Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

CSR and Financial Performance of Listed Firms in the Philippines

A peer-reviewed version of this preprint was published in:
Veredas do Direito 2025, 22(4), e223200. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v22.n4.3200

Submitted:

11 October 2024

Posted:

11 October 2024

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
The study explores the link between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the financial performance of listed firms in the Philippines. This research used a longitudinal approach to investigate data from the Philippine Stock Exchange Index (PSEi) from 2019 to 2022. The environmental, social, and governance (ESG) framework assessed CSR performance, while financial performance was measured using return on equity and stock return. Firm profiles such as industry type, firm size, firm age, and auditor type were used as control variables. The researchers used firms' sustainability, annual, and governance reports as the primary data sources. The regression analysis results show insufficient data to support the idea that CSR performance affects the firm’s financial performance. It shows that only governance performance is positively correlated and significant with return on equity. Other components and overall CSR performance were found insignificant with return on equity and stock return. This study provides preliminary information on the link of CSR to the financial performance of listed firms in the Philippines. It extends the current literature on CSR performance and its link to financial performance in an emerging economy setting.
Keywords: 
CSR
;  
ESG
;  
financial performance
;  
PSE
;  
Philippines
Subject: 
Business, Economics and Management  -   Business and Management

1. Introduction

Firms are now under immense pressure and scrutiny for their active contributions to achieving sustainable socioeconomic growth and development [1,2]. Before, firms' only objective is to be profit-driven and generate income for their stockholders. This objective resulted in environmental destruction, human rights abuses, and unethical business practices, but this norm is changing. Issues on climate change, human rights, and corporate governance have brought attention to firms' contribution to these dilemmas and how they contribute to sustainable development. Pressures from stakeholders like customers, investors, government agencies, and local communities expect public companies to promote and implement sustainable business practices [3]. Firms impact on the environment and society has become a significant concern.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) describes companies' voluntary initiatives to manage their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues and contributions. There is a growing concern about CSR due to climate change, global warming, and social inequality [4,5]. There is a notion that CSR practices are just additional expenses for firms that reduce profits, discouraging companies from engaging in CSR efforts [3]. Firms focus on strengthening their bottom line and other financial ratios as the main drivers of success. CSR has not been taken seriously before and is not considered a part of management objectives as it has no significant financial impact on the company’s bottom line [6].
Recent worldwide developments in the CSR movement reveal that investors and other stakeholders are developing an appreciation for sustainable development to supplement financial information in making sound investment decisions [7]. Now, firms incorporate CSR practices as a business strategy to maintain a balanced working relationship among stakeholders [8]. A clear CSR strategy benefits the companies and, more importantly, contributes to the development of society[9]. There is a growing interest in the construct of CSR and financial performance of firms. The changing business landscape has led to a growing interest in whether CSR activities can generate firm value and competitive advantage [10,11,12].
Previous literature has found inconclusive results on CSR performance on financial performance. Other studies show that CSR performance is positively associated with financial performance [13,14,15]. Moreover, it has been found that CSR performance has a positive effect on stock market valuation [16,17,18,19]. Additionally, it was found that CSR performance and return on equity have a significant positive impact [20]. Conversely, other studies have found a negative or no effect on CSR and financial performance. Almeyda and Darmansya [21] found no significant relationship with the stock price. Additionally, environmental and social performance were negatively associated with ROE [22]. Evidence also shows that firm profile controls the relationship between CSR performance and financial performance. Financial performance may be affected based on the industry type [23], firm size [24], firm age [25], and auditor type [12]of listed firms.
Aside from inconclusive results between CSR and financial performance, it is mostly done in developed countries. Limited studies have examined the construct of CSR and financial performance within the context of developing countries [26,27,28,29]. Findings in the context of advanced markets may not apply to those in emerging markets due to the differences in civil society, stakeholders’ expectations, regulatory frameworks, policy development, and institutional systems [27,30,31]. Driving factors for CSR performance in emerging markets may differ from those in developed countries [26,31,32]. In most emerging economies, economic performance is usually the most important driver for companies in doing business [33]. Few companies in emerging economies have considered CSR’s importance and assumed benefits [28,34,35,36]. Thus, there is a need to explore CSR and financial performance in the context of an emerging economy like the Philippines.
To address the gaps, this study examines whether firms’ CSR performance and its components can affect the financial performance of listed in the Philippines. ESG framework is mainly used to measure firms’ CSR performance. This study tests whether each ESG component affects the financial performance of listed firms in the Philippines. Financial performance was measured using two commonly used metrics: return on equity for accounting-based measures and stock return for market-based measures. Industry type, firm age, firm size, and auditor type are used as control variables of the study. It is believed that higher CSR results in higher financial performance. This study examines companies under the Philippine Stock Exchange Index (PSEi), which was used as the study sample. PSEi is a collection of 30 of the biggest and most active companies in the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE). A longitudinal research approach was utilized to investigate CSR and the financial performance of listed firms in the Philippines. The year of coverage of observation of the study is 2019-2022. Data is drawn from individual sustainability, corporate governance, and listed firms annual reports. CSR performance is divided into environmental, social, and governance. A rating for each dimension is formulated based on their level of disclosures. The results of this study provide preliminary information on the nexus in Philippine context.
This study is expected to have theoretical and practical contributions to the existing body of knowledge. It extends the current literature on CSR and its link to financial performance in the Philippines Stock Exchange Index firms. It adapts a multi-theoretical perspective using stakeholder and agency theory to develop the hypotheses of the study that investigate the relationship between variables. It overviews CSR efforts’ extent, nature, and quality by measuring the Philippines’ economic, social, and governance dimensions. This study assists firms’ management and investors in estimating any practicable relationship between CSR ratings and financial performance. Importantly, firms can discover opportunities by integrating ESG into their corporate strategy by supporting CSR programs and projects that may eventually convert to increased financial performance. Firms can realize that financial performance can be achieved by doing business sustainably. This also opens up investors and other market participants to the new modern socially responsible investing approach.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

According to Simmons et al. [37], CSR and financial performance are complex and cannot be explained with one theory. They recognize that there may be constraints in using one single theoretical view to explain the construct of the study. Consistent with the previous literature [27,29,38], the present study takes a multi-theory approach to examine the effect of CSR on the financial performance of listed firms in the Philippines. The multi-theoretical approach in this construct is considered complementary rather than opposing. A review of existing literature reveals that two dominant perspectives used to explain the effect CSR reporting and disclosure to the firm’s financial performance, stakeholder theory [23,39,40,41] and agency Theory [39,41,42,43].
Stakeholder theory puts forward that stakeholders are in a powerful position that a firm’s long-term viability depends upon addressing the concerns of its stakeholders and that the firm has the organizational responsibility to take care of all the stakeholders, not just the owners and investors[44]. This theory examines the existence of a link between companies and diverse stakeholders [41]. The survival of the firm depends on the support of the stakeholders. Therefore, firms must seek stakeholder support through their organizational activity [44]. Hence, businesses must maintain and manage good working relationships with these stakeholders, especially those associated with the firm’s operational activities [45]. It has been argued that CSR reports result from pressure from different stakeholders [46]. They are the main reason for information disclosure [47]. They expect firms to disclose not only financial information about the company but also non-financial information [48]. The stakeholders’ information requirements about firms’ operations have increased remarkably [48]. A CSR report is a communication tool for firms to distribute information to various powerful stakeholder groups and suggests that socially responsible firms will perform better. [44]. Thus, company disclosures reduce information asymmetries [7].
Agency theory explains the contractual relationship between the principal and the agent [49]. The principal is the party that directs the agent to carry out business activities on behalf of the principal in his capacity as a decision-maker [49]. Agency theory describes the conflicting relationship between agents and principals, assuming the existence of opportunistic conduct of managers and information asymmetry between the two parties. It is advisable to monitor the agents’ actions to align the principal-agent relationship that reduces conflicts and achieves the organizational goal of maximizing the shareholders’ wealth [50]. Company disclosure can act as a bonding and monitoring instrument in reducing agency conflicts between managers and shareholders [49]. The agency theory postulates that managers should disclose all relevant information available to stakeholders since principals cannot supervise all standard corporate activities [49,51]. CSR reporting may act as a mechanism for monitoring and controlling agency problems between managers and shareholders [52,53]. It lessens agency conflicts between managers and shareholders since the provided CSR information is more reliable [54].

2.1. CSR and Financial Performance

There is an ongoing debate on the link between CSR and firm performance. The adoption of firms in conducting sustainable engagements and its connection to financial performance have inconclusive results from previous literature. CSR is widely accepted to be measured based on three dimensions: environmental, social, and governance (ESG). Generally, CSR performance is believed to affect both financial and non-financial performance [55]. Firms that engage in CSR practices boost firms’ competitive advantages [28,34,35,36]. Moreover, CSR performance is believed to increase the firm’s value over time [35,56]. Yang et al. [57] examined 122 listed firms in China, showing that CSR performance significantly increases firm profitability. On the other hand, previous research found the opposite. Sampong et al. [25] documented a positive but insignificant relationship between CSR performance and firm value on South African listed firms. This was seconded by Mukherjee and Nuñez [36] in their study of 173 firms from the United States of America, which showed no significant relationship between CSR reporting and financial performance at an aggregate level.
This study utilizes return on equity (ROE) as accounting-based and stock return as market-based measures to measure financial performance. ROE is one of the most used profitability ratios, especially in research [58], this ratio shows the efficiency of own capital use. A higher ROE indicates a higher financial performance. The relationship between CSR performance and return on equity is complex and varies across studies. Buallay [20] found a significant positive impact of ESG on ROE in the European banking sector, with environmental disclosure having a powerful effect. Bermejo Climent et.al. [59] further supported this, demonstrating that CSR performance is associated with improved return growth. Alareeni and Hamdan [22] also found a positive association between ESG disclosure and ROE in US S&P 500-listed firms, with corporate governance disclosure having a powerful positive effect. These findings suggest that ESG performance has a positive impact on ROE. Naimy et al. [60] found no significant relationship between ESG and ROE in East Asian firms, while Plagge and Grim [61] observed mixed results in ESG performance. Almeyda and Darmansya [21] reported a positive relationship between ESG disclosure and a firm’s ROE but no significant relationship with the stock price. Therefore, from the literature stated, the first alternative hypothesis was formulated for empirical testing
Hypothesis 1 (H1). CSR performance and its components positively impact the return on equity of a firm.
Stock return is a market-based measure to assess how investors and market participants value firms. This metric was mainly used to verify the performance of the company from the perspective of the investors, whether the company was under or over valued by the market. Higher valuation from the market means higher stock performance for the firm. Shanaev and Ghimire [62] reported that CSR performance leads to positive abnormal returns. Gibson Brandon [63] added that stock returns positively relate to ESG rating disagreement, particularly in the environmental dimension, suggesting a risk premium for firms with higher disagreement. This is seconded by Lourenço et al. [64], who states that CSR performance has significant explanatory power for stock prices over the traditional summary accounting measures and found that the net income of firms with good CSR reputation has a higher valuation by the market as compared to those with less CSR reputation. Bag and Mohandi [65] found a small but significant impact of ESG performance on stock returns, with governance practices particularly influential. However, La Torre et al. [66] found no significant effect of ESG performance on stock returns for companies in the Eurostoxx50 index. Therefore, from the literature stated, the following second alternative hypothesis was formulated for empirical testing.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). CSR performance and its components positively impact the stock return of a firm.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Sample and Data Collection

The study sample are firms from the Philippine Stock Exchange Index (PSEi), which consists of thirty (30) companies used as a benchmark of the stock market's overall performance. The researchers focuses on the PSEi to prevent potential outliers from firms with no operation and/or are suspended from trading, which may affect the study result. The years covered are from 2019-2022. The beginning year of 2019 was considered the start of compliance of firms with the mandatory disclosure of annual sustainability report. The researchers obtained financial and non-financial data from the Philippines Stock Exchange (PSE) Electronic Disclosure Generation Technology (EDGE). If not found on PSE EDGE, the researchers used the firm's corporate website. The researchers eliminates the observation of firms whose annual CSR and corporate governance reports are unavailable. In addition, the PSEi is re-composed every six months; certain firms are added and removed from the index. Hence, firms consistently included in the PSEi from 2019-2022 are considered. After the exclusion parameters, the final sample is 23 firms from 2019-2022, resulting in 92 firm-year observations. This gave enough data for data processing and analysis.

3.2. Measurement of Variables

The study's dependent variable is financial performance. ROE is used as the accounting-based measure. The market-based measure is derived from the company stock return. ROE is computed by dividing a firm’s net income by their average shareholders’ equity, then multiplying by 100. The stock return is computed by dividing the difference between the ending share price for the year and the beginning share price to the beginning share price, then multiplying by 100.
Independent variables of CSR performance are divided into three dimensions: environmental, social, and governance (ESG). The researchers measures the environmental and social performance from each firm's sustainability report, which is based on SEC Philippines Memorandum Circular No. 4 series of 2019 entitled “Sustainability Reporting Guidelines for Publicly-Listed Companies.” This reporting guidelines have been developed using four globally recognized CSR reporting frameworks - the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) CSR Reporting Standards, the CSR Accounting Standards Board’s (SASB) CSR Accounting Standards, the International Integrated Reporting Council’s (IIRC) Integrated Reporting (IR) Framework and the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD). Governance performance is based on SEC Philippines Memorandum Circular No. 15 series of 2017 entitled “Integrated Annual Corporate Governance Report (I-ACGR).” This is derived on the recommendations of the Code of Corporate Governance for Publicly Listed Companies of the Philippines.
Following previous research methodology [42,43,67,68], the researchers measures CSR performance on a binary level which takes the value of 1 if the item is disclosed otherwise 0. A performance index for each dimension was extracted by counting the number of items disclosed, dividing into the total indicator per dimension, and then multiplying by 100. Environmental performance has 40 indicators, social performance has 53 indicators, and governance performance has 67 indicators. The overall CSR performance index is extracted based on the sum of the environmental, social, and governance performance dimensions and then divided by three.
The researchers also used firm profiles as control variables (industry type, firm size, firm age, and auditor type). The industry type is coded based on sector type found on the PSE EDGE (1 - financials, 2- industrial, 3 - holding firms, 4 - property, 5 - services, and 6 - mining and oil). Firm age is coded using the age of each firm since the incorporation date. Firm size is based on the logarithm number of the firm's total assets. Auditor type is a binary variable that takes 1 if the external auditor is a member or affiliate of the big four auditors globally - Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG), Ernst & Young (EY), Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), and otherwise 0.
Table 1. Definition and Measurement of Research Variables.
Table 1. Definition and Measurement of Research Variables.
Variables Acronym Operationalization
Dependent Variables
Return of Equity ROE It is calculated by dividing firms’ net income by shareholders’ equity.
Stock Return STK It is computed by deducting the ending share price at the end of the year from the share price at the beginning of the year and then dividing the difference by the share price at the beginning of the year.
Independent Variables
Environmental Performance ENVI Each of the 40 indicators relating to environmental performance takes a value of 1 if the corresponding indicator is disclosed; otherwise, 0. Then, it is calculated in percentages.
Social Performance SOC Each of the 53 indicators relating to social performance takes a value of 1 if the corresponding indicator is disclosed; otherwise, 0. Then, it is calculated in percentages.
Governance Performance GOV Each of the 67 indicators relating to governance performance takes a value of 1 if the corresponding indicator is disclosed; otherwise, 0. Then, it is calculated in percentages.
Control Variables
Industry Type IND It takes the value of 1 if from the financial sector, 2 if from the industrial sector, 3 if from the holding firms’ sector, 4 if from the property sector, 5 if from the services sector, and 6 if from the mining and oil sector.
Firm Age AGE The number of years since the incorporation date of the firm.
Firm Size SIZE The natural logarithm number of the firms’ total assets.
Auditor Type AUDIT It takes a value of 1 if Big Four auditing firms audit the firm; otherwise, 0.

3.3. Regression Analysis

To examine the relationship between CSR and financial performance for a given set of firms over four years. Pearson’s correlation was used to check the linear relationship between the variables. At the same time, to test for independence, the Durbin-Watson test was conducted to check for autocorrelation. Visual inspection of the scatter plot of residuals was made to verify the homoscedasticity and quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plot to check for normality. The researchers applies the following multiple regression model to test the hypotheses.
FPit = β0 + β1CSRit + β2INDit + β3AGEit + β4SIZEit + β5AUDITit + εit
where, FP is the financial performance alternatively return on equity and stock return of firm i at the time t; β0 is the constant term; CSRit is a vector of CSR performance three dimensions composed of environmental, social, and governance performance; INDit is the industry type; AGEit is the number of years since the incorporation of the firm; SIZEit is the natural logarithmic number of total assets of firm; AUDITit represents whether the external auditor of the firm is part of the big four auditing company; ε is the regression error.

4. Results and Discussion

Table 2 reports the Pearson correlations among the variables from year 2019-2022. GOV is positively correlated with ROE at 5 percent significance level. This result suggests that firms with higher governance performance have higher returns on equity. AGE is positively correlated with CSR at 1 percent significance level, indicating that older firms have higher CSR performance. Conversely, SIZE is negatively correlated with CSR at 5 percent significance level, which argues that bigger firms have lower CSR performance. The correlations between CSR and its components are lower than 0.700, indicating the absence of multicollinearity.
Table 3 presents the regression analysis of ROE and ENVI (Model 1) as the measure of environmental performance, SOC (Model 2) as the measure of social performance, GOV (Model 3) as the measure of governance performance, and CSR (Model 4) as the measure of the overall CSR performance. Model 3 coefficient shows positive and significant results, which indicates that governance performance impacts the return on equity of a firm. Models 1, 2, and 4 are found to be not significant with return on equity. These results clearly suggest that most CSR components and overall CSR performance do not affect the return on equity. The findings align with Earnhart [69], who found mixed results, showing a negative link between environmental and financial performance. Naimy et.al. [60] also found no significant relationship between CSR performance and return on equity. These results failed to accept H1 and indicate that CSR performance and its components do not affect the return of equity except governance performance.
Table 4 presents the regression analysis of STK and ENVI (Model 5) as the measure of environmental performance, SOC (Model 6) as the measure of social performance, GOV (Model 7) as the measure of governance performance, and CSR (Model 8) as the measure of the overall CSR performance. Models 5,6,7, and 8 are found to be not significant with stock return. These results clearly suggest that CSR components and overall CSR performance do not affect the stock return. This is congruence with the result of Torre et al. (2020), who found no significant impact of ESG performance on stock returns for companies in the Eurostoxx50 index. These results failed to accept H2, indicating that CSR performance and its components do not affect stock return.

5. Conclusions And Recommendations

This study explores listed firms CSR and financial performance in the Philippines from 2019-2022. The result shows that CSR performance does not yet translate into financial performance. This evidence aligns with previous literature [21,22] that suggests that CSR performance does not affect financial performance. Overall, the results show preliminary data on CSR and financial performance in the Philippines. CSR performance in this context is only in the early stage of development. The appreciation of stakeholders and investors on CSR performance is not yet reflected in financial performance.
The study has practical contributions for firms, stakeholders, investors, policymakers, and regulators. The result of this study opens opportunities for firms to discover the relationship between CSR rating and financial performance. Investors' awareness of socially responsible investing as a basis for future investment, making sure that they are investing in companies that promote CSR. Finally, policymakers and regulators can use the preliminary result to create additional policies and programs. This ensures that the CSR performance in the Philippines advances to achieve higher CSR performance among firms. Aside from practical contributions, this study offers important theoretical contributions. It extends the current literature on CSR performance and its link to financial performance in an emerging economy like the Philippines. It also extends the use of adaption and complimenting multi-theoretical perspectives using stakeholder and agency theories to investigate the relationship between variables.
The current study acknowledges limitations that provide avenues for further research. First, the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which created economic uncertainty among listed companies and the stock market. Future research must be done in a more stable market environment. A similar study must be conducted in the post-pandemic environment to test the effect of CSR on the financial performance of listed firms. Second, this paper tested firms from different industry types. Some firms are not as environmentally sensitive as others. Hence, they are not expected to perform corporate social responsibility than environmentally sensitive industries where greater corporate social responsibility is expected. A focused examination of environmentally sensitive industries can be explored in the CSR and financial performance nexus. Lastly, the researchers relies on the reporting guidelines by the SEC Philippines to measure CSR performance; a different scoring matrix can be developed to assign CSR performance scores. A scoring matrix wherein firms are given points on their positive engagements and demerits on the lack of data provided or actions that negatively affect ESG dimensions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.E. and E.M.; methodology, E.M.; validation, L.E., and E.M.; formal analysis, E.M.; investigation, L.E.; resources, L.E.; data curation, E.M.; writing—original draft preparation, L.E.; writing—review and editing, E.M.; visualization, E.M.; supervision, L.E.; project administration, E.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bapuji, H.; Husted, B.W.; Lu, J.; Mir, R. Value Creation, Appropriation, and Distribution: How Firms Contribute to Societal Economic Inequality. Bus Soc 2018, 57, 983–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. van Zanten, J.A.; van Tulder, R. Multinational Enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals: An Institutional Approach to Corporate Engagement. Journal of International Business Policy 2018, 1, 208–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chen, L.; Tang, O.; Feldmann, A. Applying GRI Reports for the Investigation of Environmental Management Practices and Company Performance in Sweden, China and India. J Clean Prod 2015, 98, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lodhia, S.; Hess, N. Sustainability Accounting and Reporting in the Mining Industry: Current Literature and Directions for Future Research. J Clean Prod 2014, 84, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kolk, A.; Kourula, A.; Pisani, N. Multinational Enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals: What Do We Know and How to Proceed? Transnational Corporations 2017, 24, 9–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Castelo Branco, M.; Delgado, C.; Ferreira Gomes, S.; Cristina Pereira Eugénio, T. Factors Influencing the Assurance of Sustainability Reports in the Context of the Economic Crisis in Portugal. Managerial Auditing Journal 2014, 29, 237–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Reverte, C. Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure and Market Valuation: Evidence from Spanish Listed Firms. Review of Managerial Science 2016, 10, 411–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kuada, J.; Hinson, R.E. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Practices of Foreign and Local Companies in Ghana. Thunderbird International Business Review 2012, 54, 521–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2012.
  10. Jenkins, H. A ‘Business Opportunity’ Model of Corporate Social Responsibility for Small- and Medium-sized Enterprises. Business Ethics: A European Review 2009, 18, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Berthelot, S.; Coulmont, M.; Serret, V. Do Investors Value Sustainability Reports? A Canadian Study. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 2012, 19, 355–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Welbeck, E.E.; Owusu, G.M.Y.; Bekoe, R.A.; Kusi, J.A. Determinants of Environmental Disclosures of Listed Firms in Ghana. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 2017, 2, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Al-Tuwaijri, S.A.; Christensen, T.E.; Hughes, K.E. The Relations among Environmental Disclosure, Environmental Performance, and Economic Performance: A Simultaneous Equations Approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2004, 29, 447–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Huang, C.-F.; Lien, H.-C. An Empirical Analysis of the Influences of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Performance of Taiwan’s Construction Industry: Using Corporate Image as a Mediator. Construction Management and Economics 2012, 30, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kang, H.-H.; Liu, S.-B. Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Performance: A Quantile Regression Approach. Qual Quant 2014, 48, 3311–3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cormier, D.; Magnan, M. The Revisited Contribution of Environmental Reporting to Investors’ Valuation of a Firm’s Earnings: An International Perspective. Ecological Economics 2007, 62, 613–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Moneva, J.M.; Cuellar, B. The Value Relevance of Financial and Non-Financial Environmental Reporting. Environ Resour Econ (Dordr) 2009, 44, 441–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. de Klerk, M.; de Villiers, C. The Value Relevance of Corporate Responsibility Reporting: South African Evidence. Meditari Accountancy Research 2012, 20, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Carnevale, C.; Mazzuca, M. Sustainability Report and Bank Valuation: Evidence from <scp>E</Scp> Uropean Stock Markets. Business Ethics: A European Review 2014, 23, 69–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Buallay, A. Is Sustainability Reporting (ESG) Associated with Performance? Evidence from the European Banking Sector. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 2019, 30, 98–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Almeyda, R.; Darmansya, A. The Influence of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Disclosure on Firm Financial Performance. IPTEK Journal of Proceedings Series 2019, 0, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Alareeni, B.A.; Hamdan, A. ESG Impact on Performance of US S&P 500-Listed Firms. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 2020, 20, 1409–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hussain, N.; Rigoni, U.; Orij, R.P. Corporate Governance and Sustainability Performance: Analysis of Triple Bottom Line Performance. Journal of Business Ethics 2018, 149, 411–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Korphaibool, V.; Chatjuthamard, P.; Treepongkaruna, S. Scoring Sufficiency Economy Philosophy through GRI Standards and Firm Risk: A Case Study of Thai Listed Companies. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sampong, F.; Song, N.; Boahene, K.O.; Wadie, K.A. Disclosure of CSR Performance and Firm Value: New Evidence from South Africa on the Basis of the GRI Guidelines for Sustainability Disclosure. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Boolaky, P.K.; Omoteso, K.; Ibrahim, M.U.; Adelopo, I. The Development of Accounting Practices and the Adoption of IFRS in Selected MENA Countries. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 2018, 8, 327–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kuzey, C.; Uyar, A. Determinants of Sustainability Reporting and Its Impact on Firm Value: Evidence from the Emerging Market of Turkey. J Clean Prod 2017, 143, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Md Zaini, S.; Samkin, G.; Sharma, U.; Davey, H. Voluntary Disclosure in Emerging Countries: A Literature Review. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 2018, 8, 29–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Orazalin, N.; Mahmood, M. Economic, Environmental, and Social Performance Indicators of Sustainability Reporting: Evidence from the Russian Oil and Gas Industry. Energy Policy 2018, 121, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Belal, A.; Owen, D.L. The Rise and Fall of Stand-Alone Social Reporting in a Multinational Subsidiary in Bangladesh. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 2015, 28, 1160–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Uddin, S.; Jayasinghe, K.; Ahmed, S. Scandals from an Island: Testing Anglo-American Corporate Governance Frameworks. critical perspectives on international business 2017, 13, 349–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Piñeiro-Chousa, J.; Vizcaíno-González, M.; Caby, J. Financial Development and Standardized Reporting: A Comparison among Developed, Emerging, and Frontier Markets. J Bus Res 2019, 101, 797–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J. Relationships between Operational Practices and Performance among Early Adopters of Green Supply Chain Management Practices in Chinese Manufacturing Enterprises. Journal of Operations Management 2004, 22, 265–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Aboud, A.; Diab, A. The Impact of Social, Environmental and Corporate Governance Disclosures on Firm Value. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 2018, 8, 442–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Beck, C.; Frost, G.; Jones, S. CSR Disclosure and Financial Performance Revisited: A Cross-Country Analysis. Australian Journal of Management 2018, 43, 517–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mukherjee, A.; Nuñez, R. Doing Well by Doing Good: Can Voluntary CSR Reporting Enhance Financial Performance? Journal of Indian Business Research 2019, 11, 100–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Simmons Jr, J.M.; Crittenden, V.L.; Schlegelmilch, B.B. The Global Reporting Initiative: Do Application Levels Matter? Social Responsibility Journal 2018, 14, 527–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Matuszak, Ł.; Różańska, E.; Macuda, M. The Impact of Corporate Governance Characteristics on Banks’ Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 2019, 9, 75–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Walls, J.L.; Berrone, P.; Phan, P.H. Corporate Governance and Environmental Performance: Is There Really a Link? Strategic Management Journal 2012, 33, 885–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Giannarakis, G.; Konteos, G.; Sariannidis, N. Financial, Governance and Environmental Determinants of Corporate Social Responsible Disclosure. Management Decision 2014, 52, 1928–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mnif Sellami, Y.; Dammak Ben Hlima, N.; Jarboui, A. An Empirical Investigation of Determinants of Sustainability Report Assurance in France. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 2019, 17, 320–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Saha, A.K.; Akter, S. Corporate Governance and Voluntary Disclosure Practices of Financial Non-Financial Sector Companies in Bangladesh. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research 2013, 11, 45–61. [Google Scholar]
  43. Janggu, T.; Darus, F.; Zain, M.M.; Sawani, Y. Does Good Corporate Governance Lead to Better Sustainability Reporting? An Analysis Using Structural Equation Modeling. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2014, 145, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Pittman, Marshfield, MA, 1984.
  45. Elijido-Ten, E.; Kloot, L.; Clarkson, P. Extending the Application of Stakeholder Influence Strategies to Environmental Disclosures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 2010, 23, 1032–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lu, Y.; Abeysekera, I. Stakeholders’ Power, Corporate Characteristics, and Social and Environmental Disclosure: Evidence from China. J Clean Prod 2014, 64, 426–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Riahi-Belkaoui, A. THE IMPACT OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ON THE INFORMATIVENESS OF EARNINGS AND ACCOUNTING CHOICES. In; pp. 121–136.
  48. Fernandez-Feijoo, B.; Romero, S.; Ruiz, S. International Journal of Business and Social Science. Does Board Gender Composition affect Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting? 2012, 3, 31–38. [Google Scholar]
  49. Jensen, M.C.; Meckling, W.H. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. J financ econ 1976, 3, 305–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Halme, M.; Huse, M. The Influence of Corporate Governance, Industry and Country Factors on Environmental Reporting. Scandinavian Journal of Management 1997, 13, 137–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fama, E.F.; Jensen, M.C. Separation of Ownership and Control. J Law Econ 1983, 26, 301–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ruhnke, K.; Gabriel, A. Determinants of Voluntary Assurance on Sustainability Reports: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Business Economics 2013, 83, 1063–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wong, R.; Millington, A. Corporate Social Disclosures: A User Perspective on Assurance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 2014, 27, 863–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Simnett, R.; Vanstraelen, A.; Chua, W.F. Assurance on Sustainability Reports: An International Comparison. The Accounting Review 2009, 84, 937–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Saeidi, S.P.; Sofian, S.; Saeidi, P.; Saeidi, S.P.; Saaeidi, S.A. How Does Corporate Social Responsibility Contribute to Firm Financial Performance? The Mediating Role of Competitive Advantage, Reputation, and Customer Satisfaction. J Bus Res 2015, 68, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Agyei, S.K.; Yankey, B. Environmental Reporting Practices and Performance of Timber Firms in Ghana. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 2019, 9, 268–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yang, Y.; Orzes, G.; Jia, F.; Chen, L. Does GRI Sustainability Reporting Pay Off? An Empirical Investigation of Publicly Listed Firms in China. Bus Soc 2021, 60, 1738–1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hapsoro, D.; Husain, Z.F. Does Sustainability Report Moderate the Effect of Financial Performance on Investor Reaction? Evidence of Indonesian Listed Firms. International Journal of Business 2019, 24, 308–328. [Google Scholar]
  59. Bermejo Climent, R.; Garrigues, I.F.-F.; Paraskevopoulos, I.; Santos, A. ESG Disclosure and Portfolio Performance. Risks 2021, 9, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Naimy, V.; El Khoury, R.; Iskandar, S. ESG Versus Corporate Financial Performance: Evidence from East Asian Firms in the Industrials Sector. Studies of Applied Economics 2021, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Plagge, J.-C.; Grim, D.M. Have Investors Paid a Performance Price? Examining the Behavior of ESG Equity Funds. The Journal of Portfolio Management 2020, 46, 123–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Shanaev, S.; Ghimire, B. When ESG Meets AAA: The Effect of ESG Rating Changes on Stock Returns. Financ Res Lett 2022, 46, 102302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gibson Brandon, R.; Krueger, P.; Schmidt, P.S. ESG Rating Disagreement and Stock Returns. Financial Analysts Journal 2021, 77, 104–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lourenço, I.C.; Callen, J.L.; Branco, M.C.; Curto, J.D. The Value Relevance of Reputation for Sustainability Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics 2014, 119, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bag, D.; Mohanty, S. Impact of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Factors on Stock Returns of Emerging Markets. SSRN Electronic Journal 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. La Torre, M.; Mango, F.; Cafaro, A.; Leo, S. Does the ESG Index Affect Stock Return? Evidence from the Eurostoxx50. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Htay, S.N.N.; Rashid, H.M.Ab.; Adnan, M.A.; Meera, A.K.M. Impact of Corporate Governance on Social and Environmental Information Disclosure of Malaysian Listed Banks: Panel Data Analysis. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting 2012, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Allegrini, M.; Greco, G. Corporate Boards, Audit Committees and Voluntary Disclosure: Evidence from Italian Listed Companies. Journal of Management & Governance 2013, 17, 187–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Earnhart, D. The Effect of Corporate Environmental Performance on Corporate Financial Performance. Annu Rev Resour Economics 2018, 10, 425–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 2. Pearson’s Correlation Matrix.
Table 2. Pearson’s Correlation Matrix.
CSR ENVI SOC GOV ROE STK AGE SIZE
CSR 1
ENVI 0.912*** 1
SOC 0.836*** 0.670*** 1
GOV -0.123 -0.330** -0.402*** 1
ROE 0.075 -0.016 0.032 0.229* 1
STK -0.045 -0.025 -0.057 0.003 0.083 1
AGE 0.272** 0.098 0.241* 0.275** 0.173 -0.040 1
SIZE -0.220* -0.336** -0.152 0.273** -0.178 -0.085 0.356*** 1
Notes: values per column are the correlation coefficients, * indicates significance at 5% level (p <0.05), two-tailed, ** indicates significance at 1% level (p <0.01), two-tailed, *** indicates significance at .01% level (p <0.001), two-tailed, ENVI – Environmental Performance Index, SOC - Social Performance Index, GOV – Governance Performance Index, CSR – CSR Performance Index, ROE - Return on Equity, STK – Stock Return, AGE – Firm Age, SIZE – Firm Size
Table 3. Regression Analysis of CSR and its Components on Return on Equity
Table 3. Regression Analysis of CSR and its Components on Return on Equity
Variables Model 1
(ENVI)		 Model 2
(SOC)		 Model 3
(GOV)		 Model 4
(CSR)
Constant 80.390*
(2.5309)		 84.5632**
(2.69034)		 14.5611
(0.358)		 92.172*
(2.9336)
Return on Equity -0.104
(-1.6557)		 -0.1325
(-1.57509)		 0.4342**
(2.798)		 -0.142
(-1.1450)
Industry Type:
Industrial -10.060
(-1.0440)		 -12.4301
(-1.35954)		 -4.6578
(-0.491)		 -13.625
(-1.4752)
Holding Firms -7.491
(-1.1601)		 -10.2195
(-1.70884)		 -5.5844
(-0.910)		 -9.993
(-1.6220)
Property -3.920
(-0.5745)		 -7.5441
(-1.17791)		 -5.5500
(-0.886)		 -6.208
(-0.9395)
Services -5.020
(-0.6401)		 -5.5233
(-0.70901)		 3.4465
(0.405)		 -7.599
(-1.0000)
Mining & Oil 19.382*
(2.1035)		 16.6722
(1.92384)		 18.9776*
(2.275)		 16.467
(1.8335)
Firm Age 0.185**
(3.2959)		 0.1873**
(3.33030)		 0.0905
(1.390)		 0.198***
(3.4699)
Firm Size -2.413*
(-2.3966)		 -2.3986*
(-2.36790)		 -1.5898
(-1.522)		 -2.604*
(-2.5980)
Auditor Type:
Non-affiliate -0.224
(-0.0517)		 0.0340
(0.00780)		 -1.0897
(-0.261)		 -0.311
(-0.0707)
Adjusted R2 0.260 0.258 0.195 0.247
Notes: values per column are the standard coefficients while t-stat values are in parenthesis * indicates significance at 5% level (p <0.05), two-tailed, ** indicates significance at 1% level (p <0.01), two-tailed, *** indicates significance at .01% level (p <0.001), two-tailed, ENVI – Environmental Performance Index, SOC - Social Performance Index, GOV – Governance Performance Index, CSR – CSR Performance Index
Table 4. Regression Analysis of CSR and its Components on Stock Return
Table 4. Regression Analysis of CSR and its Components on Stock Return
Variables Model 5
(ENVI)		 Model 6
(SOC)		 Model 7
(GOV)		 Model 8
(CSR)
Constant 25.8605
(0.378)		 19.53116
(0.2931) 		-27.4538
(-0.3057) 		34.9826
(0.5232)
Stock Return -0.0701
(-0.517)		 -0.28198
(-1.5813) 		0.3434
(1.0033) 		-0.2241
(-0.8461)
Industry Type:
Industrial -2.1460
(-0.103)		 3.28949
(0.1697) 		2.9834
(0.1425) 		-1.2728
(-0.0648)
Holding Firms -3.0185
(-0.217)		 -2.33602
(-0.1842) 		-0.9800
(-0.0724) 		-2.9409
(-0.2243)
Property -1.8742
(-0.128)		 -3.82587
(-0.2818)		 -2.6929
(-0.1949) 		-1.9103
(-0.1358)
Services 6.3698
(0.377)		 12.56127
(0.7605)		 13.6599
(0.7269) 		6.8048
(0.4208)
Mining & Oil 20.0557
(1.011)		 24.09418
(1.3114)		 20.5370
(1.1159) 		21.5340
(1.1268)
Firm Age 0.0124
(0.102)		 0.00964
(0.08080 		-0.0631
(-0.4397)		 0.0277
(0.2283)
Firm Size -0.7264
(-0.335) 		-0.17077
(-0.0795) 		-0.0323
(-0.0140)		 -0.7027
(-0.3294)
Auditor Type:
Non-affiliate -3.4680
(-0.372) 		-1.56883
(-0.1696) 		-4.0427
(-0.4396)		 -2.7696
(-0.2964)
Adjusted R2 -0.0308 -0.00358 -0.0216 -0.0252
Notes: values per column are the standard coefficients while t-stat values are in parenthesis * indicates significance at 5% level (p <0.05), two-tailed, ** indicates significance at 1% level (p <0.01), two-tailed, *** indicates significance at .01% level (p <0.001), two-tailed, ENVI – Environmental Performance Index, SOC - Social Performance Index, GOV – Governance Performance Index, CSR – CSR Performance Index
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
bsky
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated