AŞIRI KURUMSAL SOSYAL SORUMLULUKTA NAKİT AKIŞLARININ DÜZENLEYİCİ ETKİSİNE YÖNELİK YATIRIMCI İLGİSİ

Year 2024, Volume: 20 Issue: 3, 533 - 551, 30.09.2024

Cennet Gürbüz

https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.1434354

Abstract

Günümüzde bilgi kullanıcıları kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk (KSS) kapsamında gerçekleştirilen
faaliyetlere ilişkin finansal olmayan bilgilerin açıklanmasına ilgi göstermektedir. Bu kapsamda firma itibarı
ve paydaş ilgisini artırabilen KSS faaliyetlerinin finansal performansa yansımaları önem arz etmektedir.
Araştırma nakit akışlarının optimal ve aşırı KSS seviyelerinde firma değeri ile ilişkisini belirlemek
amacındadır. Araştırma KSS faaliyetlerinin firma değerine olan etkisini belirlemek amacıyla Türkiye’de
ESG skoruna sahip firma verilerini kullanmaktadır. Araştırmada optimal ve aşırı KSS faaliyetlerinin
firma değerine etkisini belirlemek amacıyla panel veri analizi uygulanmaktadır. Araştırma optimal KSS
düzeylerinin firma değeri üzerinde olumsuz, aşırı KSS düzeylerinin ise olumlu ve anlamlı etkisine işaret
etmektedir. Ayrıca sonuçlar, nakit akışlarının aşırı KSS düzeyi ile firma değeri arasındaki ilişkiyi olumlu
yönde yumuşattığını ortaya koymaktadır. Araştırma bulguları nakit akışlarının firma değeri ile KSS
arasındaki ilişkiyi aşırı düzeylerde olumlu yönde etkilediğini desteklemektedir. Araştırma KSS düzeyleri ve firma değeri ilişkisinde yönelik literatüre aşırı ve optimal KSS faaliyetlerine ilişkin ayrım yaparak nakit
akışlarının düzenleyici etkisine vurgu yapmaktadır.

Keywords

Nakit Akışları, Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk (KSS), ESG, Firma Değeri, Panel Veri Anaizi

Ethical Statement

Çalışmada araştırma ve yayın etiği ilkelerine uygun şekilde hareket edilmiştir.

Supporting Institution

Bu çalışmada herhangi bir resmi, ticari ya da kâr amacı gütmeyen organizasyondan fon desteği alınmamıştır

Project Number

----

INVESTORS’ INTEREST IN THE MODERATING EFFECT OF CASH FLOWS ON EXCESSİVE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Abstract

Today, information users are interested in disclosing non-financial information regarding activities carried out within the scope of corporate social responsibility (CSR). In this context, the reflection of CSR activities, which can increase company reputation and stakeholder interest, on financial performance is important. The research aims to determine the relationship of cash flows with firm value at optimal and excessive CSR levels. The research uses data on companies with ESG scores in Türkiye to determine the impact of CSR activities on firm value. The research applies panel data analysis to determine the impact of optimal and excessive CSR activities on firm value. The research points out that optimal CSR levels have a negative effect on firm value, while excessive CSR levels have a positive and significant effect. Additionally, the results reveal that cash flows positively moderate the relationship between excessive CSR levels and firm value. The research findings support that cash flows positively moderate the relationship between firm value and CSR at excessive levels. The research emphasizes the moderating role of cash flows by distinguishing between excessive and optimal CSR activities, in line with the literature on the relationship between CSR levels and firm value.

Keywords

Cash Flows, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), ESG, Firm Value, Panel Data Analysis

Project Number

----

References

• Ahmad, N., Mobarek, A., & Roni, N. N. (2021). Revisiting the impact of ESG on financial performance of FTSE350 UK firms: Static and dynamic panel data analysis. Cogent Business and Management, 8(1900500).
• Alparslan, A., & Aygün, M. (2013). Kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk ve firma performansı. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 435-448.
• Al-Shaer, H., Uyar, A., Kuzey, C., & Karaman, A. S. (2023). Do shareholders punish or reward extreme CSR engagement? Moderating effect of cash flow and firm growth. International Review of Financial Analysis, 88(102672), 1-20.
• Amato, C. H., & Amato, L. H. (2011). Corporate commitment to global quality of life issues: Do slack resources, industry affiliations, and multinational headquarters matter?. Business and Society, 50(2), 388-416.
• Asogwa, C. I., Ugwu, O. C., Okereke, G. K. O., Samuel, A., Igbinedion, A., Uzuagu, A. U., … Abolarinwa, S. I. (2020). Corporate social responsibility intensity: Shareholders’ value adding or destroying?. Cogent Business and Management, 7(1), 1826089.
• Atan, R., Alam, M. M., Said, J., & Zamri, M. (2018). The Impacts of environmental, social, and governance factors on firm performance: Panel study of Malaysian companies. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 29(2), 182-194.
• Aydoğmuş, M., Gülay, G., & Ergun, K. (2022). Impact of ESG performance on firm value and profitability. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22-S2, 119-127.
• Bajic, S., & Yurtoglu, B. (2018). CSR, Market value and profitability: International evidence. In S. Boubaker, D. Cumming, & D. K. Nguyen (Eds.). Research Handbook of Finance and Sustainability, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
• Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 71-86.
• Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794-816.
• Bird, R., Hall, A. D., Moment`e, F., & Reggiani, F. (2007). What corporate social responsibility activities are valued by the market?. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2), 189-206.
• Bose, S., Saha, A., & Abeysekera, I. (2020). The value relevance of corporate social responsibility expenditure: Evidence from regulatory decisions. Abacus, 56(4), 455-494.
• Brammer, S. J., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 435-455.
• Bu, L., Chan, K. C., Choi, A., & Zhou, G. (2021). Talented inside directors and corporate social responsibility: A tale of two roles. Journal of Corporate Finance, 70(102044).
• Buchanan, B., Cao, C. X., & Chen, C. (2018). Corporate social responsibility, firm value, and influential institutional ownership. Journal of Corporate Finance, 52, 73-95.
• Çek, M., & Eyüpoğlu, Ş. (2020). Does environmental, social and governance performance influence economic performance?. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 21(4), 1165-1184.
• Çetenak, E. H., Ersoy, E., & Işık, Ö. (2022). ESG (Çevresel, Sosyal ve Kurumsal Yönetim) skorunun firma performansına etkisi: Türk bankacılık sektörü örneği. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 63, 75-82.
• Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1-23.
• Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., & Richardson, G.D. (2004). The market valuation of environmental capital expenditures by pulp and paper companies. The Accounting Review, 79(2), 329-353.
• D’Amato, A., & Falivena, C. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and firm value: Do firm size and age matter? Empirical evidence from European listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 909-924.
• Daştan, A., & Bellikli, U. (2015). Kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk ve muhasebe etkileşimi: Türkiye’de kurumsal yönetim endeksine dâhil işletmelerde bir araştırma. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 10(1), 177- 208.
• Demir, Y., & Konak, F. (2022). Türk Bankacılık Sektörü’nde kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk ve firma performansı. Karadeniz Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 1-23.
• Duque-Grisales, E., & Aguilera-Caracuel, J. (2019). Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Scores and financial performance of multilatinas: Moderating effects of geographic international diversification and financial slack. Journal of Business Ethics. 168, 315-334
• Erben Yavuz, A., (2023). ESG skorlarının firma karlılığı üzerindeki etkisi: Borsa İstanbul örneği. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 58(3), 2686-2701
• Fettahoğlu, S. (2013). İşletmelerde sosyal sorumluluk ile finansal performans arasındaki ilişki: İMKB’ye yönelik bir uygulama. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 5(2), 515-524.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A Stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing Inc. Friedman, M. (1970). A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13, 32-33.
• Glavas, A., & Mish, J. (2015). Resources and capabilities of triple bottom line firms: Going over old or breaking new ground?. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3), 623-642.
• Gör, Y., & Tekin, B. (2018). Kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk kavramının karlılık ile ilişkisi üzerine bir çalışma: BİST 100 örneği. Sosyal Araştırmalar ve Davranış Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(5), 18-30.
• Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, 39(3), 254-280.
• Gregory, A., Tharyan, R., & Whittaker, J. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and firm value: Disaggregating the effects on cash flow, risk and growth. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(4), 633–657.
• Hasan, I., Kobeissi, N., Liu, L., & Wang, H. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance: The mediating role of productivity. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(3), 671-688.
• Islam, S. M. T., Ghosh, R., & Khatun, A. (2021). Slack resources, free cash flow and corporate social responsibility expenditure: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 11(4), 533-551.
• Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
• Jian, M., & Lee, K. W. (2015). CEO Compensation and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 29, 46-65.
• Keçeli, B., & Çankaya, S. (2020). ESG ve finansal verilerin pay değerine etkisi: Kuzey ve Latin Avrupa ülkeleri üzerine bir çalışma. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Girişimcilik Dergisi, 4(7), 31-49.
• Kong, D., Liu, S., & Dai, Y. (2014). Environmental policy, company environment protection, and stock market performance: Evidence from China. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(2), 100-112.
• Krüger, P. (2015). Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 115(2), 304-329.
• Lee, D. D., Faff, R. W., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2009). Revisiting the vexing question: Does superior corporate social performance lead to improved financial performance?. Australian Journal of Management, 34(1), 21-49.
• Limkriangkrai, M., Koh, S., & Durand, R. B. (2017). Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) profiles, stock returns, and financial policy: Australian evidence. International Review of Finance, 17(3), 461-471.
• Lin, W. L., Ho, J. A., Ng, S. I., & Lee, C. (2019). Does corporate social responsibility lead to improved firm performance? The hidden role of financial slack. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(7), 957- 982.
• McGuire, J. B., Schneeweis, T., & Branch, B. (1990). Perceptions of firm quality: A cause or result of firm performance. Journal of Management, 16(1), 167–180.
• Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R.W. (1988). Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis. Journal Financial Economics, 20, 293-315.
• Nguyen, A., Kecskes, A., & Mansi, S. (2020). Does corporate social responsibility create shareholder value? The importance of long-term investors. Journal of Banking and Finance, 112(105217).
• Nwanyanwu, L. A. (2015). Cashflow and organizational performance in Nigeria: Hospitality and print media industries perspectives. European Journal of Business, Economics and Accountancy, 3(3), 66-72.
• Oler, D. K., & Picconi, M. P. (2014). Implications of insufficient and excess cash for future performance. Contemporary Accounting Research, 31(1), 253-283.
• Önder, Ş., & Kaya, E. (2018). İşletmelerin kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk uygulamalarında kurumsal yönetim yapılarının etkisi: BİST 100 üzerine bir uygulama. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, Nisan, 155-170.
• Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A Meta- analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-441.
• Özdarak, E., & Akarçay, Ç. (2022). Is Environmental, Social, And Governance (ESG) reporting financially useful? evidence from Turkey. Journal of Research in Business, 7(1), 261-280.
• Özer, G., Aktaş, N., & Çam, İ. (2023). Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scores and financial performance of publicly listed companies in Turkey. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 18(2), 337-353.
• Özkan, A., Güngör Tanç, Ş., & Taşdemir, B. (2018). Sürdürülebilirlik açıklamaları kapsamında kurumsal sosyal sorumluluğun kârlılık üzerine etkisi: BİST Sürdürülebilirlik endeksinde bir araştırma. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 20(3), 560-577.
• Poroy-Arsoy, A., Arabacı, Ö., & Çiftçioğlu, A. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance relationship: The case of Turkey. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, Ocak, 159-177.
• Resende, S., Monje-Amor, A., & Calvo, N. (2024). Enterprise risk management and firm performance: The mediating role of corporate social responsibility in the European Union Region. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1-13.
• Rezaee, Z. (2016). Business sustainability research: A theoretical and integrated perspective. Journal of Accounting Literature, 36(C), 48-64.
• Rim, H., & Kim, S. (2016). Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) skepticism and their impacts on public evaluations toward CSR. Journal Public Relations Research, 28, 248-267.
• Rjiba, H., Jahmane, A., & Abid, I. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and firm value: Guiding through economic policy uncertainty. Finance Research Letters, 35(101553).
• Rodgers, W., Choy, H. L., & Guiral, A. (2013). Do investors value a firm’s commitment to social activities? Journal of Business Ethics, 114(4), 607-623.
• Şahin, A., & Acar, E. (2023). ESG skorunun firmaya özgü belirleyicileri, Borsa İstanbul örneği. Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış Dergisi, 70, 111-128.
• Şeker, Y., & Şengür, E. D. (2022). Çevresel, sosyal ve kurumsal yönetim (ESG) performansı: Uluslararası bir araştırma. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, 15(2), 349-387.
• Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59, 1045-1061.
• Shahbaz, M., Karaman, A.S., Kilic, M., & Uyar, A. (2020). Board attributes, CSR engagement, and corporate performance: What is the Nexus in the Energy Sector? Energy Policy, 143(111582).
• Shen, C. H., & Chang, Y. (2009). Ambition versus con-science, does corporate social responsibility pay off? The application of matching methods. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 133-153.
• Shiller, R. J. (2013). Capitalism and financial innovation. Financial Analysts Journal, 69(1), 21-25.
• Şişman, M. E., & Çankaya, S. (2021). Çevresel, Sosyal ve Kurumsal Yönetişim (ESG) verilerinin firmaların finansal performansına etkisi: Hava yolu sektörü üzerine bir çalışma. Çukurova Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 25(1), 73-91.
• Srivastava, A., & Anand. (2023). ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of ownership concentration. Corporate Ownership and Control, 20(3), 169-179.
• Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. (1997). The corporate social performance financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303-317.
• Zhou, G. (2022). Good for managers, bad for shareholders? The effects of lone-insider boards on extreme corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Research, 140, 370-383.
• Zuraida, Z., Houqe, M. N., & Van Zijl, T. (2018). Value relevance of environmental, social and governance disclosure. Research Handbook of Finance and Sustainability, 9, 458-483.
• Zwiebel, J. (1996). Dynamic capital structure under managerial entrenchment. The American Economic Review, 86(5), 1197-1215.