Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance in GCC Countries: A Panel Smooth Transition Regression Model
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility
2.2. CSR and Firm Performance
2.2.1. Positive Effects of CSR on Business Performance
2.2.2. Negative Effects of CSR on Business Performance
2.2.3. Neutral Effects of CSR on Business Performance
2.2.4. Mixed Effects of CSR on Business Performance
3. Empirical Analysis
3.1. Data
3.2. Dependent, Independent, and Control Variables’ Measurements
3.2.1. The Dependent Variable
3.2.2. The Independent Variables
3.2.3. The Control Variables
3.3. The Econometric Methodology
4. Results and Discussions
4.1. Results of the Homogeneity Test
4.2. Descriptive Statistics
4.3. Correlation Matrix
4.4. Results and Discusions of the PSTR Model
5. Robustness Tests
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
GMM | GMM | FE | FE | |
LagROA | 0.698 *** | 0.778 *** | ||
(0.000) | (0.000) | |||
CSR | −0.071 * | −0.023 ** | ||
(0.065) | (0.026) | |||
CSR2 | 0.091 ** | 0.081 ** | ||
(0.043) | (0.039) | |||
ENV-CSR | −0.031 * | −0.093 *** | ||
(0.056) | (0.006) | |||
ENV-CSR2 | 0.156 *** | 0.101 *** | ||
(0.001) | (0.000) | |||
SOCIAL- CSR | −0.025 * | −0.027 ** | ||
(0.064) | (0.017) | |||
SOCIAL-CSR2 | 0.034 * | 0.048 ** | ||
(0.067) | (0.020) | |||
GOV-CSR | −0.021 * | −0.043 *** | ||
(0.060) | (0.005) | |||
GOV-CSR2 | 0.074 ** | 0.068 ** | ||
(0.037) | (0.021) | |||
Leverage | −0.102 *** | −0.242 *** | −0.167 *** | −0.197 *** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
Sales-growth | 0.075 *** | 0.065 *** | 0.098 *** | 0.058 |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
Tangible | −0.021 ** | −0.061 ** | −0.022 | −0.032 |
(0.018) | (0.017) | (0.806) | (0.917) | |
Size | 0.010 *** | 0.020 *** | 0.033 *** | 0.021 *** |
(0.004) | (0.002) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
Constant | −1.200 *** | −1.200 *** | −2.098 *** | −2.098 *** |
(0.006) | (0.006) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
N. of Obs. | 420 | 420 | 420 | 420 |
Instruments Hansen: p-value a AR(1): p-value b AR(2): p-value c | 15 0.325 0.000 0.228 | 15 0.325 0.000 0.228 |
Appendix B
(1) | (2) | |
---|---|---|
ROA | ROA | |
LagROA | 0.542 *** | 0.542 *** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | |
CSR | −0.041 * | |
(0.055) | ||
CSR× g (.) | 0.071 ** | |
(0.046) | ||
ENV-CSR | −0.032 * | |
(0.082) | ||
ENV-CSR× g (.) | 0.079 *** | |
(0.000) | ||
SOCIAL- CSR | −0.035 ** | |
(0.010) | ||
SOCIAL-CSR× g (.) | 0.052 ** | |
(0.032) | ||
GOV-CSR | −0.026 * | |
(0.0762) | ||
GOV-CSR× g (.) | 0.059 ** | |
(0.030) | ||
Leverage | −0.312 * | −0.317 |
(0.074) | (0.123) | |
Sales-growth | 0.044 *** | 0.086 |
(0.001) | (0.142) | |
Tangible | −0.122 ** | −0.123 ** |
(0.020) | (0.046) | |
Size | 0.040 * | 0.045* |
(0.076) | (0.084) | |
Age | 0.064 *** | 0.074 *** |
(0.003) | (0.002) | |
Employee | 0.011 | 0.010* |
(0.124) | (0.083) | |
Transition parameters | ||
CSR (c1,1) | 44.34 *** | |
(0.004) | ||
CSR (γ) | 34.34 (0.873) | |
ENV-CSR (c1,1) | 41.32 *** | |
(0.003) | ||
ENV-CSR (γ) | 30.24 (0.773) | |
SOCIAL-CSR (c1,1) | 46.12 ** | |
(0.023) | ||
SOCIAL-CSR (γ) | 32.97 (0.673) | |
GOV-CSR (c1,1) | 39.11 * | |
(0.082) | ||
GOV-CSR (γ) | 31.66 (0.674) | |
AIC criterion | −0.329 | −0.329 |
N. of Obs. | 420 | 420 |
References
- Broadstock, D.C.; Chan, K.; Cheng, L.T.; Wang, X. The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 in China. Finance Res. Lett. 2020, 38, 101716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- El Khoury, R.; Nasrallah, N.; Alareeni, B. ESG and financial performance of banks in the MENAT region: Concavity–convexity patterns. J. Sustain. Finance Investig. 2021, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, H.B.; Hail, L.; Leuz, C. Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review. Rev. Account. Stud. 2021, 26, 1176–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linnenluecke, M.K. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance in the context of multinational business research. Multinatl. Bus. Rev. 2022, 30, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maury, B. Strategic CSR and firm performance: The role of prospector and growth strategies. J. Econ. Bus. 2021, 118, 106031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, R.; Bhatia, A.D.; Arekar, K. Structural Equation Modelling to Understand the Impact of Various Components of CSR and the Benefits to Stakeholders. Vis. J. Bus. Perspect. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onkila, T.; Sarna, B. A systematic literature review on employee relations with CSR: State of art and future research agenda. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 29, 435–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, W.; Danni, Y.; Latif, B.; Kouser, R.; Baqader, S. Corporate Social Responsibility and Customer Loyalty in Food Chains—Mediating Role of Customer Satisfaction and Corporate Reputation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, Y.; Akram, R.; Hieu, V.M.; Tien, N.H. The impact of corporate social responsibility on the sustainable financial performance of Italian firms: Mediating role of firm reputation. Ekon. Istraživanja 2021, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ting, I.W.K.; Azizan, N.A.; Bhaskaran, R.K.; Sukumaran, S.K. Corporate Social Performance and Firm Performance: Comparative Study among Developed and Emerging Market Firms. Sustainability 2019, 12, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- D’Amato, A.; Falivena, C. Corporate social responsibility and firm value: Do firm size and age matter? Empirical evidence from European listed companies. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 27, 909–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghardallou, W. Corporate Sustainability and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of CEO Education and Tenure. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabir, M.A.; Chowdhury, S.S. Empirical analysis of the corporate social responsibility and financial performance causal nexus: Evidence from the banking sector of Bangladesh. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2022, in press. [CrossRef]
- Makni, R.; Francoeur, C.; Bellavance, F. Causality Between Corporate Social Performance and Financial Performance: Evidence from Canadian Firms. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 89, 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirigoyen, G.; Poulain-Rehm, T. Relationships between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: What is the Causality? J. Bus. Manag. 2015, 4, 18–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, W.L.; Law, S.H.; Ho, J.A.; Sambasivan, M. The causality direction of the corporate social responsibility—Corporate financial performance Nexus: Application of Panel Vector Autoregression approach. N. Am. J. Econ. Financ. 2019, 48, 401–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galant, A.; Cadez, S. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance relationship: A review of measurement approaches. Ekon. Istraživanja 2017, 30, 676–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, M. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13 September 1970; 122–126. [Google Scholar]
- Becchetti, L.; Cicirettiand, R.; Hasan, I. Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder’s Value: An event study analysis, Working paper. In FRB of Atlanta Working Paper No. 2007-6; SSRN: Rochester, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stuebs, M.; Sun, L. Corporate governance and social responsibility. Int. J. Law Manag. 2015, 57, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Khoury, R.; Nasrallah, N.; Harb, E.; Hussainey, K. Exploring the performance of responsible companies in G20 during the COVID-19 outbreak. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 354, 131693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnett, M.L.; Solomon, R.M. Does it Pay to be Really Good? Addressing the Shape of the Relationship Between Social and Financial Performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2012, 33, 1304–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delmas, M.A.; Toffel, M.W. Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strat. Manag. J. 2008, 29, 1027–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henriques, I.; Sadorsky, P. The Relationship Between Environmental Commitment and Managerial Perceptions of Stakeholder Importance. Acad. Manag. J. 1999, 42, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarkson, M.E. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 92–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, A.B. Corporate Social Responsibility. Bus. Soc. 1999, 38, 268–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, R.C.Y.; Lee, C.-H. The influence of CSR on firm value: An application of panel smooth transition regression on Taiwan. Appl. Econ. 2016, 49, 3422–3434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ikram, M.; Sroufe, R.; Mohsin, M.; Solangi, Y.A.; Shah, S.Z.A.; Shahzad, F. Does CSR influence firm performance? A longitudinal study of SME sectors of Pakistan. J. Glob. Responsib. 2019, 11, 27–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanches Garcíia, A.; Mendes-Da-Silva, W.; Orsato, R.J. Sensitive industries produce better ESG performance: Evidence from emerging markets. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 150, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, K.-H.; Kim, M.; Qian, C. Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Corporate Financial Performance: A Competitive-Action Perspective. J. Manag. 2015, 44, 1097–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Surroca, J.; Tribó, J.A.; Waddock, S. Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strat. Manag. J. 2009, 31, 463–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goering, G.E. Corporate social responsibility and marketing channel coordination. Res. Econ. 2012, 66, 142–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albuquerque, R.; Koskinen, Y.; Yang, S.; Zhang, C. Resiliency of Environmental and Social Stocks: An Analysis of the Exogenous COVID-19 Market Crash. Rev. Corp. Financ. Stud. 2020, 9, 593–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bae, K.-H.; El Ghoul, S.; Gong, Z.; Guedhami, O. Does CSR matter in times of crisis? Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Corp. Financ. 2021, 67, 101876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gianfrate, G.; Kievid, T.; van Dijk, M.V. On the resilience of esg stocks during COVID-19: Global evidence. COVID Econ. 2021, 83, 25–53. [Google Scholar]
- Ben Lahouel, B.; Ben Zaied, Y.; Managi, S.; Taleb, L. Re-thinking about U: The relevance of regime-switching model in the relationship between environmental corporate social responsibility and financial performance. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 140, 498–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahlsrud, A. How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2008, 15, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Marrewijk, M. Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 44, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velte, P. Does ESG performance have an impact on financial performance? Evidence from Germany. J. Glob. Responsib. 2017, 80, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peloza, J. The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social performance. J. Manag. 2009, 35, 1518–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busch, T.; Friede, G. The robustness of the corporate social and financial performance relation: A second-order meta-analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 583–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bowen, H.R. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman; University of Iowa Press: Iowa City, IA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Barnett, M.L. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 794–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mintzberg, H. The Case for Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Bus. Strategy 1983, 4, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parket, I.R.; Eibert, H. Social Responsibility: The Underlying Factors. Bus. Horiz. 1975, 18, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamali, D.; Mirshak, R. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Theory and Practice in a Developing Country Context. J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 72, 243–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Y.; Sun, L.Y.; Leung, A.S. Corporate social responsibility, firm reputation, and firm performance: The role of ethical leadership. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2014, 31, 925–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orlitzky, M.; Schmidt, F.L.; Rynes, S.L. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organ. Stud. 2003, 24, 403–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kempf, A.; Osthoff, P. The effect of socially responsible investing on portfolio performance. Eur. Financ. Manag. 2007, 13, 908–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blasi, S.; Caporin, M.; Fontini, F. A multidimensional analysis of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and firms’ economic performance. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 147, 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maqbool, S.; Zameer, M.N. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: An empirical analysis of Indian banks. Future Bus. J. 2018, 4, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, B.; Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2014, 35, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Servaes, H.; Tamayo, A. The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Manag. Sci. 2013, 59, 1045–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khan, M.; Serafeim, G.; Yoon, A. Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. Account. Rev. 2016, 91, 1697–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ding, W.; Levine, R.; Lin, C.; Xie, W. Corporate immunity to the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Financ. Econ. 2021, 141, 802–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, K.J.; Lu, S.L. The impact of COVID-19 on the stock price of socially responsible enterprises: An empirical study in Taiwan stock market. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preston, L.E.; O’Bannon, D.P. The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship: A typology and analysis. Bus. Soc. 1997, 36, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, S.; Vieira, E.T. Striving for legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: Insights from oil companies. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 110, 413–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aras, G.; Aybars, A.; Kutlu, O. Managing corporate performance: Investigating the relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance in emerging markets. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2010, 59, 229–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, J.J.; Kim, H.J.; Yu, J. Empirical study on relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance in Korea. Asian J. Sustain. Soc. Responsib. 2016, 1, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yoon, B.; Chung, Y. The effects of corporate social responsibility on firm performance: A stakeholder approach. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2018, 37, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nollet, J.; Filis, G.; Mitrokostas, E. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: A non-linear and disaggregated approach. Econ. Model. 2016, 52, 400–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gonzalez, A.; Teräsvirta, T.; Van Dijk, D. Panel Smooth Transition Regression Models; Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance, No. 60; Uppsala University: Uppsala, Sweden, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Fok, D.; Van Dijk, D.; Franses, P. A multi-level panel STAR model for US manufacturing sectors. J. Appl. Econom. 2005, 20, 811–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, B.E. Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing and inference. J. Econom. 1999, 93, 345–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Colletaz, G.; Hurlin, C. Threshold Effects of the Public Capital Productivity: An International Panel Smooth Transition Approach; Working Papers halshs-00008056; HAL: Lyon, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Arellano, M.; Bond, S. Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1991, 58, 277–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blundell, R.; Bond, S. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J. Econom. 1998, 87, 115–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
CSR | ENV-CSR | SOCIAL-CSR | GOV-CSR | |
---|---|---|---|---|
m = 1 | m = 1 | m = 1 | m = 1 | |
LM test | 0.0030 | 0.0013 | 0.0021 | 0.0019 |
F test | 0.0023 | 0.0022 | 0.0021 | 0.0022 |
Variable | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|
Tobin-Q | 3.286 | 0.923 | 0.422 | 9.721 |
ROA | 4.723 | 2.038 | −1.121 | 35.699 |
ROE | 3.043 | 1.021 | −2.432 | 28.502 |
CSR | 45.33 | 6.23 | 4.65 | 60.32 |
ENV-CSR | 44.94 | 5.76 | 3.84 | 50.43 |
SOCIAL-CSR | 46.16 | 4.54 | 3.12 | 54.04 |
GOV-CSR | 39.48 | 4.04 | 5.93 | 55.93 |
Leverage | 32.945 | 11.546 | 3.564 | 60.237 |
Sales | 13.854 | 3.122 | −6.456 | 25.433 |
Tangible | 0.622 | 0.054 | 0.0132 | 0.988 |
Size | 15.656 | 1.032 | 10.202 | 21.456 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | (11) | VIF | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tobin-Q | 1 | 2.22 | ||||||||||
ROA | 0.322 | 1 | 3.23 | |||||||||
ROE | 0.295 | 0.756 | 1 | 3.66 | ||||||||
CSR | 0.435 | 0.587 | 0.589 | 1 | 2.98 | |||||||
ENV-CSR | 0.345 | 0.487 | 0.423 | 0.821 | 1 | 2.27 | ||||||
SOCIAL-CSR | 0.312 | 0.490 | 0.519 | 0.909 | 0.434 | 1 | 2.86 | |||||
GOV-CSR | 0.376 | 0.380 | 0.470 | 0.923 | 0.576 | 0.480 | 1 | 2.92 | ||||
Lev | 0.655 | −0.564 | −0.387 | 0.034 | 0.022 | −0.036 | 0.098 | 1 | 3.66 | |||
Sales | 0.213 | 0.410 | 0.603 | 0.136 | 0.029 | 0.017 | 0.078 | −0.041 | 1 | 2.34 | ||
Tang | 0.123 | 0.134 | 0.232 | 0.164 | 0.202 | −0.017 | 0.128 | 0.234 | 0.138 | 1 | 1.71 | |
Size | 0.563 | 0.239 | 0.134 | 0.058 | 0.066 | 0.221 | 0.099 | 0.350 | 0.229 | 0.341 | 1 | 2.12 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | |
---|---|---|---|
ROA | ROE | Tobin-Q | |
LagROA | 0.638 *** | ||
(0.000) | |||
CSR | −0.031 * | −0.027 ** | −0.028 * |
(0.054) | (0.019) | (0.053) | |
CSR× g (.) | 0.082 ** | 0.072 ** | 0.066 *** |
(0.047) | (0.029) | (0.003) | |
Leverage | −0.302 *** | −0.247 *** | −0.032 |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.234) | |
Sales-growth | 0.0854 *** | 0.0909 | 0.070 * |
(0.002) | (0.152) | (0.095) | |
Tangible | −0.012 ** | −0.0233 * | 0.023 |
(0.020) | (0.076) | (0.234) | |
Size | 0.030 * | 0.045 * | 0.076 ** |
(0.066) | (0.071) | (0.043) | |
LagROE | 0.502 *** | ||
(0.000) | |||
LagTobin-Q | 0.492 *** | ||
(0.001) | |||
Transition parameters | |||
CSR (c1,1) | 44.34 *** | 43.67 *** | 44.89 * |
(0.004) | (0.000) | (0.062) | |
CSR (γ) | 34.34 (0.873) | 33.23 (0.673) | 32.34 (0.435) |
AIC criterion | −0.625 | −0.625 | −0.625 |
N. of Obs. | 420 | 420 | 415 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | |
---|---|---|---|
ROA | ROE | Tobin-Q | |
LagROA | 0.543 *** | ||
(0.000) | |||
ENV-CSR | −0.039 * | −0.043 *** | −0.044 ** |
(0.058) | (0.003) | (0.012) | |
ENV-CSR× g (.) | 0.064 *** | 0.071 *** | 0.054 *** |
(0.001) | (0.000) | (0.001) | |
SOCIAL- CSR | −0.024 * | −0.038 ** | −0.033 *** |
(0.063) | (0.020) | (0.002) | |
SOCIAL-CSR× g (.) | 0.044 ** | 0.052 ** | 0.053 *** |
(0.047) | (0.020) | (0.003) | |
GOV-CSR | −0.021 * | −0.028 *** | −0.015 ** |
(0.070) | (0.002) | (0.033) | |
GOV-CSR× g (.) | 0.064 ** | 0.059 ** | 0.063 *** |
(0.037) | (0.030) | (0.002) | |
Leverage | −0.212 * | −0.327 | −0.123 * |
(0.064) | (0.123) | (0.073) | |
Sales-growth | 0.044 *** | 0.096 | 0.080 * |
(0.001) | (0.142) | (0.085) | |
Tangible | −0.112 ** | −0.113 * | 0.033 |
(0.030) | (0.066) | (0.164) | |
Size | 0.040 * | 0.055 * | 0.066 ** |
(0.076) | (0.074) | (0.023) | |
LagROE | 0.402 *** | ||
(0.000) | |||
LagTobin-Q | 0.392 *** | ||
(0.001) | |||
Transition parameters | |||
ENV-CSR (c1,1) | 41.32 *** | 41.53 *** | 42.04 * |
(0.003) | (0.000) | (0.072) | |
ENV-CSR (γ) | 30.24 (0.773) | 31.22 (0.543) | 33.34 (0.604) |
SOCIAL-CSR (c1,1) | 46.12 ** | 46.02 *** | 47.86 ** |
(0.023) | (0.000) | (0.032) | |
SOCIAL-CSR (γ) | 32.97 (0.673) | 33.09 (0.533) | 32.65 (0.622) |
GOV-CSR (c1,1) | 39.11 * | 38.01 ** | 39.61 * |
(0.082) | (0.077) | (0.072) | |
GOV-CSR (γ) | 31.66 (0.674) | 31.11 (0.543) | 32.43 (0.572) |
AIC criterion | −0.329 | −0.329 | −0.329 |
N. of Obs. | 420 | 420 | 415 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ghardallou, W.; Alessa, N. Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance in GCC Countries: A Panel Smooth Transition Regression Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137908
Ghardallou W, Alessa N. Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance in GCC Countries: A Panel Smooth Transition Regression Model. Sustainability. 2022; 14(13):7908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137908
Chicago/Turabian StyleGhardallou, Wafa, and Noha Alessa. 2022. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance in GCC Countries: A Panel Smooth Transition Regression Model" Sustainability 14, no. 13: 7908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137908