Is Institutional Ownership Related to Corporate Social Responsibility? The Nonlinear Relation and Its Implication for Stock Return Volatility
- 709 Downloads
This study examines the relation between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and institutional investor ownership, and the impact of this relation on stock return volatility. We find that institutional ownership does not strictly increase or decrease in CSR; rather, institutional ownership is a concave function of CSR. This evidence suggests that institutional investors do not see CSR as strictly value-enhancing activities. Institutional investors adjust their percentage of ownership when CSR activities go beyond the perceived optimal level. Employing the path analysis, we also examine the mediating effect of institutional ownership on the relation between CSR and stock return volatility. We find that CSR decreases stock return volatility at a decreasing rate through its effect on institutional ownership. Our results remain robust under several different CSR measures and estimation methods.
KeywordsCorporate social responsibility Institutional ownership Stock return volatility Socially responsible investing
Harjoto acknowledges the 2015–2017 Denney Academic Chair from the Denney Endowment, Julian Virtue, Rothschild Endowment, and the Funds for Excellence for financial support and release time for this research project. Parts of this paper were completed while Jo was visiting Korea University and Kim was visiting Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
- Bushee, B. (1998). The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. The Accounting Review, 73, 305–333.Google Scholar
- Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. (2010). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues in institutional investor decision making. Toronto, ON: Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.Google Scholar
- Chava, S. (2010). Socially responsible investing and expected stock returns. Working Paper. Georgia Institute of Technology. http://www.q-group.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Chava_SRI_v2.pdf.
- Cochrane, J. H. (2001). Asset Pricing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Fernando, C., Sharfman, M., & Uysal, V. (2010). Does greenness matter? The effect of corporate environmental performance on ownership structure, analyst coverage, and firm value. Working Paper. http://www.fma.org/NY/Papers/Environmental_Performance_OU_FMA.pdf.
- Fisman, R., Heal, G., & Nair, V. B. (2008). A model of corporate philanthropy, Working Paper, Columbia University and University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
- Flammer, C. (2015). Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Management Science (in press).Google Scholar
- Gillan, S., Hartzell, J., Koch, A., & Starks, L. (2012). Firms’ environmental, social and governance (ESG) choices, performance and managerial motivation. Working Paper. http://www.business.pitt.edu/faculty/papers/koch3.pdf.
- Graff-Zivin, J., & Small, A. (2005). A Modigliani–Miller theory of altruistic corporate social responsibility. Topics in Economic Analysis & Policy, 5, Article 10.Google Scholar
- Lea, S. (1997). Path analysis. University of Exeter. Retrieved from http://www.ex.ac.uk/~SEGLea/multvar2/oldwelcome.html.
- Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Working paper. Harvard Business School. http://stakeholder.bu.edu/Docs/Walsh,%20Jim%20Does%20It%20Pay%20to%20Be%20Good.pdf.
- Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2001). People and profits? The search for a link between a company’s social and financial performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117–127.Google Scholar
- Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. American Economic Review, 48, 261–297.Google Scholar
- Moskowitz, M. (1972). Choosing socially responsive stocks. Business and Society Review, 10, 71–75.Google Scholar
- O’Barr, W., & Conley, J. (1992). Fortune and foley: The wealth and power of institutional investing. Homewood, IL: Business One, Irwin Publishing.Google Scholar
- Spicer, B. H. (1978). Investors, corporate social performance, and information disclosure: An empirical study. The Accounting Review, 53, 94–111.Google Scholar
- Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of U.S. firms. Academy of Management Review, 10, 540–557.Google Scholar
- Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20, 557–585.Google Scholar
- Wright, S. (1923). The theory of path coefficients: A reply to Niles’s criticism. Genetics, 8, 239–255.Google Scholar