Abstract
This paper investigates whether corporate philanthropic decisions are associated with a firm’s listing status and business group affiliation. Analyzing a large sample of public and private firms in Korea, we find that (1) public firms make more charitable contributions than private firms and (2) business group-affiliated firms make more charitable contributions than non-affiliated firms. The results suggest that public firms, owing to greater public scrutiny, and business groups, owing to higher political costs, are encouraged to make more corporate charitable contributions. Further, we find that (3) greater corporate giving by public firms than private firms is more pronounced for business group-affiliated firms, compared with non-affiliated firms. The result is consistent with business groups’ strategic coordination of their affiliates’ philanthropic decisions to tunnel business group resources out to controlling shareholders who hold a larger portion of private affiliates than public affiliates.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Note that Barnea and Rubin (2010) do not directly examine charitable contributions. Rather, they examine CSR ratings assuming that the rating is associated with CSR-related expenditure level.
Of the remaining 55 papers, 7 studies found a negative relationship, 28 studies brought insignificant associations, and 20 studies reported mixed results.
Details are available at KFTC’s business group information portal (http://groupopni.ftc.go.kr/).
The total asset requirement of KRW 7 billion has changed to KRW 10 billion in 2009, and KRW 12 billion in 2015.
In untabulated tests, we verify that our results remain qualitatively similar when we change the minimum number of affiliated firm in a business group from five to two or to ten.
Prior literature uses Heckman procedure instead of the often used two-stage least squares (2SLS) method when the variable of interest is not a continuous variable, but a binary variable (e.g., Ball and Shivakumar 2005; Kim and Yi 2006; Givoly et al. 2010). Wooldridge (2010) shows that non-OLS regression models as the first-stage equation of 2SLS estimation do not provide consistent coefficient estimates.
The Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI) is a measure of the market concentration of an industry. Thus, highly competitive industries have a relatively low HHI.
Our prediction based on H3 (δ3 > 0) is also consistent with greater charitable contributions by group-affiliated firms than non-affiliated firms being more pronounced for public firms than for private firms.
Our results are qualitatively similar when we add the excluded observations back to the sample.
Recently, researchers have raised concerns and criticism over the misuse of the propensity-score matching in addressing endogeneity issues (see DeFond et al. 2016; Shipman et al. 2016). That is, seemingly innocuous changes in PSM design can significantly affect sample composition and inferences from the results. DeFond et al. (2016) suggest using CEM as an alternative matching approach to PSM.
In the first-stage estimates of Heckman approach, we find that the coefficients on FirmSize, Leverage, ExportRatio, QuickRatio, Age, Industry_PubPr, and HHI (except SalesGrowth) are highly significant, indicating that our prediction model for a firm’s listing status is well specified.
To address concern about the heteroscedasticity of error terms, we also apply the White adjustment for standard errors, but the results are qualitatively similar to what we present in the paper.
We find that the mean values of most firm characteristics are similar between public and private firms, indicating an effective matching between the two groups (untabulated).
The sample size of CEM differs from that of PSM because CEM allows for a 1:N matching. Further, unlike PSM that condenses various dimensions of the covariates into a single dimension (that is, a summary score), CEM considers every aspect of the covariates. Thus, CEM is less vulnerable to the so-called random-matching problem of PSM.
Analyses are conducted for a sample of large business group affiliates over the period from 2001 to 2013 for which ownership structure data are available from KFTC.
We are very grateful to an anonymous reviewer to point out this perspective.
In untabulated tests, we verify that our results remain qualitatively the same when using log change variables [e.g., log(Givingt−1/Givingt−2)] instead of change variables [e.g., ΔGivingt−1] to measure various growth variables.
In untabulated tests, we verify that our results, while become weak partly owing to the loss of data, remain qualitatively similar when we use a longer 10 years of capitalization period.
In untabulated tests, we verify that our results remain qualitatively similar when we control for Advertising Intensity (advertising expense as a percentage of total sales) instead of Unrecorded-Marketing Assets.
Korean Corporate Governance Index (KCGI) developed by Black et al. (2006) is most widely used proxy for corporate governance in Korean evidence. However, KCGI is not feasible for our study, since it does not cover private firms.
We are very grateful to an anonymous reviewer to suggest isolating the impact of societal relations from that of political corruption.
We are very grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this market segregation in Korea.
Defining a Chaebol as “a group of companies of which more than 30% of shares are owned by the group’s controlling shareholder and its affiliated companies,” KFTC regularly releases the list of Chaebols and ranks the business groups by their total assets.
We find the same results from Logit regression estimates (untabulated).
We are very grateful to an anonymous reviewer for the suggestion to examine the initiation effect of corporate giving.
References
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.
Albornoz, B., & Pope, P. (2004). The determinants of the going public decision: Evidence from the U. K. Working Paper, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Economicas, S.A.
Amato, L. H., & Amato, C. H. (2007). The effects of firm size and industry on corporate giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(3), 229–241.
Atkinson, L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (1988). Stock ownership and company contributions to charity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 82–100.
Bae, G. S., Cheon, Y. S., & Kang, J.-K. (2008). Intragroup propping: Evidence from the stock-price effects of earnings announcements by Korean business groups. Review of Financial Studies, 21(5), 2015–2060.
Bae, K.-H., Kang, J.-K., & Kim, J.-M. (2002). Tunneling or value added? Evidence from mergers by Korean business groups. Journal of Finance, 57(6), 2695–2740.
Baek, J.-S., Kang, J.-K., & Lee, I. (2006). Business groups and tunneling: Evidence from private securities offerings by Korean chaebols. Journal of Finance, 61(5), 2415–2449.
Ball, R., & Shivakumar, L. (2005). Earnings quality in UK private firms: Comparative loss recognition timeliness. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39(1), 83–128.
Bancel, F., & Mittoo, U. R. (2009). Why do European firms go public? European Financial Management, 15(4), 844–884.
Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 71–86.
Bertrand, M., Mehta, P., & Mullainathan, S. (2002). Ferreting out tunneling: An application to Indian business groups. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 121–148.
Black, B., Jang, H., & Kim, W. (2006). Predicting firms’ corporate governance choices: Evidence from Korea. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12, 660–691.
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2005). Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), 29–44.
Brown, W. O., Helland, E., & Smith, J. K. (2006). Corporate philanthropic practices. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(5), 855–877.
Campbell, D., & Slack, R. (2006). Public visibility as a determinant of the rate of corporate charitable donations. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(1), 19–28.
Campbell, T. L., II, & Keys, P. Y. (2002). Corporate governance in South Korea: The chaebol experience. Journal of Corporate Finance, 8(4), 373–391.
Carroll, A. B. (2004). Managing ethically with global stakeholder: A present and future challenge. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 114–120.
Chaney, P. K., Jeter, D. C., & Shivakumar, L. (2004). Self-selection of auditors and audit pricing in private firms. The Accounting Review, 79(1), 51–72.
Chang, S. J. (2003). Ownership structure, expropriation, and performance of group-affiliated companies in Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 238–253.
Chang, S. J., & Hong, J. (2000). Economic performance of group-affiliated companies in Korea: Intragroup resource sharing and internal business transactions. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 429–448.
Chemmanur, T., & Fulghieri, P. (1999). A theory of the going-public decision. Review of Financial Studies, 12(2), 249–279.
Chemmanur, T., & He, J. (2011). IPO waves, product market competition, and the going public decision: Theory and evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(2), 382–412.
Chemmanur, T., He, S., & Nandy, D. (2010). The going public decision and the product market. Review of Financial Studies, 23(5), 1855–1908.
Chen, J. C., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. (2008). Corporate charitable contributions: A corporate social performance or legitimacy strategy? Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 131–144.
Choi, H. (2010). Conglomerates get behind social enterprises. The Korea Herald.
Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2007). The promise of a managerial values approach to corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 345–359.
DeFond, M., Erkens, D. H., & Zhang, J. (2016). Does PSM really eliminate the big N audit quality effect? Working Paper, Marshall School of Business.
Deng, X., Kang, J., & Low, B. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value maximization: Evidence from mergers. Journal of Financial Economics, 110(1), 87–109.
Dhaliwal, D. S., Radhakrishnan, S., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2012). Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: International evidence on corporate social responsibility disclosure. The Accounting Review, 87(3), 723–759.
Foerster, S. R., & Karolyi, G. A. (1999). The effects of market segmentation and investor recognition on asset prices: Evidence from foreign stocks listing in the U.S. Journal of Finance, 54(3), 981–1014.
Frost, S. (2007, February 6). Korean shareholders fight back. CSR Asia.
Fry, L. W., Keim, G. D., & Meiners, R. E. (1982). Corporate contributions: Altruistic or for-profit? Academy of Management Journal, 25(1), 94–106.
Gan, A. (2006). The impact of public scrutiny on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(3), 217–236.
Gautier, A., & Pache, A.-C. (2015). Research on Corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 343–369.
Givoly, D., Hayn, C. K., & Katz, S. P. (2010). Does public ownership of equity improve earnings quality? The Accounting Review, 85(1), 195–225.
Haley, U. C. V. (1991). Corporate contributions as managerial masques: Reframing corporate contributions as strategies to influence society. Journal of Management Studies, 28(5), 485–510.
Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.
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.
Hope, O.-K., Thomas, W. B., & Vyas, D. (2013). Financial reporting quality of U.S. private and public firms. The Accounting Review, 88(5), 1715–1742.
Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2011). Multivariate matching methods that are monotonic imbalance bounding. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(493), 345–361.
Joh, S. W. (2003). Corporate governance and firm profitability: Evidence from Korea before the economic crisis. Journal of Financial Economics, 68(2), 287–322.
Johnson, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2000). Tunneling. The American Economic Review, 90(2), 22–27.
Kadlec, J. J., & McConnell, G. B. (1994). The effect of market segmentation and liquidity on asset prices: Evidence from exchange listings. Journal of Finance, 49(2), 611–636.
Kang, J. (2013). The relationship between corporate diversification and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 34(1), 94–109.
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000). Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance, 55(2), 867–891.
Kim, J., & Park, J. (2012, April 5). Analysis: South Korea’s unloved Chaebol. Reuters.
Kim, J.-B., & Yi, C. (2006). Ownership structure, business group affiliation, listing status, and earnings management: Evidence from Korea. Contemporary Accounting Research, 23(2), 427–464.
Kim, Y., Park, M. S., & Wier, B. (2012). Is earnings quality associated with corporate social responsibility? The Accounting Review, 87(3), 761–796.
Kirk, D. (2016, September 26). Korean mayor crusades against Samsung, Hyundai In bid to boost country’s SME. Forbes.
Korea Corporate Governance Service. (2012). Analysis of environment, social and governance (ESG) performance of small and medium enterprises (in Korean). http://www.cgs.or.kr/CGSDownload/eBook/REV/C201211004.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2017.
Lee, B. (2012, September 16). Policies on Chaebol. The Korea Times.
Lev, B., Petrovits, C., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2010). Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 182–200.
Lev, B., & Sougiannis, T. (1996). The capitalization, amortization, and value-relevance of R&D. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 21(1), 107–138.
Li, S., Song, X., & Wu, H. (2015a). Political connection, ownership structure, and corporate philanthropy in China: A strategic-political perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2167-y.
Li, S., Wu, H., & Song, X. (2015b). Principal-principal conflicts and corporate philanthropy: Evidence from Chinese private firms. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2720-3.
Lundholm, R., & Sloan, R. (2013). Equity valuation and analysis with eVal. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.
Marquis, C., & Lee, M. (2013). Who is governing whom? Executives, governance, and the structure of generosity in large U.S. firms. Strategic Management Journal, 34(4), 483–497.
Masulis, R. W., & Reza, S. W. (2015). Agency problems of corporate philanthropy. Review of Financial Studies, 28(2), 592–636.
Mehran, H., & Peristiani, S. (2010). Financial visibility and the decision to go private. Review of Financial Studies, 23(2), 519–547.
Merton, R. (1987). A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information. Journal of Finance, 42(3), 483–510.
Moore, G. (2001). Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in the U.K. supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3), 299–315.
Moskalev, S., & Park, S. C. (2010). South Korean Chaebols and value-based management. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(1), 49–62.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). OECD foreign bribery report: An analysis of the crime of bribery of foreign public officials. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/oecd-foreign-bribery-report_9789264226616-en. Accessed January 5, 2017.
Pagano, M., Panetta, F., & Zingales, L. (1998). Why do companies go public? An empirical analysis. Journal of Finance, 53(1), 27–64.
Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595–612.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.
Schwartz, R. A. (1968). Corporate philanthropic contributions. Journal of Finance, 23(3), 479–497.
Seifert, B., Morris, S. A., & Bartkus, B. R. (2003). Comparing big givers and small givers: Financial correlates of corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3), 195–211.
Seifert, B., Morris, S. A., & Bartkus, B. R. (2004). Having, giving and getting: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial performance. Business and Society, 43(2), 135–161.
Shipman, J. E., Swanquist, Q. T., & Whited, R. L. (2016). Propensity score matching in accounting research. The Accounting Review, Forthcoming.
Tan, J., & Tang, Y. (2016). Donate money, but whose? An empirical study of ultimate control rights, agency problems, and corporate philanthropy in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 134, 593–610. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2386-2.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.
Wang, H., & Qian, C. (2011). Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1159–1181.
Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1978). Towards a positive theory of the determination of accounting standards. The Accounting Review, 53(1), 112–134.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yermack, D. (2009). Deductio’ ad absurdum: CEOs donating their own stock to their own family foundations. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(1), 107–123.
Yoo, C.-Y., & Pae, J. (2016). Corporate charitable contributions: business award winners’ giving behaviors. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25(1), 25–44.
Zhang, R., Zhu, J., Yue, H., & Zhu, C. (2010). Corporate philanthropic giving, advertising intensity, and industry competition level. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 39–52.
Acknowledgements
We thank Steven Dellaportas (Accounting Section Editor), two anonymous referees, Dominic H. Chai, Yong Jin Hyun, Jun-Koo Kang, Woojin Kim, Hyun-Han Shin, Chae-Yeol Yang, and the seminar participants at 2016 Korean Securities Association Conference, Korea Economic Research Institute, and 2016 Association for Fair Trade Research Summer Symposium for helpful comments and suggestions. Jinhan Pae acknowledges the financial support from Korea University Research Grant.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Variable Descriptions
Variable | Definition |
---|---|
Giving | The amount of charitable contributions as a percentage of sales |
GivingD | An indicator variable that equals one if a firm makes charitable contributions |
Public | An indicator variable that equals one if a firm is listed on KRX |
Affiliate | An indicator variable that equals one if a firm belongs to a business group |
FirmSize | The natural log of total assets |
Age | The number of years elapsed since the incorporation |
Leverage | The book value of short- and long-term debt scaled by the book value of equity |
ROA | Net income divided by total assets |
Advertising | Advertising expense scaled by total assets |
PreGivingD | An indicator variable that equals one if a firm made charitable contributions in the preceding year |
Big4Audit | An indicator variable that equals one if a firm has a big 4 auditor |
ExportRatio | The ratio of the amount of exports to total sales |
QuickRatio | The quick ratio measured by current assets less inventory divided by current liabilities |
Industry_PubPr | Proportion of public firms in a firm’s industry |
HHI | Herfindahl–Hirschman index, measured as the sum of squares of the market shares (firm sales/industry sales) of the firms in the industry |
ΔSALE | Percentage change in sales |
ΔGiving | Change in the charitable contributions, scaled by sales |
ΔPublicGiving | Change in the sum of the charitable contributions of public affiliates, scaled by the sum of the sales of public affiliates |
ΔPrivateGiving | Change in the sum of the charitable contributions of private affiliates, scaled by the sum of the sales of private affiliates |
ΔGroup-wide Giving | Change in the sum of the charitable contributions of all the group affiliates, scaled by the sum of the sales of group affiliates |
ΔGroup-wide Advertising | Change in the sum of the advertising expense of all the group affiliate, scaled by the sum of the sales of group affiliates |
Wedge | The difference between control rights and cash flow rights held by the controlling shareholder |
Unrecorded-Marketing Asset | (2.5/3) × Advertisingt + (1.5/3) × Advertisingt−1 + (0.5/3) × Advertisingt−2 |
CGVD | An indicator variable that equals one if a firm is not classified as a small and medium size enterprise according to Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises |
G_KFTC | An indicator variable for large business groups or Chaebols as designated by KFTC |
KOSPI | An indicator variable for firms on the KOSPI market |
KOSDAQ | An indicator variable for firms on the KOSDAQ market |
Big30 | An indicator variable that equals one if a firm belongs to top 30 Chaebol |
Initiation | An indicator variable for the initiation of corporate giving by firms that have not made charitable contributions in the preceding three years |
Appendix 2: Description on the Statistical Model
Public | Private | |
---|---|---|
Business Group | Public × Affiliate [A] | Private × Affiliate [C] |
Non-Group | Public × Non-affiliate [B] | Private × Non-affiliate [D] |
Equation (4) includes two variables of interest, Public and Affiliate, and an interaction variable of the two. In effect, the sample is partitioned into four subgroups: Public and affiliated firms [A], Public, but not affiliated firms [B], Private but affiliated [C], and Private and not affiliated firms [D]. δ1 is an estimate of the effect of listing status on corporate charitable contributions and δ2 is an estimate of the effect of group affiliation on corporate charitable contributions. δ3 is an estimate of the excessive effect of subgroup A on corporate charitable contributions. The impact of subgroup A (B) on charitable contributions, on average, is computed by summing up δ0, δ1, δ2, and δ3 (δ0 and δ1), while the impact of subgroup C (D) on charitable contributions is sum of δ0 and δ2 (δ0). The different impact on charitable contributions between A and B is the sum of δ2 and δ3, while it between A and C is the sum of δ1 and δ3. δ1 (δ2) shows the different influence on charitable contributions between B and D (C and D).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, B., Pae, J. & Yoo, CY. Business Groups and Tunneling: Evidence from Corporate Charitable Contributions by Korean Companies. J Bus Ethics 154, 643–666 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3415-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3415-0