Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 23 – 32

Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies Annual Research Conference (SIMSARC13)

A relational study of firm’s characteristics and CSR expenditure

Swati Chauhana *, Amita
a
Research Scholar, Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal

Abstract

The role of companies and firms has been understood in terms of a commercial business paradigm of perspective that aims on
economic profitability and success. However, in the past few years, as a consequence of rising globalisation and critical
ecological issues, the perception of the role of companies in the broader societal context in which it operates, has been altered, by
redefining the responsibilities of firms towards society and environment along with financial goals.

The study proposed to analyse the impact of Firm characteristics toward Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure. The
variables used in this research are size of firm, firm profitability, firm leverage, and sales of the firm. The populations are all firm
BSE 30 index in 2007-2012 periods. The analysis methods are using multiple regression analysis. The research found that firm
size, firm profitability, firm sales, have an influence toward the Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure, while firm leverage
have no influence toward the Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure.

© 2013
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. This
The Authors. is an open
Published access article
by Elsevier B.V. under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies.
Keywords: Corporate Social responsibility (CSR); Firm’s characteristics; firm profitability

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000 .

E-mail address: [email protected]

2212-5671 © 2014 Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies.
doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00172-5
24 Swati Chauhan and Amit / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 23 – 32

1. Introduction

The definition of corporate social responsibility is not obscure. According to Business for Social Responsibility
(BSR), corporate social responsibility is defined as “achieving commercial success in ways that honour ethical
values and respect people, societies, and the environment.” [Toutsoura, 2004]

The role of companies and corporates has been understood in the terms of a commercial business paradigm of
perspective that aims on economic profitability and success. As corporate have been regarded as institutions that
fulfil the market demand by providing products and services, and have the responsibility of creating wealth and jobs,
the market position of the same has conventionally been a function of financial performance and
profitability.However, in the past few years, as a consequence of rising globalisation and critical ecological issues,
the perception of the role of companies in the broader societal context in which it operates, has been altered.
Stakeholders of the companies, today are redefining the role of companies considering its responsibility towards
environment & society, beyond economic profitability and success, and are evaluating whether they are conducting
their role in an ethical and socially responsible manner. As a result of this shift (from purely economic to economic
with an added social dimension) many agencies, institutions and corporate are supporting the term Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR). They use the term to define organisation’s commitment to the society and the environment
within which it operates.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is an integral component of the firm's operations where the firm voluntarily
contributes to the environment in terms of financial, environmental, moral, and social investment. Firm is
responsible for the actions which affect consumption, society, and environment. Companies all around, in the world
are contending with an aim to meet the needs of the today’s generation without compromising the ability of the next
generations to meet the same. Organizations have developed a variety of methods for dealing with this contention of
needs of society, the environment, and corresponding business essentials with respect to how deeply and how well
they are integrating social responsibility approaches into both strategy and daily operations worldwide.

A firm cannot overlook the problems of the environment in which it actuates. Therefore, it is exigent to examine the
impact of CSR on firm’s profitability. In its stronger form, the concept of CSR asserts that corporations have an
obligation to consider the interests of customers, employees, shareholders, communities, as well as the ecological
“footprint” in all aspects of their operations. There is a great deal of ambiguity and uncertainty about what corporate
social responsibility really means as well as what drives a business to pursue it. [Abiodun, 2012]

In this paper, impact of firm’s characteristics over CSR expenditure is studied and expounded with facts with the
help of regression analysis.
 Swati Chauhan and Amit / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 23 – 32 25

2. Review of Literature

Mulyadi et al.(2010) studies empirical relation between csr to firm value and profitability in Indonesia in 2010. They
examined 30 listed Indonesian corporation. By using double linear regression model and GRI as a measurement of
csr activity, they found no significant relationship between CSR and firm value and same evidence for CSR and
profitability.
Mcwilliam et al.(2000) studies the impact of csr on firm profitability. They estimate the effect of csr by regressing
firm performance on corporate social performance and several control variables. They constructed Domini 400
Social Index .they Find positive correlation between CSP and R&D, and when it used as an independant variable,
CSP is shown to have neutral effect on firm profitability. So it is difficult to isolate the impact of CSR on
performance without controlling R&D variable.
Toutsoura (2004) analyse the impact of csr on firm performance in california. They used empirical method for
analysing it. They include data set of S&P 500 firms and covers 5 year time period. They found positive and
statistical significant relationship between CSR and firm performance.
Abiodun (2012) studies the relationship between CSR and firm profitability in Nigeria. They used ordinary least
square method for data analysis. The result shows a negative relationship between firm profitability(PAT) and CSR.
t hey concludes that profitable organizations in Nigeria do not invest much in CSR activities.
Choi et.al.(2010) studies empirical relation between CSR and corporate financial performance in Korea during
2002-2008. They measure corporate financial performance with ROE, ROA, and Tobin’s Q. ROE and ROA could
be used as a profitability indicator, while Tobin’s Q oftenly used as measurement of firm value. They find positive
and significant impact between corporate financial performance and stakeholder-weighted CSR index.
Istianingsih, M.S.Ak. (2013) researched empirical evidence about the determinants of disclosure of corporate social
responsibility (CSR). They study firm characteristics like Good corporate governance, profitability, financial
leverage, firm size, foreign ownership, and firm profiles. Samples which are considered in this paper are of
manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2008-2010. For hypothesis testing they use
multiple regression models. They conclude that firm size and profile of the firm evidenced a significant impact on
CSR disclosure. While good corporate governance, profitability, leverage, and foreign ownership did not prove
significant effect of CSR disclosure.
Lucyanda et.al.(2012) examine the influence of firm characteristics toward Corporate Social Responsibility
Disclosure. The factors they considered in this research are by firm size, firm profitability, firm leverage, board
ofcommissioner size, firm profile, firm age, management ownership, earning per share, environmental concern, and
growth opportunities. They select samples from Indonesia stock exchange in 2007-2008. They used multiple
regression analysis. They conclude that firm size, firm profitability, firm profile,earning per share, and
environmental concern have an influence toward the Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure. The research also
found that leverage, board of commissioner size, firm profile, firm age, management ownership, and growth
opportunities have no influence towardthe Corporate Social Responsibility.
26 Swati Chauhan and Amit / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 23 – 32

Weshah et.al. (2012), studied Jordanian banks listed on Jordanian stock exchange for the year 2011 and founded
significant relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance.
Barnett & Salomon (2006) defined social screen adopted by fund managers and found curvilinear relationship with
financial performance for 61 SRI funds for the period of 1972-2000.
Preston & O’Bannon (1997) illustrated and studied 67 companies rated on reputational index, with the correlation it
was found that positive correlation between social and financial performance of large U.S corporations.
Margolis, et. al. (2007) established causal relationship between corporate social and financial performance by meta-
analysis of 167 studies on relationship between financial and social responsible businesses.
Bronn&Vidaver-Cohen (2009) illustrated Norwegian firms asking employees for motives of social responsibility
and found companies long term interest and image is important reason for social responsibility.
Servaes& Tamayo (2013) studied relationship between CSR and firm’s value taking advertisement expenses as
proxy and found to have positive relation between CSR and advertisement expenses.
Surroca, et. al., (2010) studied 599 firms of 28 nations and found no direct relationship between CSR and financial
performance, but have indirect relation in terms of mediating effect of firm’s intangible resources.
Mohr et. al., (2001) done empirical studies by in depth interview to determine the awareness of consumers towards
corporate and CSR. They found that most people don’t have CSR as purchase criteria but are positive towards
socially responsible companies.
Ioannou&Serafeim (2010) Conducted studies by dividing institutions into four criteria that drives corporate social
performance they found that high behaviour of social performance for low corrupt companies. Countries where the
largest parity adopts leftist political ideology have low behaviour. Countries where main capital source is equity
they value less the social performance of corporate.
Arya& Zhang (2009) studied market reaction to CSR announcement for South African companies by event study
methodology. The researcher found that adopting of CSR initiatives are positively perceived by the market resulting
shareholder return and monetary value.
(Flammer 2012) studied close call of CSR related shareholder proposal and found that CSR adopting leads to better
result but not for highly socially responsible companies suggesting a resource with decaying marginal return.
Ismail &Adegbemi (2013) studied Nigerian firms in Cadbury Nigeria using both primary and secondary data by chi-
square test and content analysis of questionnaire they found positive relation between CSR and financial
performance.
Orlitzky, et. al. (2003) found little positive association between corporate financial and corporate social
performance by content analysis. They also developed bidirectional causality and provide evidence towards
instrumental stakeholder theory and slack resources.
 Swati Chauhan and Amit / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 23 – 32 27

3. Firm Characteristics

In this study five characteristics of companies (the firm size, firm profitability, firm leverage, sales of firm, and
market capitalization) that are regarded related to the disclosure of firm financial statements. Firm size is measured
the image of firm, which can be evaluated grounded on the volatility of the firm's activities, which can be viewed
from various prospects. Cowen et al. (1987) disclosed that most of the companies do a number of activities, that
cause positive impact on the environment, and many shareholders who show their concerned with social programs
of corporate, and its financial reports provide an effective instrument in communicating corporate social
information. Research conducted by various other authors produces a positive effect of firm size on the level of
social disclosure. Firm size is the independent variable which explainsvariation in corporate social responsibility
expenditure. Size of firm is measured by the total assets.
Profitability is the ability of companies to produce a profit that would maintain long-term and short-term growth of
the firm. Profitability is a variable that makes the firm management free to show their concern towards corporate
social responsibility. The higher the level of corporate profitability should be the greater the level of social
disclosure (Hackston& Milne, 1996). Profitability is the independent variable which explainsvariation in corporate
social responsibility expenditure. Profitability is measured by profit after tax.
Leverage is the amount of debt used to finance a firm's assets. A firm with significantly more debt than equity is
considered to be highly leveraged. Leverage is of three type, namely, operating, financial and combined leverage.
Leverage can be created through various financial instruments. Leverage is not necessarily a bad thing. Leverage is
useful to fund firm growth and development through the purchase of assets. But if the firm has too much borrowing,
it may not be able to pay back all of its debts. Sometimes it is very risky for the firm to have lot of debt in capital
structure. Leverage is the independent variable which explainsvariation in corporate social responsibility
expenditure. Leverage offirm is measured by debt-equity ratio
Sales represent the sales revenue of the firm. It is measured by selling price multiplied by number of unit sold. Here
we assume that higher the sales higher the CSR expenditure.

4. Hypotheses Formulation

H1: Firm size has a positive impact toward corporate social responsibility expenditure.
H2: Firm profitability has a positive impact toward corporate social responsibility expenditure.
H3: Firm leverage has a positive impact toward corporate social responsibility expenditure.
H4: Firm sales have a positive impact toward corporate social responsibility expenditure.
28 Swati Chauhan and Amit / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 23 – 32

5. Research Methodology

In this paper We examined the relationship between firm size, profitability of firmleverage, firm sales and corporate
social responsibility expenditure of companies on a sample of BSE 30 companies for the 2007-2012 financial year.
The whole Data was taken from Prowess .Data has been analysed by using multiple regression model. Firstly we
satisfied all the data assumption of model and then satisfied all the assumption of residuals. In order to test the
above hypotheses, the study will investigate the following regression models:

Y= ȕ0 + ȕ1X1 + ȕ2X2 + ȕ3X3 + ȕ4X4+ —, where,

Y = corporate social responsibility (measured by the corporate social expenditure, CSR);
X1= firm size (measured by the total assets);
X2= firm profitability (measured by return on assets, ROA);
X3= firm leverage (measured by debt-equity ratio);
X4= firm sales
— = Error term.

Corporate social responsibility expenditure for Indian companies are divided into the following areas: Donation,
social & community expenses, R&D expenses, environment & pollution control expenses, subscription &
membership fee & other misc expenses .

6. Data Analysis and Discussion

Before running the regression firstly checked out the data assumption of regression model. Appendix 1 descriptive
statistics summarize the data. Appendix 2 shows correlation matrices. Condition of regression analysis at least 0.3
correlations should be present among variables. Only firm leverage shows correlation less than 0.3 and remaining
variables satisfying the assumption. We checked normality test with J-B test and found that data is following
normality. With the help of scatter plot linearity is checked in data. Data transformation is done to make the data
normal and linear. Appendix 3 shows VIF test of multi-collinearity and it is found that multi-collinearity is not
present. Heteroschedasticity is checked by durbin-watson test and it is found that it is absent in the data.
 Swati Chauhan and Amit / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 23 – 32 29

Table 1: Result of regression analysis [Source application software: E-views]

Variable Coefficient Standard error t-statistics p-value

Firm size .743164 .293837 2.529166 0.0191

Firm leverage -.246049 .176997 -1.390132 .1784

Firm sales .446674 .125339 3.563725 .0017

Firm profitability -8.693999 4.036227 -2.153991 .0425

constant -.625533 29.40467 -0.021273 .9832
R- squared .514912
Adjusted R-squared .426714
D-W statistics 2.253294

Table 1 presents the results of multiple regression analysis. The model explains 51.49 % of variation in corporate
social responsibility, with the help of explanatory variables. So, this means that the corporate social responsibility
expenditure is influenced by these four variables. The remaining 48.51% variation is unexplained and it were
influenced by other variables which are not examined in this study. Regression analysis is used to examined how
significant the influence of each explanatory variable, firm size, firm leverage, firm profitability and firm sales
toward corporate social responsibility expenditure as the explained variable.

7. Hypotheses Analysis

The first hypothesis states that firm size influence on corporate social responsibility expenditure. This research result
shows that p - value is 0.0191< 0.05 in the positive direction, so H1 is accepted. It means that size of the firm has
influence corporate social responsibility of the BSE 30 companies. This study supports the research conducted by
Untari (2010), Cowen et al. (1987) describing that positive relationship exists between the size of firms and the
level of corporate social responsibility.
The second hypothesis result proved that firm profitability has negative influence on corporate social responsibility.
It implies s that the more the profit recorded by BSE 30 firms the less they invest in corporate social responsibilities.
This result supported by previous research conducted by Abiodun(2012) Untari (2010). This research result shows
that p - value is 0.0425 < 0.05 in the negative direction, so H2 is accepted.
The third hypothesis result concluded that the firm leverage variables do not affect the firm's corporate social
responsibility expenditure. This result supports previous research Untari (2010), lucyanda and siagian (2012).The
third hypothesis is rejected because the p value is .1784>.05.
The fourth hypothesis result proved that firm sales have positive influence on corporate social responsibility. It
implies s that the more the sales recorded by BSE 30 firms the more they invest in corporate social responsibilities.
This research result shows that p - value is 0.0017 < 0.05 in the positive direction, so H4 is accepted.
30 Swati Chauhan and Amit / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 23 – 32

8. Conclusion

The existing studies on the relation between corporate social responsibility expenditure and firm characteristics
provide mixed results. In this paper We have examined the relation between corporate social responsibility
expenditure and firm characteristics using a sample BSE 30 Indian firms. Based on the results of hypothesis testing
which has been carried out it is concluded that Firm’s characteristic, such as firm size, and firm sales, has a positive
effect and firm profitability has negative effect on corporate social responsibility expenditure. And firm leverage
has no effect on corporate social responsibility expenditure.

9. Limitation and Suggestion

This study analysed a model that examined the effect of firm characteristics with the corporate social responsibility.
Future studies are expected to improve the model by adding some other firm characteristics that affect corporate
social responsibility. This study is still subject to a number of limitations. Since we employ only 30 companies in
our analysis, future studies are suggested to incorporate a larger sample size and longer time span to provide more
reliable insights on corporate social responsibility.

References

Abiodun, B.Y.,(2012). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Firms’ Profitability in Nigeria. European Journal of Economics,
Finance and Administrative Sciences, Issue 45.
Arya, B., & Zhang, G. (2009). Institutional reforms and investor reactions to CSR announcements: evidence from an emerging economy. Journal
of Management Studies, 46(7), pp 1089-1112.
Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2006). Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11), pp 1101-1122.
Bronn, P. S., &Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2009). Corporate motives for social initiative: Legitimacy, sustainability, or the bottom line?. Journal of
Business Ethics,87(1),pp 91-109.
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, 291-311.
Cowen, S., Ferreri, L. B., & Parker, L. D. (1987). The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: a typology and
frequency-based analysis. Accounting, Organization and Society, 12 (2), 111-22.
Flammer, C. (2012). Does Corporate Social Responsibility Lead to Superior Financial Performance? A Regression Discontinuity Approach(
2012).
Hackston, D., & Milne, M. J. (1996).Some determinant of social and environment disclosures in New Zealand Company. Accounting, Audit, and
Accountability Journal, 9, 77-108.
Ioannou, I., &Serafeim, G. (2010). What Drives Corporate Social Performance?: International Evidence from Social, Environmental and
Governance Sources. Cambridge: Harvard Business School.
Ismail, F. O., &Adegbemi, O. (2013). Does Corporate Social Responsibility Improve Financial Performance of Nigerian Firms? Empirical
Evidence from Triangulation Analysis. ActaUniversitatisDanubius.Œconomica, 9(3).
Istianingsih, M.S.Ak. (2013). Impact of Firm Characteristics on CSR Disclosure: Evidence from Indonesia Stock Exhcange. Proceedings of 3rd
Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1
Lucyanda,J. And Siagian, L.G. (2012). The Influence of Company Characteristics Toward Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure. The 2012
International Conference on Business and Management, Phuket – Thailand.
Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship
between corporate social and financial performance. Ann Arbor, 1001, pp 48109-1234.
Mcwilliam , A., and siegel, D. (2000). Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Correlation or Misspecification? Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 603-609.
Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social
responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), pp 45-72.
Mulyadi,M.S., Anwar,Y. (2012). Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Toward Firm Value and Profitability. The Business Review,
Cambridge, Vol.2, No. 9.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., &Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organizationstudies, 24(3),pp
403-441.
 Swati Chauhan and Amit / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 23 – 32 31

Preston, L. E., & O’Bannon, D. P. (1997).The corporate social-financial performance relationship. Business and society, 36(4), pp 419-429.
Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customerawareness. Management
Science, 59(5), pp 1045-1061.
Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., &Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic
Management Journal, 31(5), pp 463-490.
Toutsoura,M.(2004). Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. University of California , Berkeley

Untari, L. (2010). Effect on company characteristics corporate social responsibilities disclosures in corporate annual report of consumption listed
in Indonesia Stock Exchange. UniversitasGunadarma: Skripsi.
Weshah, S. R., Dahiyat, A. A., Awwad, M. A., &Hajjat, E. S. (2012). The impact of adopting corporate social responsibility on corporate
financial performance: evidence from Jordanian Banks. Interdisciplinary Journal Of Contemporary Research In Business, 4(5), pp 34-44.

Appendices

APPENDIX 1: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

DCSR DASSETS DDE DSALES DPAT

Mean 5.291747 5.226209 -19.43076 5.945545 0.621497
Median 39.26606 37.20694 -21.05648 -2.374566 0.199594
Maximum 380.0432 257.1354 483.2306 824.4022 17.72798
Minimum -373.0682 -366.6038 -528.7256 -761.2960 -20.43563
Std Deviation 200.2638 171.5734 228.2742 252.5155 10.63381
Skewness -0.181969 -0.658902 0.205974 0.221253 -0.296780
Kurtosis 2.326629 2.445615 3.383880 2.955317 2.547476

Jarque-Bera 0.659114 2.299445 0.356698 0.554485 0.626729

Probability 0.719242 0.316725 0.836650 0.531251 0.730984

Sum 142.8772 141.1076 -524.6305 160.5297 16.78041

Sum Sq. Dev. 1042745 765373.4 1354837 1657866 2940.026
Source application software: E-views

APPENDIX 2: CORRELATION MATRIX

CSR ASSETS DE SALES PAT

CSR 1.000000 0.696155 0.063154 0.373520 0.291334
ASSETS 0.696155 1.000000 0.278283 0.446042 0.431440
DE 0.063154 0.278283 1.000000 -0.058827 0.037756
SALES 0.373520 0.446042 -0.058827 1.000000 0.654571
PAT 0.291334 0.431440 0.037756 0.654571 1.000000

Source application software: E-views

32 Swati Chauhan and Amit / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 23 – 32

APPENDIX 3: MULTICOLLINEARITY TEST- VIF

Variance Inflation factors

Date:08/31/13 Time:12:09
Sample: 1 30
Included Observation:27
Variable Coefficient variance Uncentered VIF Centered VIF
C 864.6345 1.015360 NA
DASSETS 0.086340 2.876934 2.874164
DDE 0.031328 1.859935 1.846045
DSALES 0.015710 1.133435 1.132783
DPAT 16.29113 2.090567 2.083178
Source application software: E-views

APPENDIX-4: MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Dependant Variable: DCSR

Method: Least Squares
Date: 08/31/13 Time:11:43
Sample(adjusted): 2 30
Included Observations: 27 after adjustments
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistics Prob.
C -0.625533 29.40467 -0.021273 0.9832
DASSETS 0.743164 0.293837 2.529166 0.0191
DDE -0.246049 0.176997 -1.390132 0.1784
DSALES 0.446674 0.125339 3.563725 0.0017
DPAT -8.693999 4.036227 -2.153991 0.0425

R-squared 0.514912 Mean dependant var 5.291747

Adjusted R-squared 0.426714 S. D. dependant var 200.2638
S.E. of regression 151.6310 Akaike info criterion 13.04635
Sum squared resid 505823.3 Schwarz criterion 13.28632
Log likelihood -171.1258 Hannan-Quinn criterion 13.11771
F-statistics 5.838142 Durbin-Watson stat 2.256294
Prob (F-statistics) 0.002332

Source application software: E-views