CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AS AN (UN)ENABLER OF
FINANCIAL PERFOMANCE – THE CASE OF THE CHEMICALS
IN-DUSTRY
Tânia Sofia Soares de Freitas
Dissertation
Master in International Business
Supervised by
Manuela Castro e Silva
2019
ii Acknowledgements
The past year has represented the greatest challenge for both my professional and academic life. For this, I would like to highly appreciate and thank the precious help, pa-tience and kindness from Professor Manuela Castro e Silva during this process.
To my parents, Cidália and José, and my brother, Fábio, whom have always been my rock, thank you for lovingly encouraging me through each step and for understanding my absences. Additionally, an enormous acknowledgement to my precious cousins, Alexan-drine, João and Henrique, to my aunts Conceição and Luísa and uncle José for believing in me when I did not.
A huge thank you to my friends for their unconditional love and support, particu-larly to Estela, Luís and Tânia, who are my partners in life adventures.
Finally, to my coworkers, thank you for all the patience and support during the hardest times we have faced together.
This dissertation is dedicated to the loving memory of my grandparents, which will always be my guardian angels.
iii Abstract
Chemicals industry benefits are not as well-known as the health and environmental issues its misuse may provoke. This industry has been trying to change this factor, even creating a program to prevent potential problems caused by it, improve security and to help expand the communication with stakeholders named Responsible Care. Such measures are part of Corporate Social Responsibility.
Corporate Social Responsibility has emerged to respond to the increasing stake-holder pressure for more than just profit maximization. Two of the main benefits from Corporate Social Responsibility have an economic dimension: costs savings and revenue increase from higher sales and market share. Hence, literature has studied widely the rela-tionship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Financial Performance to comprehend to which extent one affects the other and the results found were mixed. Fur-thermore, the country of origin affects this linkage, as shown on previous studies.
As there is a lack of research between these concepts in the chemicals industry, this investigation aims to fill that gap, using a regression-type model for the top 50 chemicals’ firms in the timespan 2009-2017. CSR data is the independent variable, CFP the dependent one with Debt to equity ratio and Firm size (total assets) as control variables.
The analysis conducted a geographic comparison and the results obtained reveal a negative linkage between CSR and CFP on this industry for the whole sample – a 1 unit increase on CSR leads to a 0,05 unit diminution on CFP for the whole sample – with Eu-ropean enterprises following this negative trend, contrastingly with African, American and Asian, whereas CSR and CFP are positively linked.
Key words: Corporate Social Responsibility; Corporate Financial Performance; Chemicals Industry; Country of Origin Effect
iv Resumo
Os benefícios da indústria dos químicos não são tão conhecidos com os problemas de saúde e ambientais que o seu uso inapropriado pode causar. Esta indústria está a tentar mudar este fator, criando um programa denominado “Responsible Care” para prevenir poten-ciais problemas causados por esta, melhorar a segurança e auxiliar na expansão da comuni-cação com os seus stakeholders.
A noção de Responsabilidade Social nas Empresas surgiu como resposta à crescen-te pressão dos stakeholders para não existir só a maximização do lucro. Duas das suas maio-res vantagens têm uma dimensão económica: poupança de custos e aumento das receitas proveniente de maiores vendas e quota de mercado. Desta forma, a literatura estudou amplamente a relação entre Responsabilidade Social nas Empresas e os seus resultados financeiros para entender como uma impacta a outra e os resultados obtidos foram mistos. Para além disto, o efeito país de origem afeta esta relação, como demonstrado por estudos anteriores.
Existe uma falta de investigação na relação destes conceitos na indústria dos quími-cos, a qual esta pesquisa pretende colmatar, utilizando um modelo de regressão economé-trica para as 50 maiores empresas de químicos durante o período temporal 2009-2017. A Responsabilidade Social é a variável independente, a Performance financeira é a dependente, tendo o tamanho da empresa e o seu rácio dívida/capitais próprios como variáveis de con-trolo.
Efetuou-se uma comparação geográfica e os resultados revelaram uma relação negativa entre a Responsabilidade Social e a Performance financeira para esta indústria – o aumento de 1 unidade no índice de Responsabilidade Social leva à redução de 0,05 na
Per-formance financeira – tendo as empresas europeias seguido esta tendência, ao contrário das
africanas, americanas e asiáticas, onde existe uma relação positiva.
Palavras-chave: Responsabilidade Social nas Empresas; Performance financeira das empresas; Indústria dos Químicos; Efeito país de origem
v Index Acknowledgements ... ii Abstract ... iii Resumo ... iv List of Abbreviations ... vi
Figures’ Index ... vii
Tables’ Index ... viii
Introduction ... 1
1. Literature Review ... 3
1.1. Corporate Social Responsibility ... 3
1.2. The relationship between CSR and CFP ... 8
1.3. Country-of-origin effect on CSR ... 10 2. Methodology ... 13 3. Model development ... 18 Conclusion ... 21 References ... 23 Webpages List ... 29 Attachments... 31
vi List of Abbreviations
CED: Committee for Economic Development CFP: Corporate Financial Performance
CSP: Corporate Social Performance CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility EC: European Commission
ESG: Environmental, Social & Governance GRI: Global Reporting Initiative
MNEs: Multinational Enterprises ROA: Return on Assets
ROE: Return on Equity UN: United Nations
vii Figures’ Index
Figure 1 – Society’s expectations over business responsibility...5 Figure 2 – Relationship between International Management & CSR strategies and their outcomes for CSR………...…………8
viii Tables’ Index
Table 1 – Studies Findings’ description...12
Table 2 – Studied Variables’ description...15
Table 3 – Sample summarized by geographical area, number and %...15
Table 4 – Sample descriptive statistics...17
Table 5 – Variables’ correlation...18
Table 6 – Variance Inflation Factors...18
Table 7 – Total Sample descriptive statistics for ROA...18
Table 8 – Descriptive statistics for each continent...19
Table A1 – Global Top 50 chemical companies...29
1 Introduction
In the recent years, firms’ Strategic Management has been transforming – stakeholder demands’ do not comprise merely profit maximization (Fortanier, Kolk, & Pinske, 2011). Such event prompts Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) into the agenda. According to the European Commission (2018a), CSR corresponds to organisations’ concern for their effect on society – it can be conducted by obeying to the law or taking into consideration not only environmental questions, but also social, ethical and human rights related on their daily business. This matter’s growing relevance has led many firms listed on the Fortune 500 list employing full-time staff to undertake their CSR activities, impacting business, an-nually, in millions of dollars (Robinson & Wood, 2018).
Scholars have been studying CSR since the 1960s and several definitions of this con-cept have emerged (Carroll, 2016). The same author on 1979, built a triangular-shaped framework to encompass CSR dimensions: economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. Cor-porate Financial Performance is linked to the economic dimension of CSR, which meas-urement is performed via financial statements’ examination (Knight & Bertoneche, 2001). Firms and country-level aspects play a significant role on financial performance, as Salah pointed out (2018).
Apart from previous requirements, stakeholder also entail accountability and transpar-ency on this matter (Paun, 2018). Such prospects are bounded by geographic environment (Einwiller, Ruppel, & Schnauber, 2016). CSR Reporting fulfils these requests and has al-ready several global standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Global Compact by the United Nations (UN), upon others (Fortanier, Kolk, & Pinske, 2011). Ad-ditionally, the last one provides a context for CSR analysis, identifying 3 main areas – Envi-ronment, Social and Governance – and the subsequent issues which currently exist on each (UN Global Compact, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c).
Chemicals are crucial elements on our daily lives; however, the improper use may cause health and environmental problems (European Commission, 2018b). The chemicals indus-try is estimated to employ around 20 million people (International Labour Organization, 2018). Besides this, the global chemical turnover was around 3,475 billion euros in 2017 (European Chemical Industry Council, 2018a). This summarizes the strategic relevance of this industry for the national economies growth (International Labour Organization, 2018). In order to prevent potential problems caused by this industry, improve security and to help expand the communication with stakeholders, the initiative Responsible Care was born
2 (European Chemical Industry Council, 2018b).
Weber (2008) identified five major areas of CSR’s business benefits: positive effects on company image and reputation; employee motivation, retention, and recruitment; costs savings; revenue increases from higher sales and market share; and a decrease on CSR-related risk. Two of these benefits are CSR-related to Corporate Financial Performance (CFP), proofing the intimate relation between the concepts of CSR and CFP.
Therefore, it is important to find whether level of firms’ CSR commitment affects the financial performance. On the manufacturing industry, Chen, Feldmann & Tang (2015) analysed GRI reports from 75 sample companies, divided into five groups: automotive, metals products industry, forest and paper, chemical and health care industry – CSR was measured by indicators according to the GRI guidelines (Human Rights, Labor, Society & Product responsibility categories) and financial performance was calculated return on equi-ty, sales growth and cashflow/sales ratio. As pointed out by Acutt, Medina-Ross, & O'Riordan (2004), the increasing complexity on global economy and social, environmental and economic inequities are leading the chemicals industry to exhibit their commitment and accountability towards CSR. They remarked the absence of CSR on the sector, verified also on their context – Mexican and South African countries – conducting a series of semi-structured interviews with individuals which belong to a large spectrum (from chemicals corporations until national governments). Given this field’ lack of research for the chemi-cals industry, this study aims to fill in that gap and understand to which extent CSR some-how affects the financial performance on this case. Institutions, political decision-making, state regulation influence on corporations acting in a socially responsible manner (Camp-bell, 2006). Given the case when social actors are involved in the regulations’ conception, he declares their responsiveness to it increases. Lock & Seele (2015) conducted a study which included the chemicals industry and concluded there is difference on CSR reporting according to the country of origin – for instance, German companies tend to report more on social agenda, instead of the environmental one, whilst Swiss ones are the opposites.
These goals lead to the following research question: Does CSR affects financial per-formance on the chemicals industry? Does this effect change geographically? In order to answer this question, a quantitative approach will take place via econometrics (re-gression-type) model. The sample used is the top 50 chemicals companies in the world and the time frame is 9 years (2009-2017).
3 1. Literature Review
The aim for this chapter is to summarize the existent research on CSR and CSP field studies, thus, giving an overview on the matter and providing the background for this in-vestigation. This chapter is subdivided in three subchapters: Corporate Social Responsibility;
The relationship between CSR and CFP and lastly, The country-of-origin effect on CSR. First one
aims to summarize the literature existent on Corporate Social Responsibility and how is measured enterprises’ commitment to it. The second subchapter will provide the synopsis on the 3 main perspectives, present in literature, regarding the relationship between CSR and CFP: positive, negative and null. Finally, the third subchapter summarizes how home/host countries and respective values, institutional organizations and public policies affect CSR, and, consequently, CFP.
1.1. Corporate Social Responsibility
From a macroeconomic point of view, corporations have grown their wealth – out of 100 biggest economic entities, 69 are companies (Global Justice Now, 2016) – becoming even more powerful actors. Therefore, there is an increased attention on how firms act towards society – if their voice is used in a socially responsible form.
The idea flourished on major businessmen minds and presented itself on numerous forms in American economic circle around 1920 (Frederick, 2006). This time frame, period prior to the 1950s, was named by Carroll (2008) as philanthropic one – firms’ social contri-butions were mainly through donations. CSR concept has gained several definitions over the years and Bhaduri & Selarka (2016) identified 6 phases to its development: the first and second one are dated between 1950-60s, when the idea was brought into academic spot-light; in 1970s there was a fast evolution; during the 1980s stakeholder theory and business ethics were linked to CSR; in the 1990s firms involved CSR activities on their business; lastly, from 2000s onwards, scholars concentrated on the effect of CSR in business strategy.
Frederick (2006) acknowledged the three predominant ideas during the 1950s: firms’ managers shall operate as public trustworthy figures; philanthropy was recognized as an exhibit of firms’ supporting noble causes; lastly, enterprises shall counterweight competi-tors’ allegations and corporate resources. Carroll (2008) described this decade as more the-oretical than practical and pointed out Bowen’s major contributions to the academic field.
4 Bowen (1953) defined CSR as an obligation of businessmen to according society’ stand-ards. Carroll & Shabana (2010) considered this perception as a decade ahead of its time.
In the following decade, McGuire (1963) extended this point of view to firms’ not hav-ing only legal and economic duties, but also other responsibilities towards society. Accord-ing to Frederick (1960), society’s (human and economic) resources should not be used for self or firms’ interest, but for major social causes. Davis (1960) set the definition on mana-gerial context – when business executives’ behaviour goes outside the corporation interest (economic or technical), they are acting in a socially responsible way. Walton (1967) argued that the intimate strings between the firm and society shall be taken into consideration by top management whilst they are pursuing their objectives. Both authors disagreed on the return these actions might have – Davis (1960) suggested they might pay off on the long run; on the other hand, Walton (1967) stated there might be no measurable economic re-turn from them. During this time, CSR was nourished by extrinsic and socially conscious drivers (Carroll & Shabana, 2010).
Carroll (1979) followed this trend, whilst building the pyramid which compiles CSR’s four dimensions – economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic – and companies were ex-pected to fulfill them. Economic responsibility embodies the business requirement to pro-vide profit. Legal responsibility is linked to companies obeying to laws and regulations. Ethical responsibility is to act beyond legal requisitions. Philanthropic responsibility is to engage voluntarily on social activities, such as charitable donations, for instance. Commit-tee for Economic Development (CED) (1971) revealed public was increasing concern over environmental problems (air and water pollution) and that enterprises were not providing enough attention to societal problems. Besides, CED (1971) pointed out society had wid-ened their expectations over business’ responsibilities, which might be represented graph-ically in three concentric circles (Figure 1).
5
Figure 1. Society’s expectations over business responsibility, built upon CED (1971)
The inner circle represents the effective accomplishment of the economic purpose (employment, products and economy’s positive development); the intermediate circle refers to the economic function fulfillment’, keeping in mind changeable social values and priori-ties, such as environmental preservation, both candidates and employees’ fair treatment, health care for them and rigorous disclosure of information for costumers; lastly, the outer circle encompasses emergent public concerns related to poverty and urban disfigurement, for example, and the belief where business has access to the resources which will help solv-ing them. On the 1970s, concepts such as corporate social responsibility, responsiveness and performance grew into the center of debate (Carroll & Shabana, 2010).
Davis (1973) gathered the main arguments on favour and against CSR. Concerning points on favour of CSR: the first lays on long-run self-interest – both social goods and programs will outcome in bigger profit for the business. Regarding avoidance of govern-ment regulation – when the businessman accomplishes both private and public goods, there is no need for new laws, thus, he retains power and a flexible decision making. Sever-al organizations were ineffective whilst attempting to solve sociSever-al problems, hence, it was decided to give business a try and it has the resources (talent management; innovative mindset and increasingly productive capitals) to provide solutions to social problems and they may be dealt with a profitable outcome – problems can become profits. For instance, chemical firms’ waste turned into profit on some specific scenarios. Lastly, in an economic point of view, this type of question should be handled prior to any negative consequence – prevention is better than curing. Falck & Heblich (2007) affirmed CSR was a path for both societies and firms to thrive. On other perspective, Smith (2003) claims CSR benefits cor-porations through (in)direct economic efficiencies. Additionally, CSR might help enhancing
Outer circle Interme-diate circle Inner circle
6 firms’/product reputation, when it pursues a differentiation strategy (McWilliams & Siegel, 2011).
In contrast, there are also ideas against CSR. Firstly, it is defended that economic crite-ria are the only valid ones to quantify a firm’ success and, whose sole goal is profit maximi-zation. Business is forced into social activities, which present costs and, subsequently, ousts minor firms from the industry. This is reported to have occurred on the chemicals industry. Other arguments presented are lack of accountability and lack of broad support will cause business to face an unreceptive context whilst attempting to increase social involvement, potentially causing side-effects and failing the assignment. Nowadays, reputational risk also displays as a threat, when there is an abuse from companies, even if it is a remote place (Smith, 2003). Moreover, CSR can present as a risk to shareholders, when there is a special attention to environment, leading to an increase of production costs, causing the firms to be in disadvantage regarding its competitors (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2015).
Nobel prize winner Friedman (1970) looked at CSR through a distinct angle – firms’ only social responsibility is to use its resources to obtain more profit (known as the stock-holder theory). Schwarzt & Saiia (2012) argue that this definition ought to be regarded from an ethical point of view, considering that shareholders have moral rights. They have identified the ethical obligations firms shall not breach – core values (responsibility, trust-worthiness), utilitarianism (acting towards the common good, despite the fact it might not be the best for the firm), Kantianism (respect others), moral rights and justice. Jones (1980) defended companies had duty with other society groups, apart from stockholders (compa-ny owners). Such groups are identified as stakeholders – costumers, suppliers, employees, media, government, global competitors, amongst others (Freeman, 1984). Tuzzolino & Armandi (1981) built theoretical framework to evaluate organizational social responsibility. When a firm fulfils physiological and safety desires, it is addressing its stockholders; whilst accomplishes the affiliative demand, it is responding to its peers; whenever the enterprise achieves self-actualization, it contents all the claimers. They argued this type of analysis might assist on organizational governance.
According to Bhaduri & Selarka (2016), the 1980s were associated to business ethics, thought who developed from moral philosophy presented in the previous decade (Carroll, 2015). Epstein (1989) defined business ethics as the rules which delimited the correct way to act for firms’ executives, being influenced by societal values, institutional’ policies and moral significance. He considered CSR offers guideline for managers’ actions and attempts
7 to assess business’ social performance and has brought the concept of corporate social responsiveness onto the spotlight, which shed a light on handling strategically societal val-ues as business is structuring policymaking processes.
Carroll (2008) remarks that during 1990s there were no major contributions to the con-struction of CSR as a concept, instead there was a growth on the literature field of com-plementary themes, such as: stakeholder theory, business ethics, sustainability, corporate citizenship and corporate social performance (CSP). Wood (1991) conceptualized CSP as a firms’ composition of social responsibility’s prepositions, social responsiveness’ techniques and societal correlated policies/programs and its respective observable results. He also articulated three principles for social responsibilities – institutional, organizational and indi-vidual levels – determining CSP as a wider notion than CSR.
Nowadays, CSR is vital concept for corporations, impacts costumers on their buying choice and other stakeholders (Moravcikova, Stefanikova & Rypakova, 2015). CSR activi-ties promote values and opportuniactivi-ties to society and organizations (Verboven, 2011). Therefore, it is important to communicate them properly. CSR Reporting helps on this matter.
As Verboven (2011) declared, public is aware of the less positive situations the chemi-cals industry may create, but not of the benefits. Hence, it is essential to the industry to build a sustainable corporate image and reputation. This is verified on the growth of CSR reporting for this industry, according to KPMG (2017) it was around 8% between 2015 and 2017. Nevertheless, one of the main difficulties currently existent is how to measure the level of companies’ CSR commitment. Several external elements influence how multi-national enterprises engage with CSR: industry sensitivity, local institutional constrains (laws, regulations, national business system) and/or the gap between home and host coun-try – which will affect the decision and relationships (Orudzheva & Gaffney, 2018). The same authors defended CSR initiatives shall take into consideration the part of global hier-archies between developed and developing world, hence it influences the effectiveness of Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) competitive advantage from the developing group, re-ducing the existent inequality between the developed and developing world. Whilst analys-ing CSR policies of 37 MNEs, Bondy & Starkey (2014) discovered that global strategies, as well as integrated internationalization strategies do not unravel both local and global CSR topics – the issues identified by headquarters are prioritized and local ones are disregarded. The image below summarizes their study findings:
8
Figure 2. Relationship between International Management & CSR strategies and their outcomes for CSR,
built upon Bondy & Starkey (2014)
1.2. The relationship between CSR and CFP
Currently, socially responsible behaviour is seen as a manner to increase competitive advantage (López, Garcia & Rodriguez, 2007). Thus, it is essential to verify whether this also translates into a better financial performance. Existent literature has found different results regarding the correlation between CSR and CFP. Besides, Griffin & Mahon (1997) suggest that research shall be done in one industry specific context to boost outcomes’ internal corroboration.
CFP embodies business performance when economic/financial goals are achieved and is operationalized by accounting and market measures (Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1986; Orlitzky, 2008). Orlitzky (2008) gathered the casual (benefic) mechanics which associate CSR and CFP on literature: enhancing organizational reputation; improving internal re-sources and skills; increasing rivals’ costs; attracting a more productive workforce; boosting sales revenues and reducing business risk and also concluded that organizational size does not influence their relationship.
Solutions for global-local CSR issues •Universal •Culturally specific •Culturally tailored •Culturaly blended CSR internationalization strategies •Global •Local (multidomestic) •Integrated (transnational): Effiency-response •Integrated (transnational): Interpenetration Pressures on choice of CSR internationalization strategy •Expectations for Stakeholder Management •CSR Issues •Organization’s International Strategy
9
Positive association between CSR and CFP
Firstly, it will be analysed which are the scholars whom have a found a positive relation on these two concepts. Preston & O’Bannon (1997) supported this idea on their study about social and financial performance on major United States enterprises. 10 years before these findings, Bruyn (1987) pointed that taking into consideration the social factor on investment decision making rises the chances for economic return. Waddock & Graves (1997) reached the same conclusion analysing 469 companies from the Standard & Poor’s 500 list and connected this with slack resources and good management theory, using Kind-er LydenbKind-erg Domini (KLD) rating system for CSR. Orlitzky, Schmidt & Rynes (2003) led a 52 studies meta-analysis which concluded how CSR is positively associated with CFP – bidirectional and coexistent, CSR is more interrelated to CFP’s accounting-based measures than market based-measures, reputation is a relevant intermediary for this interaction and that a firm might establish an equally beneficial relation with stakeholders. Bird, Hall, Momentè & Reggiani (2007) explored how the market reacts to CSR activities and revealed there was a valuation of proactive employee-related endeavours, when environment and diversity requisites were achieved at a minimum level.
Negative association between CSR and CFP
Mittal, Sinha & Singh (2008) have found a negative relationship between CSR and CFP on their study for the Indian context – reduced evidence that companies with ethics' code would generate greater market/economic value added than the remaining ones. Crisóstomo, Freire & Vasconcellos (2011) discovered a negative linkage between CSR and firm value for the Brazilian scenario. Looking through the United States framework, Fish-er-Vanden & Thorburn (2011) discovered a negative response from the market, when firms adhere as members to Environmental Protection Agency Climate Leaders, voluntary program aiming greenhouse gas reduction.
Null association between CSR and CFP
The research conducted by Auperlee, Carroll & Hatfield (1985) created an own meas-ure for CSR, based on the CSR pyramid presented by Caroll on 1979 (legal, economic,
eth-10 ical and philanthropic dimensions) and it found no correlation between profitability and social responsibility. Ullman (1985) claimed no trend can be discovered whilst studying the association between these concepts. He justifies this by a deficiency on theory, inadequate definition of the key words and lack of empirical data available.
1.3. Country-of-origin effect on CSR
Culture concept is commonly used for nations and organizations and it has six dimen-sions: power distance; uncertainty avoidance; individualism versus collectivism; masculinity (assertive) versus femininity (caring); long term versus short term orientation; and lastly, indulgence versus restrain. Countries’ classification under these criteria are relative, hence they are obtained in comparison to others (Hofstede, 2011). These dimensions might also be applied to firms’ stakeholders – consumers, shareholders and employees – as a manner to explain their behavior. Apart from this, consumer propensity to punish firms’ when do act responsible are related to the Hofstede framework (Williams & Zinkin, 2008).
Ding, Ferreira & Wongchoti (2019) defend that CSR’s broaden scenario may be justi-fied by enterprise headquarters’ home culture. Matten & Moon (2008) argue that historical and well-established institutions are the reason for differences on CSR on several countries (European and United States). Given that, the authors compiled the motives for CSR sys-tem discrepancies – political/financial/education/labour & cultural syssys-tems, nature of the firm, organization of market procedures and, lastly, coordination and control arrangements. Cultural background and business ethics culture possess strategic relevance – the forward-looking values’ management obtains increased relevance on a global economy – it shall prevent cultural misunderstandings and breach mutual values (Palazzo, 2002). The author enhanced the importance of acknowledging intercultural dissimilarities and respective sequences on the journey for trustworthy economic partnership, while simultaneously con-sidering own’s cultural background and other cultures’ values. Bondy & Starkey (2014) findings showed that despite MNEs recognized the relevance of local host country cul-tures, none used this whilst architecting their CSR policy – the firms adapted the general one to the local culture.
Existent research focuses mainly on developed economies, as stated by Orudzheva & Gaffney, (2018), providing less consideration to what firms from developing countries per-form outside their country. On differences between German and United States
multina-11 tionals enterprises (MNEs), Einwiller, Ruppel & Schnauber (2016) discovered the ones who follow global reporting standards have higher similarities on their reports. Internation-al institutions which create such standards promote events, provoking a growth on the interaction among adherent enterprise. For firms aiming to enhance their CSR commit-ment, joining global guidelines will provide them easier access to knowledge on CSR im-plementation, management and reporting. Additionally, it assists on discovering ways to handle countries (home/host) and international demands (Fortanier, Kolk, & Pinske, 2011). There is also some evidence of country-of-origin effects – German MNEs’ reports focus more on environmental matters; US ones emphasizes on society. As contrasting to local firms, MNEs are subject to pressure both in home and host countries. Apart from this, their image shall be pictured as socially responsible agents whom pony up sustainable development. with the aim of gain license to operate in foreign markets. Lastly, high stages of corporate social performance will lead MNEs to rise their reputation/legitimacy in their operational areas and, thus, increase their revenues and financial performance level (Aguilera-Caracuel, Guerrero-Villegas, Vidal-Salazar & Delgado-Márquez, 2015). Compar-ing MNEs origin from developed and developCompar-ing world, the latter face greater challenges whilst using CSR as a manner to increment their competitive advantage, whenever measures exceed legal compliance, particularly when host country forms part of a distinct (higher/lower) hierarchical group from their own country of origin. Furthermore, from a strategic point of view, MNEs rooted on developing countries would struggle to institute CSR initiatives which strength its positioning, rather than just copycat industry’s best prac-tices (Orudzheva & Gaffney, 2018).
Lyon, Delmas, Maxwell, Bansal, Chiroleu-Assouline, Crifo, Durand, Gond, King, Le-nox, Toffel, Vogel. & Wijen (2018) defend that CSR assessment shall include the degree to which companies sustain (or oppose) public policies that contribute to sustainability. Vogel (2005) declares there were few firms which took any position on political initiatives, be-cause they were apprehensive it may increase government regulatory requirements. Apart from this, he recommends enterprises shall reevaluate their relationship to government, if they want to commit truly to acting responsibly. In order to help this endeavor, Lyon et al (2018) suggest three paths – transparence on corporate political activity, align the latter with public statements and CSR efforts, and, become an advocate for public policies which will empower the private sector to better chase sustainability efforts and commitments (without acquire competitive disadvantage).
12 The effects from country of origin related to CSR and its respective dimensions also play a role on CFP as well, particularly, the contextual factors. National labor market and financial system provide the framework which will bound firms’ resources and capabilities (Bobillo, López-Iturriaga & Tejerina-Gaite, 2010).
13 2. Methodology
The main goal for this dissertation is to determine how Corporate Social Responsibility and country of origin affect Corporate Financial Performance on the chemicals’ industry.
Several studies have documented the relationship between Corporate Social Responsi-bility and Corporate Financial Performance. Galant & Cadez (2017) have compiled the previously used measurements for both CSR and CFP amid the existent literature. Regard-ing CSR, the frequent methodologies are: reputation indices (SC KLD 400 social index, Fortune magazine reputation index, Dow Jones Sustainability Index and Vigeo Index) de-veloped by rating agencies based on several criteria – economic, environmental, social, governance and ethics, among others; content analyses on the firms’ communication; ques-tionnaire-based surveys; and one-dimensional measures (philanthropy, for instance). Con-cerning CFP, research found it is assessed via accounting-based – Return on Assets (ROA), Return on Equity (ROE), Return on capital employed, Return on Sales, Net (operating) income and/or market-value indicators (stock returns and company’ market value, for ex-ample). A list of different studies and its main results may be found underneath:
Table 1
Studies Findings’ description
Author(s) Research' goal Methodology Sample Results Auperlee, Carroll & Hatfield (1985) Evaluate CSR-profitability associa-tion Forced-choice in-strument survey
Companies with their chief executive officers listed in Forbes 1981 Annual Directory
Inexistent relationship between profitability and CSR
Ullman (1985) Determine the link between, social disclosure, social performance, and economic perfor-mance Conceptual frame-work
Prior studies on the matter for US Corpo-rations
Inexistent relationship among the 3 concepts
Preston & O'Bannon (1997)
Analyze the relation-ship between CSR and CFP
Statistical analysis 67 large United States' corporations
Positive CSR-CFP rela-tionship
14
Author(s) Research' goal Methodology Sample Results Waddock &
Graves (1997)
Examine the rela-tionship between CSP and CFP
Regression-type model
Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini & Co rated companies Positive CSP-CFP rela-tionship Orlitzky, Schmidt & Rynes (2003) Provide a rigorous framework for CSP-CFP knowledge area Studies' meta-analysis Prior CSR-CSP 52 studies Positive CSP-CFP rela-tionship Bird, Hall, Momentè & Reggiani (2007) Which types of CSR activities are (not) rewarded by improved market perfor-mance? Regression-type model
S&P500 index Valuation of proactive employee-related endeav-ors, when environment and diversity requisites were achieved at a mini-mum level.
Mittal, Sinha & Singh (2008)
Linkage between good financial per-formance measure and
corporate responsi-bility's indicators (level of CSR disclo-sure, for instance) in the Indian context
Regression-type model
50 companies from the S&P CNX Nifty (India)
Reduced evidence that companies with ethics' code would generate greater market/economic value added than the remaining ones. Crisóstomo, Freire & Vasconcellos (2011) Assess CSR-CFP's (market-value) link-age in the Brazilian scenario
Regression-type model
Listed Brazilian firms' Negative CSR impact on firms' value
Fisher-Vanden & Thorburn (2011)
Market's response to firms' joining volun-tary environmental programs
Event study Corporations adherent to specific environ-mental programs & Ceres principles
Decrease in market value, when companies' an-nounce joining Climate Leaders
Kalish (2015) Look into CSR's influence on finan-cial performance in German and Ameri-can context
Regression-type model
US and German firms' listed in the Reputa-tion Institute’s Global RepTrak 100
Different CSR impacts on financial performance, depending upon country
15
Author(s) Research' goal Methodology Sample Results Maqbool &
Zameer (2018)
Investigate CSR-CFP relationship in the Indian context
Panel regression model
28 Indian commercial banks listed in Bom-bay stock exchange
Positive CSR-CFP rela-tionship
Own elaboration
Kalish (2015) investigated this relationship across German and United States firms listed in the Reputation Institute’s Global RepTrak 100 for a 3 years’ spectrum (2011, 2012 and 2013) and compared the data results obtained for each country. Drawing upon his study, this dissertation aims to understand the linkage between CSR and CFP for chemicals industry on several regions and conclude on possible differences/similarities among them. The empirical part of this research will include a predominantly quantitative approach to study the association between CSR and CFP on the chemicals industry.
An econometric (regression-type) analysis will be performed and the sample are the top fifty chemical enterprises according to Chemical & Engineering News (2018), specified in table 3 and will be studied during a 9 years’ (2009-2017) time frame (T=9). However, due to missing data for variables described below, the list was shortened to 29 firms (N=29). In order to analyze the influence of country of origin effect, the sample was divided into re-gions, related to their home continent: Africa, America, Asia and Europe, whose detailed description is on table 4. Hence, the observations are 261 (N*T) for a balanced panel data, since there is available information for all years, computed into Eviews 10 (x64).
CSR data, the independent variable, was obtained via Thomson Reuters Environmental (resources use, emissions and Innovation), Social (Workforce, Human Rights, Community and Product Responsibility & Governance (Management, Shareholders and CSR Strategy) (ESG) Score, which has available data since 2002 to some enterprises – the score result from a weighted evaluation of all 178 indicators – 34% for Environmental Pillar, 35,5% for Social and 30,5% for Governance. The information is obtained based on public reported figures by the firms themselves (Thomson Reuters, 2019).
In relation to the dependent variable, CFP – the measurement unit used was ROA, which is a profitability indicator (Corporate Finance Institution, 2019a) and this choice was based upon Kalish’ methodology (2015). For the control variables: Firm size (total assets) and debt to equity ratio - which is calculated via dividing Total Debt over Shareholders
16 equity’ (Corporate Finance Institution, 2019b) and provides information regarding risk – were chosen, drawing upon Maqbool & Zameer (2018).
Table 2
Studied Variables’ description
Variable Description Source
Corporate Social Responsibil-ity (0-100 scale)
ESG Score
Thomson Reuters Datastream
ROA (%) Net income/Assets
Debt to equity ratio Total Debt/Shareholder’s Equity
Firm size (€) Total Assets Own elaboration
The final sample was summarized by geographic area on table 3, so there is a clear number of firms belonging to each continent.
Table 3
Sample summarized by geographical area, number and %
Geographic area Number of firms (%) Africa 1 (3%) America 6 (21%) Asia 12 (41%) Europe 10 (35%) Total 29 (100%) Own elaboration
Furthermore, the equation formulated for the regression-type econometric model is as follows in order to test the possible relationship between CFP and CSR. symbolizes the disturbance, represents the independent term and, lastly, are regression coefficients.
Model Equation:
The data extracted corresponds to the end of each fiscal year and will be applied to all distinct geographic area, as well as to the total sample to answer the following hypothesis.
17 There is a subjacent hypothesis (H0) which determines there is no relationship between the
studied variables.
H1: CSR has a positive impact on financial performance.
18 3. Model development
On this chapter, model results will be displayed, as well as the process. Table 4 summa-rizes the descriptive statistics for the whole sample. Before drawing any conclusions, there are several essential tests to carry out.
Frequently on statistical/econometric work, the disturbance is considered as normally distributed, which might lead to incorrect conclusions (Jarque, 2011), hence, in order to evaluate this, the test drafted by Jarque & Bera (1980) shall be used. The value which should exist to accept the normal residual regression hypothesis shall be between 5 and 10, however, a greater value was obtained (43.49523), therefore, the hypothesis for normal residual regression is rejected for this model.
Table 4
Sample descriptive statistics
Descriptive Statistics ROA CSR ASSETS DEBT_EQUITY
Mean 5.532294 63.51313 33421332 0.778506 Median 5.101710 68.15272 14702698 0.600000 Maximum 18.96018 90.30202 3.14E+08 3.390000 Minimum -8.344030 12.84683 1708829. 0.010000 Std. Dev. 3.795751 16.44797 54621306 0.600727 Skewness 0.512515 -1.105617 3.369756 1.548677 Kurtosis 4.366032 3.873711 14.51876 5.896852 Jarque-Bera (residuals) 43.49523 P-value test 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Sum 1443.929 16576.93 8.72E+09 203.1900
Sum Sq. Dev. 3746.009 70339.26 7.76E+17 93.82692
Observations 261 261 261 261
Own computation
Furthermore, it is crucial to verify collinearity’s presence among the variables, which occurs if the correlation percentage exceeds 85% - in the given context this amount was never surpassed (Table 5), collinearity is non-existent. In order to complement these out-comes, it is relevant to determine whether the variables are multicollinear via the Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) examination – as the results present on table 6 are all below 10, multicollinearity won’t represent an obstacle.
19 Table 5
Variables’ correlation
CSR DEBT_EQUITY ROA ASSETS
CSR 1.000000 -0.212492 -0.107282 0.249936 DEBT_EQUITY -0.212492 1.000000 -0.438856 -0.247449 ROA -0.107282 -0.438856 1.000000 0.141748 ASSETS 0.249936 -0.247449 0.141748 1.000000 Own computation Table 6
Variance Inflation Factors
VIF
CSR 1.094861
DEBT_EQUITY 1.093418
ASSETS 1.113613
Own computation
Apart from the previous tests, there is also another one – p-value analysis to determine whether the results achieved are statistically relevant or not – it might at 1% or 5.%. This value shall be near 0 in order to have results’ significance. On table underneath are repre-sented the results for the model (total sample), when the model is computed.
Table 7
Total Sample descriptive statistics for ROA
Variables Results 10.96439 -0.052429 5.77E-09 -2.948093 R-squared 0.240908 Adjusted R-squared 0.232047 Own computation
The results displayed on table 4 are only statistically relevant for a significance of 1%, because p-value= 0.000000 and CSR has negative impact on CFP (ROA) on this case, as
20 verified by the coefficient, β1, displayed on table 7, which expresses the relation between the dependent and independent variable – one additional unit on CSR leads to a 0,05 unit reduction on CFP. The results for β0 represents the average value CFP takes when all the other variables are 0, β2 translates the positive impact from firm size on the financial per-formance and β3 represents the negative impact from debt to equity ratio on CFP. The R-squared value (Table 7) shows that in this scenario 24% ROA variation is justified by the CSR and the respective control variables (total assets and debt-to-equity ratio).
Otherwise from the total sample, Africa (for 5% level of significance, because the p-value exceeds 1%), America and Asia results’ reveal a positive influence from CSR on CFP (for a 1% significance level). European continent follows the trend from the total sample, as shown on table 8.
Asia’s growth on Gross Domestic Product plays an important role for the chemicals industry, whilst Brexit’s consequences – economic, political and legal – and elections on central European countries (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2017) may justify the results ob-tained
.
Even though there have been several droughts on South Africa and the country might introduce a carbon tax (KPMG, 2017), the South African company still has a small, but positive outcome – an increase of 1 unit on CSR score will lead to an approximate 0,006 unit improvement on the firms’ ROA.Table 8
Descriptive statistics for each continent
Variables Africa America Asia Europe
22.89648 10.95349 12.43991 8.254806
0.006125 0.023201 0.067867 -0.020019 -5.17E-7 -8.30E-10 -1.40E-9 3.01E-08 -17.43148 -2.757487 -3.652106 -4.546819
R-squared 0.852604 0.377248 0.390684 0.148835
Adjusted R-squared 0.764166 0.339883 0.373108 0.119143
P-value 0.016070 0.000026 0.000000 0.002991 Own computation
Inoue & Lee (2011) conducted a study in which it was analyzed several CSR dimen-sions relationship with profitability, which produced mixed outcomes for each dimension and varied across the tourism-related industries. The justification was that CSR initiatives change across time and also stakeholders perceptions, which might be applied for the ESG score, particularly for the Governance pillar.
21 Conclusion
Literature has found mixed results regarding the relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Financial Performance.
Currently, there is still a lack of research on the chemicals industry regarding Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Financial Performance and how their linkage changes geo-graphically. Hence, this study used a quantitative approach via econometrics (regression-type) model with the top 50 chemicals companies in the world as sample and for period between 2009-2017. The sample was reduced to 29 companies, due to missing data for some firms in the analysis’ time frame, which represents an anaysis restriction, because the results would be more robust if the existent sample increased.
Firstly, there was an overview to the subject, followed by methodology explanation and model development. Several tests took place to understand the relationship between the variables, which revealed they are not multicollinear and the residuals are not normally dis-tributed, rejecting the null hypothesis. After computing the model, the results established CSR plays a negative effect on CFP for the whole sample – a 1 unit variation on CSR leads to a 0,05 unit decrease on CFP – and on the European sub-sample, at a 1% level of cance, but the amount reduction is smaller (0,02), whilst for Africa (at a 5% level of signifi-cance), America and Asia the opposite occurs. On a macro level, this might represent the effects produced by the Brexit on Europe and Asia’s Gross Domestic Product growth over the recent years. On the literature point of view, mixed results may be justified due to the following reasons: measurement difficulties, weak theoretical groundwork for CSP concep-tualization, neglecting relevant variables’ on model construction and the unclear causality’ direction (Gallant & Cadez, 2017). Chen, Feldmann & Tang (2015) conducted a study comparing different manufacturing industries, which revealed no major differences among CSR practices.
As further steps, there shall be a deeper analysis for a larger sample computing more factors for the CFP, such as market-value indicators (stock returns and company’ market value, for example) in order to complement the accounting-based analysis used. ROE was not used in the model, because the results were not statistically relevant at any level of sig-nificance. Since the available information was based on data disclosed by the firms, there is always subjective inherent and missing figures. In order to solve this matter, Gallant & Cadez (2017) suggest a standardization in CSR reporting and mandatory data disclosure. In
22 order to easy the process for data extraction and analysis, listed firms shall publish their key results on relative terms (percentage results); including the CSR information, not only men-tion the indicatives on their reports.
Both Corporate Social Responsibility and country of origin have been present on litera-ture as influencing factors for firms’ financial performance; however, there have been few which explored this for the chemicals industry. Thus, this study aims to assist this gap and provide more insight on the matter and provide a basis for future research.
23 References
Acutt, N. J., Medina-Ross, V. and O'Riordan, T. (2004), Perspectives on corporate social responsibility in the chemical sector: A comparative analysis of the Mexican and South African cases. Natural Resources Forum, 28, 302-316. doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2004.00103.x
Aguilera-Caracuel, J., Guerrero-Villegas, J., Vidal-Salazar, M. D.& Delgado-Márquez, B. L. (2015). Managament International Review, 55 (3), 323-353. doi: 10.1007/s11575-014-0225-4 Auperlee, K., Carroll, A. B. & Hatfiled, J. D. (1985). An Empirical Examination of the
Re-lationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability. The Academy of
Management Journal, 28 (2), 446-463. doi: 10.2307/256210
Bhaduri, S. N. & Selarka, E. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility Around the World—An
Over-view of Theoretical Framework, and Evolution. Singapore: Springer.
Bird, R., Hall, A. D., Momentè, F. & Reggiani, F. (2007). What Corporate Social Responsi-bility Activities are Valued by the Market?. Journal of Business Ethics, 76 (2), 189-206. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9268-1
Bobillo, A. M., López-Iturriaga, F. & Tejerina-Gaite, F. (2010). Firm performance and in-ternational diversification: The internal and external competitive advantages. Inin-ternational
Business Review, 19 (6), 607-618. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.03.006
Bondy, K. & Starkey, K. (2014). The Dilemmas of Internationalization: Corporate Social Responsibility in the Multinational Corporation. British Journal of Management, 25 (1), 4-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00840.x
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. New York: Harper.
Bruyn, S, T. (1987). The Field of Social Investment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Campbell, J. L. (2006). Institutional Analysis and the Paradox of Corporate Social
Respon-sibility. American Behavioral Scientist, 49 (7), 925-938. doi: 10.1177/0002764205285172 Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social
perfor-mance. Academy of Management Review, 4 (4), 497–505. doi: 10.2307/257850
Carroll, A. B. (2008), “A History of Corporate Social Responsibility” in The Oxford
Hand-book of Corporate Social Responsibility, Andrew Crane, Abigail McWilliams, Dirk Matten,
24 Carroll, A. B. & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The Business Case for Corporate Social
Responsi-bility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 12 (1), 85-105. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009. 00275.x
Carroll, A. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: The centerpiece of competing and complementary frameworks. Organizational Dynamic, 44 (2), 87-96. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.02.002
Carroll, A. B. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: taking another look. International Journal of
Corporate Social Responsibility, 1 (3), 1-8. doi: 10.1186/s40991-016-0004-6
Chen, L., Feldmann, A. & Tang, O. (2015). The relationship between disclosures of corpo-rate social performance and financial performance: Evidences from GRI reports in manufacturing industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 170 (B), 445-456. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.04.004
Committee for Economic Development (CED) (1971). Social Responsibilities of Business
Corpo-rations. New York: CED.
Crisóstomo, V. L., Freire, F. S. & Vasconcellos, F. C. (2011). Corporate social responsibil-ity, firm value and financial performance in Brazil. Social Responsibility Journal, 7 (2), 295-309. doi: 10.1108/17471111111141549
Davis, K. (1960). Can Business Afford to Ignore Social Responsibilities? California
Manage-ment Review, 2 (3), 70-76. doi: 10.2307/41166246
Davis, K. (1973). The Case for and against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities.
The Academy of Management Journal, 16 (2), 312-322. doi: 10.5465/255331
Ding, D. K., Ferreira, C. & Wongchoti, U. (2019). The geography of CSR. International
Re-view of Economics and Finance, 59, 265-288. doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2018.09.003
Einwiller, S., Ruppel, C. & Schnauber, A. (2016). Harmonization and differences in CSR reporting of US and German companies: Analyzing the role of global reporting stand-ards and country-of-origin. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 21 (2), 230-245. doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-09-2014-0062
Epstein, E. M. (1989). Business ethics, Corporate Good Citizenship and the Corporate Social Policy Process: A view from the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 8 (8), 583-595. doi: 10.1007/BF00383027
European Chemical Industry Council (2018a). Facts & Figures of the European chemical industry 2018. Belgium: European Chemical Industry Council.
25 Falck, O. & Heblich, S. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: Doing well by doing good.
Business Horizons, 50 (3), 247-254. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2006.12.002
Fetscherin, M. (2010) The determinants and measurement of a country brand: the country brand strength index. International Marketing Review, 27 (4), 466-479. doi: 10.1108/02651331011058617
Fortanier, F., Kolk, A., & Pinske, J. (2011). Harmonization in CSR Reporting. Management
International Review, 51, 665-696. doi: 10.1007/s11575-011-0089-9
Fisher-Vanden, K. & Thorburn, K. S. (2011). Voluntary corporate environmental initiatives and shareholder wealth. Journal of Environment Economics and Management, 62 (3), 430-445. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2011.04.003
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman
Frederick, W. C. (1960). The Growing Concern over Business Responsibility. California
Management Review, 2 (4), 54–61. doi: 10.2307/41165405
Frederick, W. C. (2006). Corporation, Be Good!: The Story of Corporate Social Responsibility. Indi-anapolis: Dog Ear Publishing.
Galant, A. & Cadez, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance relationship: A review of measurement approaches. Economic Research-Ekonomska
Istraživanja, 30 (1), 676-693. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2017.1313122
Griffin, J. J. & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Fi-nancial Performance Debate: Twenty-Five Years of Incomparable Research. Business &
Society, 36 (5), 5-31. doi: 10.1177/000765039703600102
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2 (1). doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Inoue, Y. & Lee, S. (2011). Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibil-ity on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries. Tourism Management, 32 (4), 790-804. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2010.06.019
Jarque, C. M. & Bera, A. K. (1980). Efficient tests for normality, homoscedasticity and seri-al independence of regression residuseri-als. Economic Letters, 6 (3), 255-259. doi: 10.1016/0165-1765(80)90024-5
Jarque C.M. (2011), “Jarque-Bera Test” in International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science, Miodrag Lovric (Ed), Springer.
Jones, T. M. (1980). Corporate Social Responsibility Revisited, Redefined. California
26 Kalish, H. (2015, July). Does CSR pay? – The Impact of CSR on Financial Performance. A
Compar-ison between Germany and the US. Paper presented at 5th IBA Bachelor Thesis Conference.
University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Knight, R. & Bertoneche, M. (2001). Financial performance. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. KPMG (2017). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017. Switzerland:
KPMG.
Lock, I. & Seele, P. (2015). Analyzing Sector-Specific CSR Reporting: Social and Envi-ronmental Disclosure to Investors in the Chemicals and Banking and Insurance Indus-try. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22, 113-128. doi: 10.1002/csr.1338
López, V., Garcia, A. & Rodriguez, L. (2007). Sustainable Development and Corporate Performance: A Study Based on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Journal of Business
Ethics, 75, 285-300. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9253-8
Lyon, T. P., Delmas, M. A., Maxwell, J. W., Bansal, P., Chiroleu-Assouline, M., Crifo, P., Durand, R., Gond, J. P., King, A., Lenox, M., Toffel, M., Vogel, D. & Wijen, F. (2018). CSR needs CPR: Corporate sustainability and politics. California Management Review, 60(4), 5-24. doi: 10.1177/0008125618778854
Maqbool, S. & Zameer, M. N. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and financial perfor-mance: An empirical analysis of Indian banks. Future Business Journal, 4 (1), 84-93. doi: 0.1016/j.fbj.2017.12.002
Matten, D. & Moon, J. (2008). “Implict” and “Explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility. The Academy of
Manage-ment Review, 33 (2), 404-424. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2008.31193458
McGuire, J. W. (1963). Business and Society. New York: McGraw-Hill
McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. S. (2011). Creating and Capturing Value: Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility, Resource-Based Theory, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage.
Journal of Management, 37 (5), 1480-1495. doi: 10.1177/0149206310385696
Mittal, R. K., Sinha, N. & Singh, A. (2008). An analysis of linkage between economic value added and corporate social responsibility. Management Decision, 46 (9), 1437-1443. doi: 10.1108/00251740810912037
Moravcikova, K., Stefanikova, L. & Rypakova, M. (2015). CSR Reporting as an Important Tool of CSR Communication. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 332-338. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00861-8
27 Nguyen, P. & Nguyen, A. (2015). The effect of corporate social responsibility on firm risk.
Social Responsibility Journal, 11 (2), 324-339. doi: 10.1108/SRJ-08-2013-0093/
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L. & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate Social and Financial Perfor-mance: A Meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24 (3), 403-441. doi: 10.1177/0170840603024003910
Orlitzky, M. (2008), “Corporate Social Performance and Financial Performance” in The
Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, Andrew Crane, Abigail McWilliams, Dirk
Matten, Jeremy Moon and Donald S. Siegel (Eds), Oxford University Press Inc.
Orudzheva, L. & Gaffney, N. (2018). Country-of-origin and CSR initiatives: a social domi-nance perspective. Social Responsibility Journal, 14 (3), 501-515. doi: 10.1108/SRJ-03-2017-0046
Palazzo, B. (2002). U.S.-American and German Business Ethics: An Intercultural Compari-son. Journal of Business Ethics, 41 (3), 195-216. doi: 10.1023/A:1021239017049
Paun, D. (2018). Corporate sustainability reporting: An innovative tool for the greater good of all. Business Horizons, 61 (6), 925-935. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2018.07.012
Preston, L. E. & O’Bannon, D. P. (1997). The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship: A Typology & Analysis. Business & Society, 36 (4), 419-429. doi: 10.1177/000765039703600406
Robinson, S., & Wood, S. (2018). A “good” new brand — What happens when new brands try to stand out through corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Research, 92, 231-241. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.031
Salah, W. (2018). The Impact of Country-Level and Firm-Level on Financial Performance: A Multilevel Approach. International Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 6 (2), 41-53. doi: 10.15640/ijat.v6n2a5
Schwartz, M. S. & Saiia, D. (2012). Should Firms Go “Beyond Profits”? Milton Friedman versus Broad CSR. Business and Society Review, 117 (1), 1-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8594.2011.00397.x
Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How?. California
Manage-ment Review, 45 (4), 52-76. doi: 10.2307/41166188
Thomson Reuters (2019). Thomson Reuters ESG Scores. Canada: Thomson Reuters.
Timbate, L. & Park, C. K. (2018). CSR Performance, Financial Reporting, and Investors’ Perception on Financial Reporting. Sustainability, 10 (2), 522-538. doi: 10.3390/su10020522
28 Tuzzolino, F. & Armandi, B. R. (1981). A Need-Hierarchy Framework for Assessing
Cor-porate Social Responsibility. The Academy of Management Review, 6 (1), 21-28. doi: 10.2307/257137
Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relation-ships Among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance of U.S. Firms. The Academy of Management Review, 10 (3), 540-557. doi: 10.2307/258135 Venkatraman, N & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of Business Performance in
Strategy Research: A Comparison of Approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 11 (4), 801-814. doi: 10.2307/258398
Verboven, H. (2011). Communicating CSR and business identity in the Chemical industry through mission slogans. Business Communication Quarterly, 74 (4), 415-431. doi: 10.1177/1080569911424485
Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: the potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington: The Brookings Institution.
Waddock, S. A. & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial per-formance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (4), 303-319. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199704)18:4<303::AID-SMJ869>3.0.CO;2-G
Walton, C. C. (1967). Corporate social responsibilities. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publish-ing Co, Inc.
Weber, M. (2008). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A company-level measurement approach for CSR. European Management Journal, 26 (4), 247-261. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2008.01.006
Williams, G. & Zinkin, J. (2008). The effect of culture on consumers' willingness to punish irresponsible corporate behaviour: applying Hofstede's typology to the punishment as-pect of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European review, 17 (2), 210-226. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2008.00532.x
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate Social Performance Revisited. The Academy of Management
29 Webpages List
Chemicals and Engineering News (2018). C&EN’s Global Top 50 chemical companies. Re-trieved from https://cen.acs.org/business/finance/CENs-Global-Top-50-chemical/96/i31. Accessed 4th January 2019.
Corporate Finance Institution (2019a). ROA Formula / Return on Assets Calculation. Retrieved from https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/return-on-assets-roa-formula/. Accessed 18th July 2019.
Corporate Finance Institution (2019b). What is the Debt to Equity Ratio?. Retrieved from https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/debt-to-equity-ratio-formula/. Accessed 25th July 2019.
European Chemical Industry Council. (2018b). The chemicals industry’s commitment to
sustaina-bility. Retrieved from http://www.cefic.org/Responsible-Care/. Accessed 18th
Decem-ber 2018.
European Commission. (2018a). Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/corporate-social-responsibility_en. Accessed 1st
November 2018.
European Commission. (2018b). Chemicals are everywhere. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/index_en.htm. Accessed 18th December
2018.
Global Justice Now. (2016). 10 biggest corporations make more money than most countries in the
world combined. Retrieved from
https://www.globaljustice.org.uk//news/2016/sep/12/10-biggest-corporations-make-more-money-most-countries-world-combined. Accessed 1st December 2018.
International Labor Organization. (2018). Chemical industries. Retrieved from
https://www.ilo.org/global/industries-and-sectors/chemical-industries/lang--en/index.htm. Accessed 18th December 2018.
Milton Friedman. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. Retrieved from http://umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf. Accessed 18th December 2018
Pricewaterhouse Coopers. (2017). 2017 Chemicals Trends. Retrieved from https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/gx/en/insights/industry-trends/2017-chemicals-industry-trends.html. Accessed 1st September 2019.
30 United Nations Global Compact. (2018a). Environment. Retrieved from
https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/our-work/environment. Accessed 16th
December 2018.
United Nations Global Compact. (2018b). Social Sustainability. Retrieved from https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/our-work/social. Accessed 16th
Decem-ber 2018.
United Nations Global Compact. (2018c). Governance. Retrieved from https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/our-work/governance. Accessed 16th
31 Attachments
Table A1
Global Top 50 chemical companies
BASF PRAXAIR
DOWDUPONT YARA
SINOPEC LANXESS
SABIC BAYER
INEOS DSM
FORMOSA PLASTICS ASAHI KASEI
EXXONMOBIL EASTMAN CHEMICAL
LYONDELLBASELL INDUSTRIES ARKEMA
MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL SYNGENTA
LG CHEM CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL
AIR LIQUIDE BOREALIS
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES INDORAMA
DUPONT SK INNOVATION
LINDE HUNTSMAN CORP.
TORAY INDUSTRIES AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS
AKZONOBEL ECOLAB
EVONIK INDUSTRIES WESTLAKE CHEMICAL
COVESTRO WANHUA CHEMICAL
BRASKEM SASOL
PPG INDUSTRIES MOSAIC
SUMITOMO CHEMICAL PTT GLOBAL CHEMICAL
LOTTE CHEMICAL TOSOH
SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL DIC
SOLVAY HANWHA CHEMICAL
MITSUI CHEMICALS CLARIANT
