Does R&D investment under corporate social responsibility increase firm performance?

  • Received January 14, 2017;
    Accepted March 14, 2017;
    Published May 10, 2017
  • Author(s)
    Yu-Chun Lin
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.14(1-1).2017.08
  • Article Info
    Volume 14 2017, Issue #1 (cont.), pp. 217-226
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    7 articles
  • 1802 Views
  • 672 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Research and development (R&D) investment affects firms’ growth and reflects their investment energy. However, it is recorded as an expense in financial statements, according to generally accepted accounting principles (e.g., International Financial Statements Standards). This study examines whether firms’ R&D investment has a positive effect on their performance, when they engage in corporate social responsibility. The author focuses on firms that have earned corporate social responsibility awards from Global Views Magazine, Common Wealth Magazine, and the Taiwan Institute for Sustainable Energy in order to measure firms’ levels of corporate social responsibility engagement. Tobin’s Q is used as a proxy for firm performance. Because corporate social responsibility engagement is not mandatory in Taiwan, the Heckman two-stage process is used to control for an endogeneity bias. In the first stage, logit regression is employed, using a dummy variable as a proxy for a firm’s social responsibility engagement. In the second stage, the impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value is estimated by regressing Tobin’s Q on various governance and firm characteristics and on a dummy variable for social responsibility engagement. Based on all public traded companies in Taiwan for the period 2005 – 2014, and after controlling for an endogeneity bias, it is found that R&D investment is positively associated with Tobin’s Q, but only when firms engage in corporate social responsibility. Therefore, an investment strategy that meets corporate social responsibility objectives benefits firm performance. The empirical results provide policy implications for firm R&D investment and corporate social responsibility implementation.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. Distribution of CSR-awarded firms and sample selection procedure
    • Table 2. Variable definitions
    • Table 3. Description statistics for all variables
    • Table 4. Correlation coefficient
    • Table 5. The association between CSR engagement and firm performance－Heckman two stages
    • Agyemang-Mintah, P. (2016). Remuneration Committee Governance and Firm Performance in UK Financial Firms. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 13(1-1), 176-190. doi:10.21511/imfi.13(1-1).2016.05.
    • Almsafir, M. K. (2014). Does Corporate Social Responsibility Lead to Improve in Firm Financial Performance? Evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 6(3), 126-138.
    • Anderson, R. C., and Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding-family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58, 1301-1328.
    • Aupperle, K., Carroll, A., and Hatfield, J. (1985). An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.
    • Barnea, A. and Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility as a Conflict between Shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 71-86.
    • Baron, D., Harjoto, M., and Jo, H. (2011). The Economics and Politics of Corporate Social Performance. Business and Politics, 13(2), 1-46.
    • Beurden, P., and Gössling, T. (2008). The Worth of Values – a Literature Review on the Relation between Corporate Social and Financial Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 407-424.
    • Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268-295.
    • Carroll, A. B. (2004). Managing Ethically with Global Stakeholders: A Present and Future Challenge. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 114-120.
    • Chang, Y. (2011). Does Corporate Social Responsibility Create Higher Stock Returns? Fu-Jen University Management Review, 18(1), 79-118.
    • Chen, T.J., Shiu, Y. M., and Nina, C. (2015). The Risk Management Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Shareholder Value. NTU Management Review, 26(1), 153-180.
    • Choi, J. S., Kwak. Y. M., and Choe, C. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Financial Performance: Evidence from Korea. Australian Journal of Management, 35(3), 291-311.
    • Crawford, M. E. (1994). New products development. Boston, MA: Irwin.
    • Crutchley, C. E., Jensen, M. R. H., Jahera, J. S. and Raymond, J. E. (1999). Agency Problems and the Simultaneity of Financial Decision Making: the Role of Institutional Ownership. International Review of Financial Analysis, 8, 177-197.
    • Dewar, R. D., and Dutton, J. E. (1986). The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Iinnovations: An Empirical Analysis. Management Science, 32, 1422-1433.
    • Donker, H., Poff, D., and Zahir, S. (2008). Corporate Values, Codes of Ethics, and Firm Performance: A Look at the Canadian Context. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 527-537.
    • Ekatah, I., Samy, M., Bampton, R., and Halabi, A. (2011). The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability: The Case of Royal Dutch Shell plc. Corporate Reputation Review, 14(4), 49-261.
    • Fombrun C. J., Gardberg N. A. and Bernett M.L. (2000). Opportunity Platforms and Safety Nets: Corporate Citizenship and Reputational Risk. Business and Society Review, 105(1), 85-106.
    • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
    • Garcia-Castro, R., Anno, M., and Canela, M. (2010). Does Social Performance Really Lead to Financial Performance? Accounting for Endogeneity. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 107-126.
    • Gatsi, J. G., Anipa, C. A. A., Gadzo, S. G., and Ameyibor, J. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility, Risk Factor and Financial Performance of Listed Firms in Ghana. Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, 6(2), 21-38.
    • Godfrey, P., Merrill, C., and Hansen, J. (2009). The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder Value: An Empirical Test of the Risk Management Hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425-445.
    • Gompers, P. A., Ishii, J. L., and Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate Governance and Equity Prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 107-155.
    • Gove, S., and Janney, J. (2011). Reputation and Corporate Social Responsibility Aberrations, Trends, and Hypocrisy: Reactions to Firm Choices in the Stock Option Backdating Scandal. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1562-1585.
    • Greene, W. (1993). Econometric Analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
    • Hart, S. (1995). A Natural-resource-based View of the Firm. The Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986-1014.
    • Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample Selection Bias as a Specification error. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47, 153-161.
    • Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., and Todd, P. E. (1997). Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme. The Review of Economic Studies, 64, 605-654.
    • Hillman, A. J., and Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What’s the Bottom Line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125-139.
    • Hirschey, M., and Weygandt, J. (1985). Amortization Policy for Advertising and Research and Development Expenditures. Journal of Accounting Research, 23, 325-335.
    • Jackling, B., and Johl, S. (2009). Board Structure and Firm Performance: Evidence from India’s Top Companies. CorporateGovernance: An International Review, 17(4), 492-509.
    • Jennings, P. D., and Zandbergen, P. A. (1995). Ecologically Sustainable Organizations: An Institutional Approach. The Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1015-1052.
    • Jensen, M. C., and Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
    • Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency Cost of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers. American Economic Review, 76, 323-329.
    • Jo, H., and Harjoto, M. A. (2012). The Causal Effect of Corporate Governance on Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 53-72.
    • Jones, T., and Wicks, A. (1999). Convergent Stakeholder Theory, Academy of ManagementReview, 24, 206-21.
    • Kallunki, J., and Silvola, H. (2008). The Effect of Organizational Life Cycle Stage on the Use of Activity-basedCosting. Management Accounting Research, 19, 62-79.
    • Lin, W. T., and Horng, M. S., and Chou, J. H. (2016). Relationship of Cash Conversion Cycle and PRGap with Firm Performance: an Empirical Study of Taiwanese Companies. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 13(3-2), 293-299. doi:10.21511/imfi.13(3-2).2016.01.
    • Makri, M., Lane, P. J., and Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2006). CEO Incentives, Innovation, and Performance in Technology-intensive Firms: A Reconciliation of Outcome and Behavior Based Incentive Schemes. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11), 1057-1080.
    • McWilliams, A., and Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127.
    • Milkovich, G. T., Gerhart, B., and Hannon, J. (1991). The Effects of Research and Development Intensity on Managerial Compensation in Large Organizations. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 2(1), 133-150.
    • Miller, M. H. (1986). Financial Innovation: The last Twenty Years and the Next. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 21(4), 459-471.
    • Mill, G. (2006). The Financial Performance of a Socially Responsible Investment over Time and a Possible Link with Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(2), 131-148.
    • Mishra, S., and Suar, D. (2010). Does Corporate Social Responsibility Influence Firm Performance of Indian Companies? Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 571-601.
    • Orlitzky M. Schmidt, F. L., and Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta Analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403-441.
    • Quazi, A. M. (2003). Identifying the Determinants of Corporate Managers’ Perceived Social Obligations. Management Decision, 41(9), 822-831.
    • Salam, M. A. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility in Purchasing and Supply Chain. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(Supplement 2), 355-370.
    • Sher, P. J., and Yang, P. Y. (2005). The Effects of Innovative Capabilities and R&D Clustering on Firm Performance: The Evidence of Taiwan’s Semiconductor Industry. Technovation, 25(1), 33‐43.
    • Soana, M. (2011). The Relationship between Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance in the Banking Sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(1), 133-148.
    • Sun, J. and Liu, G. (2010). Analysts’ Decision on Initiating or Discontinuing Coverage and Future Firm Performance. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 7(3), 8-21.
    • Surroca, J., Tribo, J. A., and Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Role of Intangible Resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463-490.
    • Swanson, D. L. (2008). Top Managers as Drivers for Corporate Social Responsibility. In The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, edited by A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, and D. Siegel (227-245). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Urban, G. L., and Hauser, J. R. (1993). Design and Marketing of New Products. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    • Waddock, S., and Graves, S. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance-financial Performance Link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319.
    • Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., and Cochran, P. L. (1999). Corporate Ethics Programs as Control Systems: Influences of Executive Commitment and Environmental Factors. The Academy of Management Journal, 42 (1), 41-57.
    • Xu, C., and Yan, M. (2014). Radical or Incremental Innovations: R&D Investment around CEO Retirement. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 29(4), 547-576.
    • Yermack, D. (1996). Higher Market Valuation of Companies with a Small Board of Directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 185-221.
Related Articles

  • The relationship between corporate social responsibility and earnings management: accounting for endogeneity

    Hyunjung Choi , Byungchul ChoiORCID , Jungyoon ByunORCID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.15(4).2018.06
    Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 15, 2018         Issue #4         pp. 69-84 Views: 4619 Downloads: 545 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    This study examines the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and earnings management after controlling for endogeneity of CSR. Using a sample of non-financial firms listed on Korean Securities Market between 2002 and 2010, this study finds that ignoring endogeneity biases the estimated relation between CSR and earnings management. Specifically, the results show that the negative and significant relation between CSR commitment and discretionary accruals reported in the previous studies becomes insignificant. However, the negative and significant relation between CSR commitment and real activities manipulation remains significant even when the endogeneity of CSR commitment is taken into account. Therefore, this study provides evidence that proactive CSR engagement significantly affects firm’s practice of real activities manipulation, while it does not affect its practice of discretionary accruals. These results indicate that CSR commitment leads managers to be more responsible in management of operational activities than in accruals management.

  • Does board composition have an impact on CSR reporting?

    Patrick VelteORCID Researcher ID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(2).2017.02
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 15, 2017         Issue #2         pp. 19-35 Views: 4473 Downloads: 1719 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting plays a key role in management control, particularly in light of the increased demand for non-financial reporting after the financial crisis of 2008–2009. This literature review evaluates 47 empirical studies that concentrate on the influence of several board composition variables on the quantity and quality of CSR reporting. The author briefly introduces the research framework that underpins current empirical studies in this field. This is followed by a discussion of the main variables of board composition: (1) committees (audit and CSR committees), (2) board independence, (3) board expertise, (4) CEO duality, (5) board diversity (gender and foreign diversity), (6) board activity, and (7) board size. The author, then, summarizes the key findings, discusses the limitations of the existing research and offers useful recommendations for researchers, firm practice and regulators.

  • Integrated reporting and financial performance of South African listed banks

    Reon MatemaneORCID , Rozane Wentzel doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/bbs.14(2).2019.11
    Banks and Bank Systems Volume 14, 2019         Issue #2         pp. 128-139 Views: 2769 Downloads: 540 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The recent development of integrated reporting intends to address the limitations associated with corporate reporting practices. This paper aims to examine whether a statistically significant relationship exists between integrated reporting quality and financial performance. Secondary data was used, namely the integrated reports and annual financial statements of South African banks listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) for 2010–2014. For the period 2005–2009, only the financial statements were used, since integrated reporting was not yet mandatory. The research design was longitudinal and it combined qualitative and quantitative methods. Descriptive statistics and Feasible Generalized Least Square (FGLS) were used to explore the relationships between financial performance and integrated reporting quality. The results indicate that there is a positive relationship between integrated reporting quality (IRQ) and earnings per share (EPS). However, there is no significant relationship between IRQ and Tobin’s q (Q-Ratio), IRQ and return on equity (ROE), IRQ and return on assets (ROA) as well as IRQ and economic value added (EVA). Moreover, there are no significant differences on the financial performance of the listed banks before and after the introduction of integrated reporting.

Download Preview
Close
Investment Management and Financial Innovations
Investment Management and Financial Innovations