Financial and corporate social performance in the UK listed firms: the relevance of non-linearity and lag effects

Abstract

Using environmental, social and governance scores compiled by Reuters Datastream for each company’s corporate social performance (CSP), we examine the relationship between CSP and corporate financial performance (CFP) of 314 UK listed companies over the period 2002–2015. We further evaluate the relationship between prior and subsequent CFP and prior and subsequent CSP. Based on the system-GMM estimation method, we provide direct evidence that suggests that while CFP and CSP can be linked linearly; however, when we examine the impact of CSP on CFP, the association is more non-linear (cubic) than linear. Our results suggest that firms periodically adjust their level of commitment to society, in order to meet their target CSP. The primary contributions of this paper are testing (1) the non-monotonous relationship between CSP and CFP, (2) the lagged relationship between the two and the optimality of CSP levels, and (3) the presence of a virtuous circle. Our results further suggest that CSP contributes to CFP better during post-crisis years. Our findings are robust to year-on-year changes in CFP and CSP, financial versus non-financial firms, and the intensity of corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagement across industries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    A study by Deloitte showed that in 2007, 80 of the FTSE 100 firms now report on their CSR, up from 56 in 2002. This highlights that firms are increasingly recognizing the need to include CSR practices in core business strategies.

  2. 2.

    Nelling and Webb (2009) obtain a significant relationship between CSP and CFP when the traditional statistical methods are used but the link weakens significantly when they employ the fixed effects method. Similarly, coupled with emphasizing the importance of endogeneity concerns, Surroca et al.’s (2010) fixed effects estimates show that CSP and CFP are not directly related. This highlights the sensitivity of results to the methods and importance of choosing the precise method. Baron et al. (2011) use the difference-GMM method for the same context. As raised by Nelling and Webb (2009), therefore, additional analyses using more advanced estimation techniques are necessary, despite the extensive empirical research in this area.

  3. 3.

    We thank the referee for suggesting this dimension to us.

  4. 4.

    Jiraporn and Chintrakarn (2013) provide tests to find out if the effect of the CEO power on their CSR activities is non-linear. Their regression analysis clearly detects a parabolic (reverse-U) association and they explain the connection of this nature within the ‘agency theory’ perspective.

  5. 5.

    This section is based on the partial adjustment mechanism (Blinder 1986), and error correction mechanism that discusses long-term relationship between two factors and short-term deviation from equilibrium (Engle and Granger 1987; Johansen 1988). As discussed in Blundell and Bond (1998), the long-term link between the dependent variable and its determinants may differ from the short-term effects. Brammer and Millington (2008) raise the issue of deviation from ‘normal’ CSP and examine this by using the residual figures of the regression model.

  6. 6.

    Any missing data were obtained from the company annual reports. Also, the time period for the variables ‘share price performance’ and ‘sales growth rate’ is 2001–2015 due to their definitions.

  7. 7.

    It should further be noted that our simple correlation analysis between CSP and corporate governance quality yielded a Pearson coefficient of 0.53. This suggests that higher CSR activities go hand in hand with higher corporate governance scores, and that the combination of CSP and corporate governance scores would have qualitatively similar effects on CFP when compared with our current results.

  8. 8.

    According to Chen and Metcalf (1980), CSP and size may be positively linked as larger firms have greater visibility and can invest better in CSR. One reason for this could be that bigger firms are under more pressure from stakeholders, and they need to respond to these demands more attentively or larger firms will benefit from economies of scale, better management and access regarding external stakeholders and resources, and better promotional opportunities. Orlitzky et al. (2003) and Stanwick and Stanwick (1998) show that, when size is controlled for, there still exists a positive link between CFP and CSP. Orlitzky et al. (2003) show that Chen and Metcalf’s (1980) finding that size was the real cause of both CSP and CFP was as a result of sampling error as, when analyzed over many samples, neither a significantly positive correlation between CSP and size nor a significantly positive correlation between CFP and size is found to exist.

  9. 9.

    For brevity, in our regression analysis, we report industry dummies with significant effects.

  10. 10.

    See also Jo et al. (2015) who consider several advanced techniques, including this specification, when they examine the link between environmental responsibility and financial performance. In addition, Shahzad and Sharfman (2015) highlight the importance of the sample selection bias, which is another type of endogeneity problem, when they investigate the effects of CSP on CFP, and they find a positive impact.

  11. 11.

    Three diagnostics should be met for the system-GMM results to be reliable and consistent. Our regression results are robust to these three criteria: The Hansen test confirms the validity of the instrument sets; AR(1) test suggests the presence of first-order autocorrelation; and AR(2) test confirms the absence of second-order autocorrelation. We also tested for the potential endogeneity of the factors following the Difference-in-Hansen statistic, for which the null hypothesis states that the variable is exogenous. This test suggests that, except for the time and industry dummy variables, all other explanatory variables should be treated as endogenous; it also reveals that the differenced-instruments used in level equations are exogenous.

  12. 12.

    The two inflection points for this cubic association are 2.8286 (first derivative) and 3.7228 (second derivative) in logarithmic values. These calculations suggest that when the CSP score is between 0.00 and 16.92%, or higher than 41.38%, the link between CSP and CFP is positive; when the CSP range is between 16.92 and 41.38%, CSP actually reduces CFP. We also tested for the presence of a parabolic relationship in this model but failed to detect one.

  13. 13.

    Lagged CFP is not used as one of the explanatory variables in the models in Table 3 because firms are expected to maximise rather than optimize CFP. Moreover, when we investigate the dynamic aspect of the CSP and CFP link we do not include the non-linear terms, and vice versa, in order to see the clear impact of each aspect.

  14. 14.

    Further note that the effect of CFPt−2 on CSPt−1 can be considered as that of CFPt−1 on CSPt.

  15. 15.

    The two inflection points for the cubic link in model 3 are − 0.0709 (first derivative) and 1.3982 (second derivative). These calculations suggest that when ROA is lower than − 7.1% or higher than 139.8%, CSP decreases when CFP increases; and when ROA is between − 7.1 and 139.8%, an increase in CFP actually improves CSP. We also tested for the presence of a parabolic relationship in this model but failed to detect one.

  16. 16.

    For brevity, we only report in Table 8 the results for the variables related to CSP and CFP, although the models include the other explanatory variables mentioned in Sect. 4.1.

  17. 17.

    In our sample, the average CSP value is 61.73% for the pre-crisis period and 64.01% for the post-crisis period, which is in line with the conjecture that CSR activities would be given more importance by both corporate managers and capital markets following crises. One can therefore assert that UK firms became more socially responsible after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in September 2008.

References

  1. Adegbite E, Nakajima C (2011) Corporate governance and responsibility in Nigeria. Int J Discl Gov 8:252–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alexander GJ, Buchholz RA (1978) Corporate social performance and stock market performance. Acad Manag J 21:479–486

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amaeshi K, Adegbite E, Rajwani T (2016) Corporate social responsibility in challenging and non-enabling institutional contexts do institutional voids matter? J Bus Ethics 134:135–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error components models. J Econom 68:29–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Argandoña A (2009) Can corporate social responsibility help us understand the credit crisis? SSRN working paper. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1392762

  6. Aupperle K, Carroll AB, Hatfield JD (1985) An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Acad Manag J 28:446–463

    Google Scholar 

  7. Barnea A, Rubin A (2010) Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. J Bus Ethics 97:71–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barnett ML, Salomon RM (2006) Beyond dichotomy: the curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. Strateg Manag J 33:1304–1320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barnett ML, Salomon RM (2012) Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strateg Manag J 27:1101–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Baron D, Harjoto M, Jo H (2011) The economics and politics of corporate social performance. Bus Polit 13:1–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Blinder AS (1986) More on the speed of adjustment in inventory models. J Money Credit Bank 18:355–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Blundell RW, Bond SR (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econom 87:115–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brammer S, Millington A (2008) Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strateg Manag J 29:1325–1343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brammer S, Brooks C, Pavelin S (2006) Corporate social performance and stock returns: evidence from disaggregated measures. Financ Manag 35:97–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Carroll AB (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus Horizons 34:39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen KH, Metcalf RW (1980) The relationship between pollution control record and financial indicators revisited. Account Rev 55:168–177

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cheung A (2016) Corporate social responsibility and corporate cash holdings. J Corp Finance 37:412–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cochran PL, Wood RA (1984) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Acad Manag J 27:24–56

    Google Scholar 

  19. Deakin S, Whittaker DH (2007) Re-embedding the corporation? Comparative perspectives on corporate governance, employment relations and corporate social responsibility. Corp Gov Int Rev 15:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Donaldson T, Preston L (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manag Rev 20:65–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Duanmu JL, Guney Y (2013) Heterogeneous effect of ethnic networks on international trade of Thailand: the role of family ties and ethnic diversity. Int Bus Rev 22:126–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Elsayed K, Paton D (2009) The impact of financial performance on environmental policy: does firm life cycle matter? Bus Strategy Environ 18:397–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Engle RF, Granger CWJ (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55:251–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. European Commission (2011) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: a renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:EN:PDF. Accessed 02 Aug 2017

  25. Fernandez-Kranz D, Santalo J (2010) When necessity becomes a virtue: the effect of product market competition on corporate social responsibility. J Econ Manag Strategy 19:453–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fieseler C (2011) On the corporate social responsibility perceptions of equity analysts. Bus Ethics A Eur Rev 20:131–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Filbeck G, Gorman R, Zhao X (2013) Are the best of the best better than the rest? The effect of multiple rankings on company value. Rev Quant Finance Account 41:695–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Flammer C (2015) Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Manag Sci 61:2549–2568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  30. Friedman M (1970) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profit. New York Times Magazine. September 13, 32–33,122,126

  31. Galbreath J (2016) Is board gender diversity linked to financial performance? Bus Soc, The mediating mechanism of CSR. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316647967

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gregory A, Whittaker J (2007) Performance and performance persistence of ‘ethical’ unit trusts in the UK. J Bus Finance Account 34:1327–1344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gregory A, Whittaker J, Yan X (2016) Corporate social performance, competitive advantage, earnings persistence and firm value. J Bus Finance Account 43:3–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Guo Z, Chan KC, Xue Y (2016) The impact of corporate culture disclosure on performance. Rev Pac Basin Financ Mark Pol 19:12. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219091516500120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Henderson D (2001) Misguided virtue. False notions of corporate social responsibility. New Zealand Business Roundtable, Wellington

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jenkins H (2004) Corporate social responsibility and the mining industry: conflicts and constructs. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 11:23–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jiraporn P, Chintrakarn P (2013) How do powerful CEOs view corporate social responsibility (CSR)? An empirical note. Econ Lett 119:344–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jo H, Kim H, Park K (2015) Corporate environmental responsibility and firm performance in the financial services sector. J Bus Ethics 131:257–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Johansen S (1988) Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. J Econ Dyn Control 12:231–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Karaibrahimoglu YZ (2010) Corporate social responsibility in times of financial crisis. Afr J Bus Manag 4:382–389

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kemper A, Martin RL (2010) After the fall: the global financial crisis as a test of corporate social responsibility theories. Eur Manag Rev 7:229–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lankoski L (2000) Determinants of environmental profit: an analysis of the firm-level relationship between environmental performance and economic performance, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology

  43. Lankoski L (2008) Corporate responsibility activities and economic performance: a theory of why and how they are connected. Bus Strategy Environ 17:536–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Li Q, Luo W, Wang Y, Wu L (2013) Firm performance, corporate ownership, and corporate social responsibility disclosure in China. Bus Ethics Eur Rev 22:159–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Liang H, Renneboog L (2017) On the foundations of corporate social responsibility. J Finance 72(2):853–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lins KV, Servaes H, Tamyo A (2017) Social capital, trust, and firm performance: the value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. J Finance 72(4):1785–1824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lopatta K, Kaspereit T (2014) The world capital market’s perception of sustainability and the impact of financial crisis. J Bus Ethics 122:475–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Martín-de Castro G, Amores-Salvadó J, Navas-López JE (2015) Environmental management systems and firm performance: improving firm environmental policy through stakeholder engagement. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 23:243–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. McGuire JB, Sundgren A, Schneeweiss T (1988) Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Acad Manag J 31:854–872

    Google Scholar 

  50. McWilliams A, Siegel D (2000) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? Strateg Manag J 21:603–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. McWilliams A, Siegel D (2001) Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Acad Manag Rev 26:117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Nelling E, Webb E (2009) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: the “virtuous circle” revisited. Rev Quant Finance Account 32:197–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Neville BA, Bell SJ, Mengüç B (2005) Corporate reputation, stakeholders and the social performance-financial performance relationship. Eur J Market 39:1184–1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Nollet J, Filis G, Mitrokostas E (2016) Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: a non-linear and disaggregated approach. Econ Model 52:400–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Orlitzky M (1998) A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social performance and firm financial performance, Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University of Iowa, UMI

  56. Orlitzky M, Schmidt FL, Rynes SL (2003) Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organ Stud 24:403–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Pava ML, Krausz J (1996) The association between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: the paradox of social cost. J Bus Ethics 15:321–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Pavelin S, Porter LA (2008) The corporate social performance content of innovation in the UK. J Bus Ethics 8:711–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Porter ME (1980) Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  60. Porter ME, Kramer MR (2002) The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harv Bus Rev 80:57–68

    Google Scholar 

  61. Preston LE, O’Bannon DP (1997) The corporate social-financial performance relationship: a typology and analysis. Bus Soc 36:419–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Robinson M, Kleffner A, Bartels S (2011) Signalling sustainability leadership: empirical evidence of the value of DJSI membership. J Bus Ethics 10:493–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Salzmann O (2008) Corporate sustainability management in the energy sector: an empirical contingency approach. Gabler Edition Wissenchaft

  64. Scherer AG, Palazzo G (2011) The new political role of business in a globalized world. A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. J Manag Stud 48:899–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Scholtens B (2008a) Corporate social responsibility and the international banking industry. J Bus Ethics 86:159–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Scholtens B (2008b) A note on the interaction between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Ecol Econ 68:46–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Schuler DA, Cording M (2006) A corporate social performance-corporate financial performance behavioral model for consumers. Acad Manag Rev 31:540–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Shahzad AM, Sharfman MP (2015) Corporate social performance and financial performance sample-selection issues. Bus Soc 1–30. First published on June 12, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315590399

  69. Sheehy B (2015) Defining CSR: problems and solutions. J Bus Ethics 131:625–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Short JC, McKenny AF, Ketchen DJ, Snow CC, Hult GTM (2015) An empirical examination of firm, industry, and temporal effects on corporate social performance. Bus Soc 55:1122–1156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Siegel DS, Vitaliano DF (2007) An empirical analysis of the strategic use of corporate social responsibility. J Econ Manag Strategy 16:773–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Simpson WG, Kohers T (2002) The link between corporate social and financial performance: evidence from the banking industry. J Bus Ethics 32:97–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Stanwick PA, Stanwick SD (1998) The relationship between corporate social performance, and organizational size, financial performance, and environmental performance: an empirical examination. J Bus Ethics 17:195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Sun J, Ding L, Guo JM (2016) Ownership, capital structure and financing decision: evidence from the UK. Br Account Rev 48:448–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Surroca J, Tribo JA, Waddock S (2010) Corporate responsibility and financial performance: the role of intangible resources. Strateg Manag J 3:463–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Tosun OK (2017) Is corporate socially responsibility sufficient enough to explain the investment by socially responsible funds? Rev Quant Finance Account 49:697–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Ullmann AA (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. Acad Manag Rev 10:540–557

    Google Scholar 

  78. Van Marrewijk M (2003) Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency and communion. J Bus Ethics 44:95–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Waddock SA, Graves SB (1997) The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strateg Manag J 18:303–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Wang H, Choi J (2013) A new look at the corporate social–financial performance relationship: the moderating roles of temporal and interdomain consistency in corporate social performance. J Manag 39:416–441

    Google Scholar 

  81. Wang Q, Dou J, Jia S (2015) A meta-analytic review of corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance: the moderating effect of contextual factors. Bus Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315584317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Windsor D (2001) The future of corporate social responsibility. Int J Organ Anal 9:225–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Wintoki MB, Linck JS, Netter JM (2012) Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. J Financ Econ 105:581–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Wu MW, Shen CH, Cheng TH (2017) Application of multi-level matching between financial performance and corporate social responsibility in the banking industry. Rev Quant Finance Account 49:29–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Kwabi.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 13 and 14.

Table 13 Industry classification
Table 14 Definitions of Variables

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adegbite, E., Guney, Y., Kwabi, F. et al. Financial and corporate social performance in the UK listed firms: the relevance of non-linearity and lag effects. Rev Quant Finan Acc 52, 105–158 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-018-0705-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Corporate social responsibility
  • Corporate financial performance
  • Corporate social performance
  • Slack resources theory
  • UK firms

JEL Classification

  • G34
  • M14