Advertisement

The Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance (A Case Study from Finland)

  • Mari KooskoraEmail author
  • Miia Juottonen
  • Katlin Cundiff
Chapter
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)

Abstract

The impact of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on the company’s performance has become an increasingly important issue among investors, companies and company’s management. Despite the fact, that many studies have been conducted on this topic, the relationship between CSR and financial performance is still unclear regarding the causality and different categories of CSR. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to study if corporate social responsibility (CSR) has an impact on financial performance (FP) and to find out, what the nature of the impact is. This study uses correlation and multiple linear regression models in order to examine the relationship between CSR and the financial variables. The sample consists of 30 publicly listed companies in Finland whose financial data and CSR activities during the years 2013–2016 are analyzed. The accounting based model of Return on Assets (ROA) and the market-based model of Earnings per share (EPS) are selected to measure financial performance and CSRHub rates to estimate the corporate social responsibility (CSR). The control variables: capital structure, risk, size and industry were chosen for this research, because of their tendency to have association with the financial performance.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibility Financial performance Finland 

References

  1. Allouche J, Laroche P (2005) A meta-analytical investigation of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Revue de gestion des ressources humaines 57:18–41Google Scholar
  2. Benn S, Bolton D (2011) Key concepts in corporate social responsibility, 1st edn. Sage Publication London, p 246Google Scholar
  3. Brammer S, Brooks C, Pavelin S (2006) Corporate social performance and stock returns: UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financ Manage 35:97–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell D, Craven B, Shrives P (2003) Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE sectors: a comment on perception and legitimacy. Acc Auditing Acc J 16:558–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carroll AB (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus Horiz 34:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarkson ME (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad Manag Rev 20:92–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahlsrud A (2008) How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 15:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Das S, Zhang H (2003) Rounding-up in reported EPS, behavioral thresholds, and earnings management. J Acc Econ 31–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidson WN, Worrell DL (1990) A comparison and test of the use of accounting and stock market data in relating corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Akron Bus Econ Rev 21:7Google Scholar
  10. Dechant K, Altman B (1994) Environmental leadership: from compliance to competitive advantage. Acad Manag Perspect 8:7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deegan C (2006) Legitimacy theory. Methodol Issues Acc Res, p 161–183Google Scholar
  12. Deegan C (2009) Financial accounting theory, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  13. Deegan C, Unerman J (2006) Financial accounting theory. European edition, McGraw‐Hill EducationGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillard JF, Rigsby JT, Goodman C (2004) The making and remaking of organization context. Acc Auditing Acc J 17:506–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliot AC, Woodward WA (2014) IBM SPSS by example: a practical guide to statistical data analysis. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (2011) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A renewed EU strategy 2011–2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility. EC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. FASB (2010) Accounting standards update (Update) No. 2010-20. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)Google Scholar
  18. Fernando S, Lawrence S (2014) A theoretical framework for CSR practices: integrating legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory and institutional theory. J Theor Acc Res 10:149–178Google Scholar
  19. Freeman RE (2001) A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In: Hartman LP (ed) Perspectives in business ethics. McGraw-Hill Boston, MA, pp 171–181Google Scholar
  20. Gray R, Owen D, Adams C (1996) Accounting and accountability: changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. Prentice Hall, pp 1–2Google Scholar
  21. Gray SJ, Linthicum CL, Street DL (2009) Have European and US GAAP measures of income and equity converged under IFRS? Evidence from European companies listed in the US. Acc Bus Res 39(5):431–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. GRI (2016) Management approach 2016. Global reporting initiativeGoogle Scholar
  23. Hackston D, Milne MJ (1996) Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies. Acc Auditing Acc J 9:77–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IASB (1989) Framework for the preparation and presentation of financial statementsGoogle Scholar
  25. Karagiorgos T (2010) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: an empirical analysis on Greek. Eur Res Stud XIII:1–24Google Scholar
  26. Kooskora M, Vau K (2011) Strategic corporate responsibility: a key for surviving and succeeding thorugh turbulent times. In: Vadi M, Jaakson K, Kindsiko E (eds) Management theory and practise: synergy in organization pp 178–203Google Scholar
  27. KPMG (2011) KPMG International survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2011 http://www.kpmg.com/PT/pt/IssuesAndInsights/Documents/corporateresponsibility2011.pdf
  28. Leppiniemi J, Leppiniemi R (2006) Tilinpäätöksen tulkinta, 4th edn. Juva, WS Bookwell OyGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindblom CK (1994) The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. Paper presented at the critical perspectives on accounting conference New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Lopez MV, Garcia A, Rodriguez L (2007) Sustainable development and corporate performance: a study based on the Dow Jones sustainability index. J Bus Ethics 75:285–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maignan I, Ferrell OC (2000) Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: the case of the United States and France. J Bus Ethics 23:283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Makni R, Francoeur C, Bellavance F (2009) Causality between corporate social performance and financial performance: evidence from Canadian firms. J Bus Ethics 89:409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martinez-Ferrero J, Frías-Aceituno JV (2015) Relationship between sustainable development and financial performance: international empirical research. Bus Strategy Environ 24:20–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McGuire JB, Sundgren A, Schneeweis T (1988) Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Acad Manag J 31:854–872Google Scholar
  35. McWilliams A, Siegel D (1997) Event studies in management research: theoretical and empirical issues. Acad Manag J 40:626–657Google Scholar
  36. McWilliams A, Siegel D (2000) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? Strateg Manag J 21:603–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McWilliams A, Siegel D (2001) Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Acad Manag Rev 26:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McWilliams A, Siegel DS, Wright PM (2006) Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. J Manage Stud 43(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (2017) https://tem.fi/en/
  40. Moll J, Krueger F, Zahn R, Pardini M, deOliveira-Souza R, Grafman J (2006) Humanfronto-mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:15623–15628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nelling E, Webb E (2009) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The “virtuous circle” revisited. Rev Quant Financ Acc 32(2):197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oliver C (1991) Strategic responses to processes institutional. Acad Manag Rev 16(1):145–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pava ML, Krausz J (1996) The association between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: the paradox of social cost. J Bus Ethics 15(3):321–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peng C-W, Yang M-L (2014) The effect of corporate social performance on financial performance: the moderating effect of ownership concentration. J Bus Ethics 123:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. PwC (2013) Closer to business. Corporate responsibility Barometer https://www.pwc.fi/fi/publications/assets/corporate-responsibility-barometer-2013-pwc.pdf
  46. Rahman (2011) Evaluation of definitions: ten dimensions of corporate social responsibility. World Rev Bus Res 1(1):166–176Google Scholar
  47. Ross S (1973) The economic theory of agency: the principal’s problem. Am Econ Rev 63:134–139Google Scholar
  48. Scott W R (2014) Financial accounting theory, 7th edn. PearsonGoogle Scholar
  49. Setyorini CT, Ishak Z (2012) Corporate social and environmental disclosure: a positive accounting theory view point. Int J Bus Soc Sci 3(9):152–164Google Scholar
  50. Shnayder L, Van Rijnsoever FJ, Hekkert MP (2015) Putting your money where your mouth is: why sustainability reporting based on the triple bottom line can be misleading. PLoS ONE p 10Google Scholar
  51. Simpson WG, Kohers T (2002) The link between corporate social and financial performance: evidence from the banking industry. J Bus Ethics 35:97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simpson J, Taylor JW (2013) Corporate governance ethics and CSR. Kogan Page PublishersGoogle Scholar
  53. Slaper T, Hall T (2011) The triple bottom line: what is it and how does it work? Indiana Bus Rev 86(1):4–8Google Scholar
  54. Solomon RC, Hanson KR (1985) It’s good business. Atheneum. Chicago, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Spicer BH (1978) Investors, corporate social performance and information disclosure: an empirical study. Acc Rev 53:94–111Google Scholar
  56. Sprinkle GB, Maines LA (2010) The benefits and costs of corporate social responsibility. Bus Horiz 53(5):445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tang Z, Hull CE, Rothenberg S (2012) How corporate social responsibility engagement strategy moderates the CSR-financial performance relationship. J Manage Stud 49:1274–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thomson I (2007) Mapping the terrain of sustainability accounting. In: Unerman J, Bebbington J, O’Dwyer B (eds) Sustainability accounting and accountability. Routledge London pp 19–36Google Scholar
  59. Turker D (2009) Measuring corporate social responsibility: a scale development study. J Bus Ethics 85:411–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Valtioneuvosto (2011) Valtion omistajapolitiikkaa koskeva Valtioneuvoston periaatepäätös 3.11.2011. http://valtioneuvosto.fi/tiedostot/julkinen/periaatepaatokset/2011/omistajaohjaus/fi.pdf
  61. van Marrewijk M (2013) Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency and communion. Citation classics from J Bus Ethics (Celebrating the First Thirty Years of Publication) pp 641–655Google Scholar
  62. Vance SC (1975) Are socially responsible corporations good investment risks? Manage Rev 64:18–24Google Scholar
  63. Visser W (2006) Revisiting Carroll’s CSR pyramid. Corporate citizenship in developing countries, pp 29–56Google Scholar
  64. Waddock SA, Graves SB (1997) The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strateg Manag J 18:303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Watts RL, Zimmerman JL (1978) Towards a positive theory of determination of accounting standards. Acc Rev 53:112–134Google Scholar
  66. Watts RL, Zimmerman JL (1986) Positive accounting theory. PearsonGoogle Scholar
  67. Weber M (2008) The business case for corporate social responsibility: a company- level measurement approach for CSR. Eur Manag J 26:247–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wu ML (2006) Corporate social performance, corporate financial performance, and firm size: a meta-analysis. J Am Acad Bus 8(1):163–171Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Estonian Business SchoolTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.Drury UniversitySpringfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations