Do Peer Firms Affect Firm Corporate Social Responsibility?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Data
3. Variables
3.1. Firm CSR Performance Level (CSR)
3.2. Peer CSR Performance Level (CSRPeer)
3.3. CSR Pressure Index (CSRGap)
4. Empirical Method
5. Empirical Results and Analysis
5.1. Descriptive Statistics
5.2. Empirical Results
6. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ding, W.; Lehrer, S.F. Understanding the role of time-varying unobserved ability heterogeneity in education production. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2014, 40, 55–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leary, M.T.; Roberts, M.R. Do peer firms affect corporate financial policy? J. Financ. 2014, 69, 139–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scharfstein, D.S.; Stein, J.C. Herd behavior and investment. Am. Econ. Rev. 1990, 80, 465–479. [Google Scholar]
- Bikhchandani, S.; Hirshleifer, D.; Welch, I. Learning from the behavior of others: Conformity, fads, and informational cascades. J. Econ. Perspect. 1998, 12, 151–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conlisk, J. Costly optimizers versus cheap imitators. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1980, 1, 275–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brock, W.A. Pathways to randomness in the economy: emergent nonlinearity and chaos in economics and finance. Estud. Econ. 1993, 8, 3–55. [Google Scholar]
- Gong, G.; Xu, S.; Gong, X. On the value of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An empirical investigation of corporate bond issues in China. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.; He, F.; Zhu, Q.; Li, S. How does corporate social responsibility change capital structure? Asia-Pac. J. Account. Econ. 2017, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, Y.J.; Ho, K.H. How Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect Stock Price Delay in China? Working Paper. 2016; unpublished work. [Google Scholar]
- Pan, L.H.; Lin, C.T.; Lee, S.C.; Ho, K.C. Information ratings and capital structure. J. Corp. Financ. 2015, 31, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manski, C.F. Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1993, 60, 531–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Črnigoj, M.; Mramor, D. Alternative corporate governance paradigm and corporate financing: capital structure decisions in employee-governed firms. Acta Oecon. 2015, 65, 271–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bear, S.; Rahman, N.; Post, C. The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 97, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huse, M.; Nielsen, S.T.; Hagen, I.M. Women and employee-elected board members, and their contributions to board control tasks. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 89, 581–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
CSRpeer | 0.870 *** | 0.585 *** | ||
(14.07) | (9.50) | |||
CSRpeert-1 | 0.952 *** | 0.667 *** | ||
(13.83) | (9.70) | |||
Size | 0.0768 *** | 0.0822 *** | ||
(30.27) | (30.06) | |||
BookLever | −0.103 *** | −0.134 *** | ||
(−6.06) | (−7.10) | |||
MktBook | 0.00328 ** | 0.00327 ** | ||
(2.30) | (2.31) | |||
Profit | −0.00211 | −0.0315 | ||
(−0.08) | (−1.21) | |||
Boardsize | 0.0427 *** | 0.0482 *** | ||
(4.35) | (4.20) | |||
Top10share | −0.0788 *** | −0.0686 *** | ||
(−4.27) | (−3.32) | |||
Constant | 0.475 *** | −1.201 *** | −0.104 *** | −1.814 *** |
(33.41) | (−21.63) | (−6.47) | (−32.45) | |
Individual effects | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
Time-fixed effects | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
Obs | 11,297 | 11,297 | 9314 | 9314 |
Adjust-R2 | 0.142 | 0.24 | 0.147 | 0.251 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
CSRgap | 0.997 *** | 0.990 *** | ||
(731.40) | (666.92) | |||
CSRgapt-1 | 0.831 *** | 0.792 *** | ||
(111.85) | (94.93) | |||
Size | 0.00168 *** | 0.0253 *** | ||
(2.95) | (12.87) | |||
BookLever | 0.0196 *** | −0.0254 ** | ||
(5.85) | (−2.16) | |||
MktBook | −0.00121 *** | −0.000168 | ||
(−2.69) | (−0.34) | |||
Profit | 0.0250 *** | 0.0235 | ||
(2.88) | (1.28) | |||
Boardsize | 0.0147 *** | 0.0250 *** | ||
(8.51) | (3.41) | |||
Top10share | 0.0234 *** | 0.0231 * | ||
(7.95) | (1.85) | |||
Constant | 0.214 *** | 0.127 *** | 0.186 *** | −0.415 *** |
(101.63) | (10.01) | (39.80) | (−10.40) | |
Individual effects | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
Time-fixed effects | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
Obs | 11,297 | 11,297 | 9314 | 9314 |
Adjust-R2 | 0.981 | 0.982 | 0.692 | 0.704 |
© 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
Yang, S.; Ye, H.; Zhu, Q. Do Peer Firms Affect Firm Corporate Social Responsibility? Sustainability 2017, 9, 1967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111967
Yang S, Ye H, Zhu Q. Do Peer Firms Affect Firm Corporate Social Responsibility? Sustainability. 2017; 9(11):1967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111967
Chicago/Turabian StyleYang, Shenggang, Heng Ye, and Qi Zhu. 2017. "Do Peer Firms Affect Firm Corporate Social Responsibility?" Sustainability 9, no. 11: 1967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111967
APA StyleYang, S., Ye, H., & Zhu, Q. (2017). Do Peer Firms Affect Firm Corporate Social Responsibility? Sustainability, 9(11), 1967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111967