The associations of corporate social responsibility and management characteristics with performance in Saudi Arabia

• Autorzy: Omer Waddah Kamal Hassan , Aljaaidi Khaled Salmen , Habtoor Omer Saeed

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.17512/pjms.2020.21.1.19

Warianty tytułu

PL

Stowarzyszenia korporacyjnej odpowiedzialności społecznej i właściwości zarządzania z wykonaniem w Arabii Saudyjskiej

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The aim of this study is to investigate the relationships of corporate social responsibility, management characteristics, namely; board size and meetings, and audit characteristics, namely; audit quality and audit report lag with corporate performance among the manufactured companies in Saudi Arabia. A Pooled Ordinary-Least Square OLS regression is utilized to estimate the associations proposed in the hypotheses on 180 firm-years observations (2015-2017) from annual reports. The study finds that corporate social responsibility, board size, board meetings and audit quality are positively associated with corporate performance. Additionally, this study reports an inverse association of the audit report lag with corporate performance. Importantly, the study suggests that regulators, especially Saudi stock exchange, should mandate companies to disclose all relevant information related to corporate social responsibility in a transparent and timely manner, and increase law enforcement to enhance good corporate governance practices. For companies, this study proposes that they should emphasize more on enhancing the role and the disclosure quality of their social responsibility, board of directors and the audit quality issues, as this enhancement may positively influence their performance.

PL

Celem tego badania jest zbadanie związków społecznej odpowiedzialności biznesu, cech zarządzania, a mianowicie; wielkość zarządu i spotkania oraz cechy audytu, mianowicie; jakość audytu i raport z audytu są opóźnione w stosunku do wyników firm wśród produkowanych firm w Arabii Saudyjskiej. Do oszacowania powiązań zaproponowanych w hipotezach na podstawie 180 rocznych obserwacji (2015-2017) z raportów rocznych wykorzystuje się regresję OLS z puli zwykłych i najmniejszych kwadratów. Badanie pokazuje, że społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu, wielkość zarządu, spotkania zarządu i jakość audytu są pozytywnie powiązane z wynikami firmy. Ponadto w tym badaniu wykazano odwrotny związek opóźnienia w raporcie z audytu z wynikami firmy. Co ważne, badanie sugeruje, że organy regulacyjne, zwłaszcza saudyjska giełda papierów wartościowych, powinny upoważnić firmy do ujawnienia wszystkich istotnych informacji związanych z odpowiedzialnością społeczną przedsiębiorstw w sposób przejrzysty i terminowy oraz zwiększyć egzekwowanie prawa w celu wzmocnienia dobrych praktyk w zakresie ładu korporacyjnego. W przypadku przedsiębiorstw niniejsze badanie sugeruje, że powinni oni położyć większy nacisk na zwiększenie roli i jakości ujawnienia ich odpowiedzialności społecznej, zarządu i kwestii jakości kontroli, ponieważ to ulepszenie może pozytywnie wpłynąć na ich wyniki.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

CSR; management characteristics; performance; Saudi Arabia

PL

CSR; cechy zarządzania; wydajność; Arabia Saudyjska

• Wydawca: Czestochowa University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Management Studies
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: Vol. 21, No. 1
• Strony: 251--264
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 67 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Omer Waddah Kamal Hassan

• Department of Accounting, College of Business, Administration, Northern Border University, Arar, Saudi Arabia
• Faculty of Administrative Science, University of Aden - Yemen

autor

Aljaaidi Khaled Salmen

• Accounting Department, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University
• Hadhramout University

autor

Habtoor Omer Saeed

• Department of Accounting, Community College Rafha Northern Border University, Rafha, Saudi Arabia

Bibliografia

• 1. Al-Abbas, M.A., (2008). Do Saudi companies underestimate us in the application of governance? Aleqtisadia Journal February 29, 2008, is available online at http://www.aleqt.com/2008/02/29/article_11668.save.
• 2. Al-Moataz, E., Basfar, A., (2010). The role of audit committees in corporate governance: An empirical investigation on Saudi corporations, Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Economics and Administration, 24(2), 193-239.
• 3. Al-Twaijry, A., (2007). Saudi stock market historical view and crisis effect: graphical and statistical analysis, Journal of Human Sciences, Online Journal Available at: http://www.ulum.nl.
• 4. Al-Ghamdi, S.A., (2012). Investigation into earnings management practices and the role of corporate governance and external audit in emerging markets: empirical evidence from Saudi Listed Companies (Doctoral dissertation, Durham University).
• 5. Afify, H.A.E., (2009). Determinants of audit report lag: Does implementing corporate governance have any impact? Empirical evidence from Egypt, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 10(1), 65-86.
• 6. Aljifri, K., Moustafa, M., (2007). The impact of corporate governance mechanisms on the performance of UAE firms: an empirical analysis, Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 23(2), 71-93.
• 7. Aydin, N., Sayim, M., Yalama, A., (2007). Foreign ownership and firm performance: evidence from Turkey, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 11 (1), 103-111.
• 8. Baird, P.L., Geylani, P.C., Roberts, J.A., (2012). Corporate social and financial performance re-examined: Industry effects in a linear mixed model analysis, Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 367-388.
• 9. Baron, D.P., Harjoto, M.A., Jo, H., (2011). The economics and politics of corporate social responsibility, Business and Politics, 13(2), 1-46.
• 10. Barrio, A. M., (2010). Global challenges and threats: Europeans and the US approaches.
• 11. Berezinets, I., Ilina, Y., Cherkasskaya, A., (2017). Board structure, board committees and corporate performance in Russia, Managerial Finance, 43 (10), 1073-1092.
• 12. Bhatt, R.R., Bhattacharya, S., (2017). Family firms, board structure and firm performance: evidence from top Indian firms, International Journal of Law and Management, 59 (5), 699-717.
• 13. Bihari, S.C., Pradhan, S., (2011). CSR and Performance: The story of banks in India, Journal of Transnational Management, 16(1), 20-35.
• 14. Brown-Liburd, H., Cohen, J., Zamora, V.L., (2011). The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility Investment, Assurance, and Perceived Fairness on Investors’ Judgments.
• 15. Brick, I.E., Chidambaran, N.K., (2010). Board meetings, committee structure, and firm value, Journal of corporate finance, 16(4), 533-553.
• 16. Chen, H., Wang, X., (2011). Corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance in China: an empirical research from Chinese firms, Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 11(4), 361-370.
• 17. Choongo, P., (2017). A longitudinal study of the impact of corporate social responsibility on firm performance in SMEs in Zambia, Sustainability, 9 (8), 1-19.
• 18. Claessens, S., Yurtoglu, B.B., (2013). Corporate governance in emerging markets: a survey, Emerging Markets Review, 15 (1), 1-33.
• 19. Coles, J., Daniel, N., Naveen, L., (2008). Boards: does one size fit all?, Journal of Financial Economics, 87 (2), 329-356.
• 20. Dalton, D., Daily, C., Johnson, J., Ellstrand, A., (1999). Number of directors and financial performance: a meta-analysis, Academy of Management Journal, 42 (6), 674-686.
• 21. Dwivedi, N., Jain, A.K., (2005). Corporate governance and performance of Indian firms: The effect of board size and ownership, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 17(3), 161-172.
• 22. Fama, E.F., Jensen, M.C., (1983). Agency problems and residual claims, Journal of Law and Economics, (June), 327-349.
• 23. Feng, M., Wang, X., Kreuze, J.G., (2017). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance: Comparison analyses across industries and CSR categories, American Journal of Business, 32(3-4), 106-133.
• 24. Freeman, I., Hasnaoui, A., (2011). The meaning of corporate social responsibility: The vision of four nations, Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 419-443.
• 25. Fu, G., Jia, M., (2012). On the reasons for the vexing CSP-CFP relationship: Methodology, control variables, stakeholder groups, and measures: The review of 63 studies from 1990s. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(12), 130-137.
• 26. Goodstein, J., Gautam, K., Boeker, W., (1994). The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change, Strategic management journal, 15(3), 241-250.
• 27. Grossman, S.J., Hart, O.D., (1982). Corporate financial structure and managerial incentives. In The economics of information and uncertainty. University of Chicago Press, 107-140.
• 28. Haniffa, R., Hudaib, M., (2006). Corporate governance structure and performance of Malaysian listed companies, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 33(7-8), 1034-1062.
• 29. Harford, J., Mansi, S.A., Maxwell, W.F., (2008). Corporate governance and firm cash holdings in the US, Journal of Financial Economics, 87 (3), 535-555.
• 30. Husted, B.W., Allen, D.B., (2007). Corporate social strategy in multinational enterprises: Antecedents and value creation, Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 345-361.
• 31. Jackling, B., Johl, S., (2009). Board structure and firm performance: evidence from India’s top companies, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17 (4), 492-509.
• 32. Jensen, M.C., (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems, The Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831-880.
• 33. Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.H., (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure, Journal of financial economics, 3(4), 305-360.
• 34. Kanji, G.K., Chopra, P.K., (2010). Corporate social responsibility in a global economy, Total Quality Management, 21(2), 119-143.
• 35. Kao, M.F., Hodgkinson, L., Jaafar, A., (2019). Ownership structure, board of directors and firm performance: evidence from Taiwan, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 19(1), 189-216.
• 36. Kapoor, S., Sandhu, H.S., (2010). Does it pay to be socially responsible? An empirical examination of impact of corporate social responsibility on financial performance, Global Business Review, 11(2), 185-208.
• 37. Karamanou, I., Vafeas, N., (2005). The association between corporate boards, audit committees, and management earnings forecasts: An empirical analysis, Journal of Accounting research, 43(3), 453-486.
• 38. Karnani, A., (2011). Doing well by doing good: The grand illusion, California Management Review, 53(2), 69-86.
• 39. Kermani, F., (2006). Why corporate social responsibility makes sense, Applied Clinical Trials, 15(5), 36-8.
• 40. Kiel, G.C., Nicholson, G.J., (2003). Board composition and corporate performance: how the Australian experience informs contrasting theories of corporate governance, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11 (3), 189-205.
• 41. Lee, S., Jung, H., (2016). The effects of corporate responsibility on profitability: the moderating roles of differentiation and outside investment, Management Decision, 54 (6), 1383-1406.
• 42. Lipton, M., Lorsch, J., (1992). A modest proposal for improved corporate governance, Business Lawer, 48 (1), 59-77.
• 43. Martin, J., Petty, W., Wallace, J., (2009). Shareholder value maximization - is there a role for corporate social responsibility, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 21 (2), 110-118.
• 44. McGuire, J.B., Sundgren, A., Schneeweis, T., (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance, Academy of management Journal, 31(4), 854-872.
• 45. Mishra, R., Kapil, S., (2017). Effect of ownership structure and board structure on firm value: evidence from India, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 17(4), 700-726.
• 46. Nyeadi, J.D., Ibrahim, M., Sare, Y.A., (2018). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance nexus. Journal of Global Responsibility.
• 47. Crifo, P., Diaye, M., Pekovic, S., (2016). CSR related management practices and firm performance: an empirical analysis of the quantity-quality trade-off on French data, International Journal of Production Economics, 171, 405-416.
• 48. Palaniappan, G., (2017). Determinants of corporate financial performance relating to board characteristics of corporate governance in Indian manufacturing industry: An empirical study, European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 26(1), 67-85.
• 49. Pava, M., (2008). Why corporations should not abandon social responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 805-812.
• 50. Pearce, J.A., Zahra, S.A., (1992). Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective, Journal of management studies, 29(4), 411-438.
• 51. Peloza, J., (2009). The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social performance, Journal of Management, I. 35 (6), 1518-1541.
• 52. Pfeffer, J.S., Salancik, G., (1978). GR (1978). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. New York.
• 53. Pearce, J.A., Zahra, S.A., (1992). Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective, Journal of management studies, 29(4), 411-438.
• 54. Pomoni, C., (2009). How to solve social problems without becoming a nonprofit company, Retrieved March 21, 2010 from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2431818/how_to_solve_social_problems_without.html?cat=3
• 55. Raghubir, P., Roberts, J., Lemon, K.N., Winer, R.S., (2010). Why, when, and how should the effect of marketing be measured? A stakeholder perspective for corporate social responsibility metrics, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29(1), 66-77.
• 56. Rodriguez-Fernandez, M., Fernandez-Alonso, S., Rodriguez-Rodriguez, J., (2014). Board characteristics and firm performance in Spain, Corporate Governance, 14(4), 485-503.
• 57. Salehi, M., Lari Dashtbayaz, M., Khorashadizadeh, S., (2018). Corporate social responsibility and future financial performance: Evidence from Tehran Stock Exchange, EuroMed Journal of Business, 13(3), 351-371.
• 58. Scholtens, B., (2008). A note on the interaction between corporate social responsibility and financial performance, Ecological economics, 68(1-2), 46-55.
• 59. Schreck, P., (2011). Reviewing the business case for corporate social responsibility: New evidence and analysis, Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 167-188.
• 60. Sheikh, A.N., Wang, Z., (2012). Effects of corporate governance on capital structure: empirical evidence from Pakistan, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 12 (5), 629-641.
• 61. Vafeas, N., (1999). Board meeting frequency and firm performance, Journal of Financial Economics, 53 (1), 113-142.
• 62. Van der Laan, G., Van Ees, H., Van Witteloostuijn, A., (2008). Corporate social and financial performance: An extended stakeholder theory, and empirical test with accounting measures, Journal of Business Ethics, 79(3), 299-310.
• 63. Waddock, S.A. Graves, S.B., (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link, Strategic Management Journal, 18 (4), 303-320.
• 64. Wu, M. L., (2006). Corporate social performance, corporate financial performance, and firm size: A meta-analysis, Journal of American Academy of Business, 8(1), 163-171.
• 65. Xu, B., Zeng, T., (2015). Profitability, state ownership, tax reporting and corporate social responsibility: evidence from Chinese listed firms, Social Responsibility Journal, 12 (1), 23-31.
• 66. Yasser, Q.R., Mamun, A.A., Rodrigs, M., (2017). Impact of board structure on firm performance: evidence from an emerging economy, Journal of Asia Business Studies, 11(2), 210-228.
• 67. Yuan, W., Bao, Y., Verbeke, A., (2011). Integrating CSR initiatives in business: An organizing framework, Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 75-92.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).