR.
- H2–4:
- R&D intensity is positively related to strategic CSR.
- H2–5:
- Network externality is positively related to traditional CSR.
- H2–6:
- Network externality is positively related to strategic CSR.
- H3:
- Technology commercialization capacity is positively related to CSR.
- H3–1:
- Planning strategic technology capacity is positively related to traditional CSR.
- H3–2:
- Planning strategic technology capacity is positively related to strategic CSR.
- H3–3:
- Technology process capacity is positively related to traditional CSR.
- H3–4:
- Technology process capacity is positively related to strategic CSR.
- H3–5:
- Technical organization capacity is positively related to traditional CSR.
- H3–6:
- Technical organization capacity is positively related to strategic CSR.
- H4:
- CSR motivation is positively related to CSR.
- H4–1:
- Traditional CSR is positively related to the CSR’s internal motivation.
- H4–2:
- Traditional CSR is positively related to the CSR’s external motivation
- H4–3:
- Strategic CSR is positively related to the CSR’s internal motivation.
- H4–4:
- Strategic CSR is positively related to the CSR’s external motivation
3.2. Operational Definition of Variables
4. Research Methodology
4.1. Sample
4.2. Verification of the Validity and the Reliability of Variables
4.3. Verification of Hypothesis
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bowen, H.R. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman; Harper: New York, NY, USA, 1953. [Google Scholar]
- McGuire, J.; Sundgren, A.; Schneeweis, T. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1988, 31, 854–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, A.B. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus. Horiz. 1991, 34, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.J.; Paik, E.B.; Khulan, T. An Empirical Study on Shared Value Created by CSR Activities of Korean Corporations. Logos Manag. Rev. 2012, 10, 1–28. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.H.; Lee, K.W. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Accounting: Review and Future Direction. DAEHAN J. Bus. 2013, 26, 2397–2425. [Google Scholar]
- Donaldson, T.; Preston, L. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concept, evidence, and implications. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 65–91. [Google Scholar]
- Hillman, A.J.; Keim, G.D. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waddock, S.A.; Graves, S.B. The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 303–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, P.; Ferris, S.P. Agency conflict and corporate strategy: The effect of divestment on corporate value. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teoh, S.H.; Welch, I.; Wazzan, C.P. The Effect of socially activist investment policies on the financial markets: Evidence from the South African boycott. J. Bus. 1999, 72, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McWilliam, A.; Siegel, D. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 603–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fry, L.W.; Keim, G.D.; Meiers, R.E. Corporate contribution: Altruistic or for profit? Acad. Manag. J. 1982, 25, 92–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lantos, G.P. The Boundaries of Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 595–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84, 78–82. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Quester, P.; Thompson, B. Advertising and Promotion Leverage on Arts Sponsorship Effectiveness. J. Advert. Res. 2001, 41, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, S.; Vredenberg, H. Proactive Corporate Environmental Strategy and the Development of Competitively Valuable Capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 729–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byun, S.Y.; Kim, J.W. Strategic CSR and Corporate Performance in Korea and Japanese Corporations. Korean Acad. Int. Bus. 2011, 22, 83–110. [Google Scholar]
- Eiko, I. CSR Management Strategy; Toyo Keizai: Tokyo, Japan, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Zahra, S.; George, G. Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 185–203. [Google Scholar]
- Lucas, B.; Bell, S. Strategic Market Position and R&D Capability in Global Manufacturing Industries: Implications for Organizational Learning and Organizational Memory. Indus. Mark. Manag. 2000, 29, 565–574. [Google Scholar]
- Bell, M.; Albu, M. Knowledge Systems and Technological Dynamism in Industrial Clusters in Developing Countries. World Dev. 1999, 27, 1715–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yam, R.C.; Guan, J.C.; Pun, K.F.; Tang, E.P. An Audit of technological innovation capabilities in Chinese firms: Some empirical findings in Beijing, China. Res. Policy 2004, 31, 543–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hull, C.; Rothenberg, S. Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strateg. Manag. J. 2008, 29, 781–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padgett, R.; Galan, J. The Effect of R&D Intensity on Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 93, 407–419. [Google Scholar]
- Cooper, R.G. Winning at New Product; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Jolly, V.K. Commercializing New Technologies; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Goldsmith, R. Model of Commercialisation. 2003. Available online: http://asbdc.ualr.edu/technology/commercialization/the_model.asp (accessed on 15 September 2012).
- Nevens, T.M.; Summe, G.L.; Utta, B. Commercializing technology: What the best companies do? Harv. Bus. Rev. 1990, 18, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adler, P.S.; Shenbar, A. Adapting your technological base: The organizational challenge. Sloan Manag. Rev. 1990, 32, 25–37. [Google Scholar]
- Cooper, R.G.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. Winning business in product development: The critical success factors. Res.-Technol. Manag. 2007, 50, 52–66. [Google Scholar]
- Camison, C.; Villar-Lopez, A. Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 2891–2902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Creating Shared Value. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2011, 89, 4–17. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, W.M.; Levinthal, D.A. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 35, 128–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dutta, S.O.; Narasimhan, S.R. Success in High-Technology market: Is marketing capability critical? Mark. Sci. 1999, 18, 547–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagedoorn, J.; Schakenraad, J. A Comparison of Private and Subsidized R&D Partnerships in the European Information Technology Industry. J. Common Mark. Stud. 1993, 31, 373–390. [Google Scholar]
- Carroll, A.B. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1979, 4, 499–505. [Google Scholar]
- Maignan, I. Consumers’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. J. Bus. Ethics 2001, 30, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arora, P.; Dharwadkar, R. Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Moderating Roles of Attainment Discrepancy and Organization Slack. Corp. Gov.: Int. Rev. 2011, 19, 136–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Measurement Parameter | Researcher | |
---|---|---|---|
CSR Motivation | Internal Motivation | Charity contribution of a firm’s CEO Motivation provided by leaders of organizations Organizational network communication | Kim (2012) [22] |
External Motivation | Socio-environmental variable Government motive NGO motive | Kim (2012) [22] | |
Traditional CSR | Economic responsibility | Profit maximization Quality improvement Operating expense reduction Strategy for long-term growth | Carroll (1979) [3], Maignan (2001) [26] |
Legal responsibility | Law-abiding management Compliance to relevant laws Compliance with legal demands | ||
Ethical responsibility | General principles of ethics Ethical norms Effort for ethical trust | ||
Strategic CSR | Charitable responsibility | Donation Resolution of social problems Contribution to local community | Carroll (1991) [8] |
Socio-innovative responsibility | Re-recognition of product and market Redefine the productivity in the value chain Industrial cluster development for local community | Porter and Kramer (2006) [14] | |
R&D capacity | Organizational learning | Capacity to monitor technological trend continuously Capacity to absorb knowledge acquired externally Recognition of the importance of tactical knowledge (intangible knowledge) | Yam et al. (2004) [37], Cohen and Levinthal (1990) [11] |
R&D Intensity | Ratio of R&D investigation in total sales Ratio of R&D human resource in the total employees Expected R&D expenditure in accordance to growing sales | Yam et al. (2004) [37] Dutta et al. (1999) [13] | |
Network externality | Developing new markets through technological cooperation with external institutions Creation of synergy effect through technological cooperation with external institutions Effectiveness of technology cooperation with external institutions | Hagedoorn (1993) [20] | |
Technology commercialization capacity | Planning strategic technology capacity | Clear goal for technology commercialization Degree of understanding customer demand for developing new markets Benchmarking competitors | Nevens et al. (1990) [7] Cooper and Kleinschmidt (2007) [10] |
Technology process capacity | Standardized technology commercialization process Systemized feedback Staged management and risk management | ||
Technical organization capacity | Operation of specialized department for technology commercialization Degree of human resource participation in commercialization Collaboration for technological commercialization | ||
Financial Performance | Increased revenue Increased profit Increased growth rate trend | Arora (2011) [1] Byun(2011) [5] |
Features | Response Rate | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male (49.5%) | Female (50.5%) | |||
Age | 20 years (22.7%) | 30 years (23.1%) | 40 years (22.6%) | 50 years (31.6%) | |
Education | High school (9.4%) | University (76.4%) | Masters (9.9%) | Doctorate (4.3%) | |
Position | Deputy (52.8%) | Section chief (18.4%) | Deputy head of the department (9.5%) | Head of department (11.8%) | Board member (7.5%) |
Working Period | Less than 5 years (46.7%) | 5–10 years (22.2%) | 10–20 years (18.4%) | More than 20 years (12.7%) | |
Number of Employees | Less than 50 (27.8%) | 51–100 (15.1%) | 101–500 (30.2%) | More than 501 (26.9%) | |
Established Years of the Firm | Less than 10 (15.6%) | 10–20 (30.7%) | 20–30 (18.4%) | 30–40 (15.6%) | More than 40 (9.4%) |
Variable | Initial Question Number | Final Question Number | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s Alpha | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CSR motivation | Internal variable | 3 | 3 | 0.8082 0.8967 0.8845 | 0.8291 |
External variable | 3 | 3 | 0.7334 0.8595 0.8083 | 0.7204 | |
Traditional CSR | Economic responsibility | 4 | 2 | 0.7507 0.7047 | 0.7156 |
Legal responsibility | 4 | 4 | 0.8261 0.8094 0.7794 0.8117 | ||
Ethical responsibility | 4 | 3 | 0.8380 0.8328 0.8562 | ||
Strategic CSR | Charitable responsibility | 4 | 3 | 0.7308 0.7049 0.7096 | 0.8730 |
Socio-innovative responsibility | 3 | 3 | 0.7178 0.7144 0.7610 | ||
R&D capacity | Organizational learning | 3 | 3 | 0.8200 0.8658 0.8343 | 0.7915 |
R&D Intensity | 3 | 3 | 0.9162 0.9152 0.8927 | 0.8936 | |
Network externality | 3 | 3 | 0.7322 0.8943 0.9104 | 0.8927 | |
Technology commercialization capacity | Planning strategic technology capacity | 3 | 3 | 0.8708 0.8817 0.7121 | 0.7441 |
Technology process capacity | 4 | 4 | 0.8208 0.8992 0.8669 0.9005 | 0.8949 | |
Technical organization capacity | 3 | 3 | 0.8689 0.9283 0.8652 | 0.8653 | |
Financial Performance | 3 | 3 | 0.9021 0.9164 0.9153 | 0.8979 |
Hypothesis | Path Name | Coefficient | p-Value | Ad/Re |
---|---|---|---|---|
H1–1 H1–2 | Traditional CSR → Performance Strategic CSR → Performance | –0.4291 0.0316 | 0.018 0.864 | adopt reject |
H2–1 H2–2 H2–3 H2–4 H2–5 H2–6 | Organizational learning → Traditional CSR Organizational learning → Strategic CSR R&D Intensity → Traditional CSR R&D Intensity → Strategic CSR Network externality → Traditional CSR Network externality → Strategic CSR | 0.3297 0.0996 –0.1356 0.1332 0.0565 0.0609 | 0.000 0.096 0.024 0.010 0.334 0.206 | adopt adopt adopt adopt reject reject |
H3–1 H3–2 H3–3 H3–4 H3–5 H3–6 | Planning strategic technology→ Traditional CSR Planning strategic technology→ Strategic CSR Technology process → Traditional CSR Technology process → Strategic CSR Technical organization → Traditional CSR Technical organization → Strategic CSR | 0.3114 0.2406 –0.0870 –0.0312 –0.0937 0.0441 | 0.000 0.008 0.179 0.671 0.152 0.401 | adopt adopt reject reject reject reject |
H4–1 H4–2 H4–3 H4–4 | CSR Internal Motivation→ Traditional CSR CSR Internal Motivation → Strategic CSR CSR External Motivation → Traditional CSR CSR External Motivation → Strategic CSR | 0.4199 0.0945 –0.0241 0.4603 | 0.000 0.134 0.017 0.000 | adopt reject adopt adopt |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Oh, S.; Hong, A.; Hwang, J. An Analysis of CSR on Firm Financial Performance in Stakeholder Perspectives. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1023. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061023
Oh S, Hong A, Hwang J. An Analysis of CSR on Firm Financial Performance in Stakeholder Perspectives. Sustainability. 2017; 9(6):1023. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061023
Chicago/Turabian StyleOh, Seungwoo, Ahreum Hong, and Junseok Hwang. 2017. "An Analysis of CSR on Firm Financial Performance in Stakeholder Perspectives" Sustainability 9, no. 6: 1023. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061023