Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CSR Policies and Financial Risks Under Stakeholders’ Aggressive Actions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Dimensions of Sustainable Management

Part of the book series: CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance ((CSEG))

Abstract

The chapter focuses on several major concerns in modern stakeholder management literature through relating CSR policies and business risk, including financial, credit, reputation and strategic risks, with stakeholder behaviour. CSR is perceived as a tool to combine the requirements of various stakeholder groups, which leads to the positive impact on companies’ performance. Positive impact is perceived as employee loyalty, good reputation and financial and credit risk reduction. In many cases it is argued that stakeholders react positively to CSR policies and it leads to potential positive effect–cost reductions or reputation gain. In spite of important insights gained from past research on changing stakeholders’ behaviour, increasing negative pressures and aggressive actions (including strikes, protest, boycotts and legal actions) in particular, their links to CSR policies and their effects on financial risks remain underexplored.

We argue that company’s financial risks depend upon the capacity to manage CSR policies under stakeholder aggressive actions. Empirical random effect panel data regression model to assess the impact of CSR on financial risk, including mediating stakeholders’ behaviour effect, was developed and tested for a cross-sectional data panel of 1047 European listed companies. CSR was measured by Bloomberg ESG—environmental, social and governance—indicator, while financial risk was measured by downside beta. In order to assess the aggressive stakeholders’ actions, quantitative content analysis was used.

The empirical research results show that the stakeholders’ aggressive actions are more intense in case of high CSR level. By adding a temporal dimension, the influence on CSR-level dynamic change on the financial risk, under aggressive stakeholders’ actions, was tested, assessing whether the decreased level of CSR increases company financial risk, under stakeholders’ aggressive actions. The chapter concludes that changes in CSR level effect the changes in the intensity of the stakeholders’ aggressive actions, which effect financial risk. It was observed that the decrease in CSR level causes the increase of stakeholders’ aggressive actions and its influence on financial risk.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 932–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amaeshi, K. M., & Adi, A. B. C. (2006). Reconstructing the corporate social responsibility construct in Utlish. Business Ethics European Review, 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K. E., & Pham, D. V. (1989). An expanded investigation into the relationship of corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(4), 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academic Management Review, 32, 794–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, R., Derwall, J., & Hann, D. (2009). Employee relations and credit risk, SSRN (Working paper). Maastricht University, 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouslah, K., Kryzanowski, L., & M’Zali, B. (2013). The impact of the dimensions of social performance on firm risk. Journal of Banking and Finance, 37, 1258–1273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., et al. (2006). Corporate social performance and stock returns: UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financial Management, 35, 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., Hoejmose, S., & Millington, A. (2011). Managing sustainable global supply chain: Framework and best practices. London: Network for Business Sustainability.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38, 268–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics: A European perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeFusco, R. A., Karels, G., & Muralidhar, K. (1996). Skewness persistence in US common stock returns: Results from bootstrapping tests. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 23, 1183–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 47–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufrense, F. B., & Savaria, P. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and financial risk. The Journal of Investing, 13, 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eesley, C., & Lenox, M. J. (2005). Secondary stakeholder actions and the selection of firm targets (Working Paper, No. 104). Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategy. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J., & Murrell, A. (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies: The roles of structural and demographic determinants. Business & Society, 44(1), 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmig, B., Spraul, K., & Ingenhoff, D. (2013). Under positive pressure: How stakeholder pressure affects corporate social responsibility implementation. Business Society, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, J. R. (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies: An empirical exploration. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 79–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, I., & Sharma, S. (2005). Pathways of stakeholder influence in the Canadian forest industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14, 384–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heugens, P., & Dentchev, N. (2007). Taming Trojan horses: Identifying and mitigating corporate social responsibility risks. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 151–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijstee, M., & Glasbergen, P. (2010). NGOs moving business: An analysis of contrasting strategies. Business Society, 49(4), 591–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, J. E., Lee, D. D., & Shen, Y. (2012). Does it cost to be sustainable? Journal of Corporate Finance, 18, 626–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. W. (2010). Assessing the long-term financial performance of ethical companies. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 18, 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. (2012). Is earnings quality associated with corporate social responsibility? The Accounting Review, 87(3), 761–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. (2007). Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protests on stock price returns. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 413–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kytle, B., & Ruggie, J. G. (2005). Corporate social responsibility as risk management: A models for multinationals (Working paper). Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. D., & Faff, R. W. (2009). Corporate sustainability performance and idiosyncratic risk: A global perspective. Financial Review, 44, 213–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lou, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2009). The debate over doing good: Corporate social performance, strategic marketing levers, and firm-idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Marketing, 73, 24–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louche, C., Idowu, S. O., & Filho, W. L. (2010). Innovative CSR: From risk management to value creation. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2003). Nature of corporate responsibilities: Perspectives from American, French, and German consumers. Journal of Business Research, 56(1), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, S., & Modi, S. B. (2012). Positive and negative corporate social responsibility, financial leverage, and idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 431–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, S., & Suan, D. (2010). Does corporate social responsibility influence firm performance of Indian companies? Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 571–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oikonomou, I., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2012). The impact of corporate social performance on financial risk and utility: A longitudinal analysis. Financial Management, 41(2), 483–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. (2001). Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business and Society, 40(4), 369–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renneboog, L., Ter Horst, J., & Zhang, C. (2008). Socially responsible investments: Institutional aspects, performance, and investor behavior. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32(9), 1723–1742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholders groups act? An interest and identity based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28, 204–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salama, A., Anderson, K., & Toms, J. S. (2009). Does community and environmental responsibility affect firm risk? Evidence from UK Panel Data 1994–2006. Business Ethics: A European Review, 20(2), 192–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salama, A., Anderson, K., & Toms, J. S. (2011). Does community and environmental responsibility affect firm risk? Evidence from UK Panel Data 1994–2006. Business Ethics: A European Review, 20(2), 192–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreck, P. (2011). Reviewing the business case for corporate social responsibility: New evidence and analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Servaes, H., & Tamyo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59(5), 1045–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spicer, B. H. (1978). Investors, corporate social performance and information disclosure: An empirical study. Accounting Review, 53, 94–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten, E. E., Kloot, L., & Clarkson, P. (2010). Extending the application of stakeholder influence strategies to environmental disclosures: An exploratory study from a developing country. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(8), 1032–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testa, M. (2008, September 7–9). Corporate social responsibility and reputation risk analysis. In Proceedings of CRRC Conference, Queen’s University Belfast.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, P. C. F., Yeh, C. R., Wu, S.-L., & Huang, I.-C. (2005). An empirical test of stakeholder influence strategies model: Evidence from business downsizing in Taiwan. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(10), 1862–1885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoutsoura, M. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance (Working Paper Series). Center for Responsible Business, UC Berkeley, 3 March.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss Aversion in riskless choice: A reference dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasi, I. B., & King, B. G. (2012). Social movements, risk perceptions, and economic outcomes. American Sociological Review, 77, 573–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 109, 5–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3, 229–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zietsma, C., & Winn, M. I. (2008). Building chains and directing flows: Strategies and tactics of mutual influence in stakeholder conflicts. Business and Society, 47(1), 68–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania

    Evelina Bendoraitienė & Valdonė Darškuvienė

  2. ISM University of Management and Economics, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Valdonė Darškuvienė

Authors
  1. Evelina Bendoraitienė
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Valdonė Darškuvienė
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evelina Bendoraitienė .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Advanced Sustainable Management, Cologne Business School, Cologne, Germany

    René Schmidpeter  & Anika Stürenberg Herrera  & 

  2. College of Business, Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Nicholas Capaldi

  3. Guildhall Faculty of Business and Law, London Metropolitan University, London, UK

    Samuel O. Idowu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bendoraitienė, E., Darškuvienė, V. (2019). CSR Policies and Financial Risks Under Stakeholders’ Aggressive Actions. In: Schmidpeter, R., Capaldi, N., Idowu, S.O., Stürenberg Herrera, A. (eds) International Dimensions of Sustainable Management. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04819-8_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation