The Relationship between CSR and Banks' Financial Performance: Evidence from Turkey

Öz

The aim of this paper is to analyze the bidirectional relationship between CSR practices of Turkish banks and their financial performance which is proxied by ROE, ROA and NIM for the year 2013. Content analysis is used to analyze the degree of CSR level based on a CSR index calculation and the link between performance and CSR level is investigated. The results show that ROA and ROE have no explanatory power in explaining CSR, whereas there is a bidirectional relationship between CSR and NIMs. The results point to an intuition that the banks are likely to charge the costs of CSR practices from their customers

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Banking
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Financial Performance

Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk ve Bankaların Finansal Performansları Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye’den Kanıtlar

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren bankaların 2013 yılındaki Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk (KSS)uygulamalarının, aktif karlılığı, özkaynak karlılığı ve net faiz marjıdeğişkenleri ile ölçüldüğü banka performansı arasındaki olası çift yönlü ilişkiyi incelemektir.KSS düzeyi içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılarak bir KSS endeksine bağlanmış, performans ve KSS düzeyi bağlantısı ilişkilendirilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre aktif karlılığı ve özkaynak karlılığının KSS faaliyetleri üzerinde herhangi bir etkisi olmamakla beraber, KSS ve net faiz marjları arasında çift yönlü ilişkinin varlığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu durum ise bize bankaların KSS faaliyetlerinden doğan maliyetleri müşterilerine yansıttığı fikrini akla getirmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bankacılık
• Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk
• Finansal Performans

Kaynakça

1. Ararat, M. (2008). A Development Perspective for Corporate Social Responsibility: Case of Turkey. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 8(3), 271- 285.
2. Belkaoui, A. (1976). The Impact of the Disclosures of the Environmental Effects of Organizational Behaviour on the Market, Journal of Financial Management, 5, 56-31.
3. Bragdon, J.H. and J. Marlin. 1972. Is pollution profitable? Journal of Risk Management. 19(4)., 9- 18
4. Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility- Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268-295.
5. Demirel, E., Atakişi, A. and Abacıoğlu, S. (2013). Bankacılık Faaliyet Oranlarının Panel Veri Analizi: Türkiye’deki Kamu, Özel ve Yabancı Sermayeli Bankaların Durumu. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 59, 101-112.
6. Demirgüç-Kunt, A. and Huizinga, H. (2011). Do We Need Big Banks? Evidence on Performance, Strategy and Market Discipline. European Banking Center Discussion Paper, No:2011- 005.
7. Doğan, M. (2013). Measuring Bank Performance with Gray Relational Analysis: The Case of Turkey. Ege Academic Review, 13(2), 215-225.
8. Frooman, J. (1997). Socially Irresponsible and Illegal Behavior and Shareholder Wealth A Meta- Analysis of Event Studies. Business and Society 36 (3), 221-249.

9. Global Reporting Initiative. G4 Sustainability Reporting Guideliness: Reporting Principles and Standard Reporting-Principles-and-Standard-Disclosures.pdf Access Date: 03.06.2014.
10. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part1
11. McGuire, J.; Sundgren, A. and Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854-872.
12. McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117-127.
13. Micco, A., Panizza,U. and Yanez, M. (2007). Bank Ownership and Performance. Does Politics Matter? Journal of Banking and Finance, 31, 219-241.
14. Naceur, S.B. and Goaied, M. (2001). The Determinants of the Tunasian Deposit Banks’ Performance. Applied Financial Economics, 11, 317-319.
15. Nuhoğlu, N.I. and Wan, L. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure in Two Rising Actors: China and Turkey. MÖDAV, Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 14(1), 67-86.
16. Preston, L. E. and O’Bannon, D. P. (1997). The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship: A Typology and Analysis. Business and Society, 36, 419-429.
17. Saunders, A. and Schumacher, L. (2001). The Determinants of Bank Interest Rate Margins: An International Study. Journal of International Money and Finance, 19, 813-832.
18. Stanwick, P. A. and Stanwick, S.D. (1998). The Relationship between Corporate Social Performance, and Organizational Size, Financial Performance, and Environmental Performance: An Empirical Examination, Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (2), 195-204.
19. Taskin, F.D. (2011). Türkiye’de Ticari Bankaların Performansını Etkileyen Faktörler. Ege Akademik Bakış, 11(2), 289-298.
20. Turker, D. (2009). Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 411-427.
21. Ullman, A.A. (1985). Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationship among Social Performance, Social Disclosure and Economic Performance of U.S. Firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540-557.
22. Waddock, S. A. and Graves, S. B. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance- Financial Performance Link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303-319.
23. Zengin Karaibrahimoglu, Y. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility in Times of Financial Crisis. African Journal of Business Management, 4(4), 382-389.
24. Appendix-The Grading for CSR Practices
25. CSR Information Economic
26. Economic Performance Market Presence
27. Indirect Economic Impacts Average Materials Energy Water Biodiversity
28. Emissions Effluents Waste
29. Products Services Compliance Transport Overall
30. Labor Practice and Decent Work Social Employment Labor Management
31. Occupational Health Safety
32. Training and Education
33. Diversity Equal Opportunity Average
34. Investment Procurement Practices Non-Discrimination
35. Freedom of Association and
36. Collective Bargaining Child Labor
37. Forced and Compulsory Labor Security Practices
38. Indigenous Rights Average Community Corruption Public Policy
39. Anti-Competitive Behavior Compliance Average
40. Product and Service Labeling
41. Marketing Communications Compliance Average