THE EFFECT OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ON THE FIRM’S FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

Abstract

The objective of this research is to investigate the relationship between the corporate social responsibility and the firm’s financial performance. This relationship has been a very important issue and topic of great interest for researchers since from the origin of business entities. Therefore the aim of this study is to explore the nature of relationship between CSR and financial performance in the context of Egypt using a sample of 30 firms (firms listed on EGX 30) from 2007 to 2010. The sample was from a range of industrial sectors. We measured the corporate social responsibility by the S&P/EGX ESG Index, which is the only single source that offers published data regarding social corporate responsibility. The Corporate financial performance is measured by ROA and EPS. We find a positive and significant relation between corporate financial performance and the CSR. This result actually motivates organizations to think broadly about their obligations towards the society in which they operate rather than just maximizing their wealth

Keywords

• CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), FP (Financial Performance), S&P/EGX ESP

References

1. Alexander, G. J. & Buchholz, R. A. 1978. "Corporate social responsibility and stock market performance". Academy of Management Journal. 21(3):479-486.
2. Arlow P., Gannon M., 1982, "Social Responsiveness, Corporate Structure, and Economic Performance", Academy of Management Review, 7 (2): 235-41.
3. Arx, U. (2007), Principle Guided Investing: The Use of Exclusionary Screens and Its Implications for Green Investors, Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics 143, 3-30.Banz,
4. Aupperle K. E, Carroll A. B., Hatfield J. D, 1985, "An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability."
5. Academy of Management Journal 28 (2): 446-63. Brammer, S., C. Brooks, and S. Pavelin, Corporate social performance and stock returns: UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financial Management, 35(3): p. 97-116. Carroll A. B., 1999, “ A Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a
6. Definitional Construct”, Business and Society, 38(3), pg. 268-295. Cochran, P. L. & Wood, R. A. 1984. "Corporate social responsibility and financial performance", Academy of Management Journal. 27(1): 42-56.
7. Choi, J.-S. and Y.-M. Kwak. 2010. An empirical analysis on the relation between corporate environmental performance and discretionary environmental disclosure using stand-alone environmental reports or supplementary web disclosures. DAEHAN Journal of Business, 23(1): 545-573.
8. Ehsan and Kaleem, 2012. An Empirical investigation of the relationship between

9. Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance (Evidence from Manufacturing Sector of Pakistan). J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 2(3)2909-2922, 2012
10. Freeman R. E., 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston.
11. Friedman M., 1962, Capitalism and Freedom, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
12. Friedman, M. 1970, "The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits", The NewYork Times Magazine.
13. Garriga, E. M. and D. Mele: 2004, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility Theories:
14. Mapping the Territory’, Journal of Business Ethics 53, 51–71. Kaltenböck, A : 2008, “Corporate Social Responsibility and its effect on stock returns”,
15. Luce R. A., Barber A. E., Hillman A. J., 2001, “Good Deeds and Misdeeds: A
16. Mediated Model of the Effect of Corporate Social Performance on Organizational Attractiveness”, Business and Society, 40 (4), pg. 397. Mahoney, L., & Thorne, L. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and long- term compensation: Evidence from Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 241–
17. Martin Curran, M. 2003, "A systematic review of the literature investigating the link between corporate social responsibility and financial performance", New
18. Academy Review, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 19-41. McWilliams A., Siegel D., 2001, “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, January , pg. 117-127.
19. Mellahi, K.: 2007, ‘The Effect of Regulations on HRM:Private Sector Firms in
20. Saudi Arabia’, International Journal of Human Resource Management 18, 85–99. Moskowitz M., 1972, "Choosing Socially Responsible Stocks", Business and Society Review, 10:71-5, 1975.
21. Okoye A., Theorising Corporate Social Responsibility as an Essentially Contested Concept: Is a Definition Necessary? Journal of Business Ethics (2009) :613–627
22. Poddi L & Vergalli S: 2008. Does Corporate Social Responsibility affect firms’
23. Performance? "Colloquio Scientifico sull'Impresa Sociale", May, 23-24, 2008, Bari.
24. Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer: 2002, ‘The Competitive Advantage of
25. Corporate Philanthropy’, Harvard Business Review 80(12), 56–69. Preston L. E., O’Bannon D.P., 1997, “The Corporate Social - Financial
26. Performance Relationship: A Typology and Analysis”, Business and Society, 36 (4), pg. 419 Ullman, A. 1985. Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationship among social performance, social disclosure and economics performance of U.S. firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(1/2): 540-557.
27. Vance S. Are socially responsible corporations good investment risks? Managerial Review 1975;64(8):18–24.
28. Waddock S. A., Graves S. B., 1997, “The Corporate Social Performance
29. Financial Performance Link”, Paper presented at the national meetings of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX. Wahba H. 2005. Does The Market Value Corporate Environmental
30. Responsibility? An Empirical Examination. Faculty of Commerce, Ain Shams University: Cairo. Published online in Wiley InterScience 2007
31. WBCSD, (World Business Council for Sustainable Development): The Business Case for Sustainable Development: Making a Difference toward the Johannesburg Summit 2002 and Beyond, WBCSD, Switzerland.2002.
32. Wood D. J., 1991, “Social issues in Management: Theory and Research in
33. Corporate Social Performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, No. 2: 383-406.