International Journal of Financial Management

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility, Dynamic Capability and Financial Performance (Cases Study: Accepted Firms in Tehran Stock Exchange Market)


Affiliations
1 Department of Business and Management, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanity, University of Tabriz, Iran, Islamic Republic of
2 Department of Business and Management, University of Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


One of the main challenges for CEO is contradiction between the benefits of the shareholders and other stakeholders. On one hand, CEO should consider financial profits due to the shareholders; on the other hand, CEO should account for corporate social responsibility (CSR), concerning the needs and demands of society according to the interests of the stakeholders. The main question of this paper is whether corporate social responsibility is consistent with financial performance or not. A path analysis was conducted and the results indicated that CSR and dynamic capability have positive and significant influences on the financial performance. Furthermore, capital intensity, industry size, and firm size have positive and significant effects on CSR and concentration has a negative effect on corporate social responsibility. Moreover, the number of the shareholders has no effect on corporate social responsibility. One of the most complete procedures in MBA is the procedure of Thomas. He supposed that each customer in firms depends on CRM of the company.

Keywords

Corporate Social Responsibility, Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility, Dynamic Capability, Financial Performance, Tehran Stock Exchange Market
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Anderson, J. W. (1989). Corporate Social Responsibility. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books.

  • Balmer, J. M. T., Fukukawa, K. & Gray, E. R. (2007). The nature and management of ethical corporate identity: A commentary on corporate identity, corporate social responsibility and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 7-15.

  • Barnett, T. & Vaicys, C. (2000). The moderating effect of individuals’ perceptions of ethical work climate on ethical judgments and behavioral intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 351-362.

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

  • Berg, P., Kalleberg, A. L. & Appelbaum, E. (2008). Balancing work and family: The role of highcommitment environments in industrial Relations. Journal of Economy and Society, 42(2), 168-188.

  • Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. United States of America: Harper & Brothers.

  • Campbell, D., Stonehouse, G. & Houston, B. (1999). Business Strategy: An Introduction. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

  • Cornelius, N., Wallace, J. & Tassabehji, R. (2007). An analysis of corporate social responsibility, corporate identity, and ethics teaching in business schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 117-135.

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.

  • Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business Society, 38(3), 268-295.

  • Carter, C. R. (2000). Ethical issues in international buyer- supplier relationships: A dyadic examination. Journal of Operations Management, 18(2), 191-208.

  • Day, G. S. & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 1-20.

  • Duncan, O. D. (1975). Introduction to Structural Equation Models. New York, NY: Academic Press.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121.

  • Esrock, S. L. & Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self presentation or agenda-setting? Public Relations Review, 24(3), 305-319.

  • Fahy, J. & Smithee, A. (1999). Strategic marketing and the resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 3(1-21), 351-362

  • Fang, S., Chiung-Yao, H. & Huang, S. L. (2010). Corporate social responsibility strategies, dynamic capability and organizational performance: Cases of top Taiwan-selected benchmark enterprises. African Journal of Business Management, 4(1), 120-132.

  • Grant, R. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, Spring, 33(3), 114-135.

  • Hair, J. A., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  • Hay, R. D., Gray, E. R. & Gates, J. E. Business and society: Cases and text. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Co. (1976).

  • Holmes, S. L. Executive perceptions of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons. 19(3): 34-40. (1976).

  • Campbell, J. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Dartmouth College and Copenhagen Business School, 11(2), 967-993.

  • Lee, M. A. (2008). Review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 53-73.

  • Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E. & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 16-32.

  • Lindgreen, A., Swaen, B. M. & Johnston, W. J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation of U.S. Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1), 421-442.

  • Ljungquist, U. (2007). Core competency beyond identification: Presentation of a model. Management Decision, 45(3), 393-402.

  • Mcwilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603-609.

  • Méral, P. (1998). Future generations and economic activities: The case of the social discount rate. Forum for Social Economics, 27(2), 1-14.

  • Moir, L. (2001). What do we mean by corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance, 1(2), 16-22.

  • Panapanaan, V. M., Linnanen, L. & Karvonen, M. (2003). Road mapping corporate social responsibility in finnish companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2-3), 133-148.

  • Prahalad, C. K. & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 79-91.

  • Preston, L. E. & Post, J. E. (1975). Private Management and Public Policy: The Principle of Public Responsibility. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. .

  • Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595-612.

  • Robins, F. (2005). Why corporate social responsibility should be popularized but not imposed. In Proceedings of the European Academy of Management Conference, 2005, Munich

  • Rondinelli, D. A. & Berry, M. A. (2000). Environmental citizenship in multinational corporations: Social responsibility and sustainable development-the two approaches of sustainability applied on micro level. European Management Journal, 18, 70-84.

  • Rossi, A. S. (2001). Caring and Doing for Others: Social Responsibility in The Domains of Family, Work, and Community. University of Chicago Press.

  • Seifert, B., Morris, S. A. & Bartkus, B. R. (2004). Having, giving, and getting: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial performance. Business & Society, 43(2), 135-161.

  • Steiner, G. A. (1972). Social policies for business. California Management Review, 15(2), 17-24.

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.

  • Votaw, D. & Sethi, S. P. (1973). The Corporate Dilemma. Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

  • Welford, R. (2002). Globalization, corporate social responsibility and human rights. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9(1), 1-7.

  • Whysall, P. (2008). Values in the marketplace: What is ethical retailing? In Flynn, G. (Ed.), Leadership and Business Ethics (pp. 177-193). Springer: New York/Berlin.

  • Wilson, I. (2000). The new rules: Ethics, social responsibility and strategy. Strategy and Leadership, 28(3), 12-16.

  • Wulfson, M. (2001). The ethics of corporate social responsibility and philanthropic ventures. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(1-2), 135-145.

  • Yongvanich, K. & Guthrie, J. (2006). An extended performance reporting framework for social and environmental accounting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(5), 309-321.

  • Zsolnai, L. (2006). Extended stakeholder theory. Society and Business Review, 1(1), 37-44


Abstract Views: 444

PDF Views: 4




  • Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility, Dynamic Capability and Financial Performance (Cases Study: Accepted Firms in Tehran Stock Exchange Market)

Abstract Views: 444  |  PDF Views: 4

Authors

Rasoul Zali
Department of Business and Management, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanity, University of Tabriz, Iran, Islamic Republic of
avad Sheydayaee
Department of Business and Management, University of Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of

Abstract


One of the main challenges for CEO is contradiction between the benefits of the shareholders and other stakeholders. On one hand, CEO should consider financial profits due to the shareholders; on the other hand, CEO should account for corporate social responsibility (CSR), concerning the needs and demands of society according to the interests of the stakeholders. The main question of this paper is whether corporate social responsibility is consistent with financial performance or not. A path analysis was conducted and the results indicated that CSR and dynamic capability have positive and significant influences on the financial performance. Furthermore, capital intensity, industry size, and firm size have positive and significant effects on CSR and concentration has a negative effect on corporate social responsibility. Moreover, the number of the shareholders has no effect on corporate social responsibility. One of the most complete procedures in MBA is the procedure of Thomas. He supposed that each customer in firms depends on CRM of the company.

Keywords


Corporate Social Responsibility, Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility, Dynamic Capability, Financial Performance, Tehran Stock Exchange Market

References