Keyword

Corporate social responsibility, corporate governance, Thailand, public firms

Abstract

        The purpose of this study was to investigate relationships between corporate social responsibility disclosure and firm performance in publicly-listed firms in Thailand using a stakeholder theory, proposed by R. Edward Freeman (1984). The theory identifies stakeholders in six groups: shareholders, customers, employees, suppliers, the local community and the natural environment. Data were collected based on the content analysis from annual reports published by the 394 companies in the Stock Exchange of Thailand 2014. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify the relationship between CSR and firm performance. The study found that all six group dimensions of CSR disclosure are positively related to return on assets (ROA), particularly disclosure in dimensions such as investors and customers. This study furthers understanding of CSR disclosure and its consequences.


Full Text : PDF
References
  1. Carroll, A. B., & Shambana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A reveiw of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 85-105.
  2. Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A seven country study of CSR web site reporting. Business and Society, 44(4), 415-441.
  3. Crown, W. H. (1998). Statistical models for the social and behavioral sciences. New York: Greenwood.
  4. Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Fooks, G., Gilmore, A., Collin, J., Holden, C., & Lee, K. (2013). The limits of corporate social responsibility: Techniques of neutralization, stakeholder management, and political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 283-299.
  6. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
  7. Golicic, S. L., & Smith, C. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of environmentally sustainable supply chain management practices and firm performance. Journal of of Supply Chain Management, 49(2), 78-95.
  8. Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Hull, C. E., & Rothenberg, S. (2008). Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 781-789.
  10. Inoue, Y., & Lee, S. (2011). Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries . Tourism Management, 32(4), 790-804.
  11. Janney, J. J., & Gove, S. (2011). Reputation and corporate social responsibility aberrations, trends and hypocrisy: Reactions to firm choices in the stock option dating scandal. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1562-1585.
  12. Jayachandran, S., Kalaignanam, K., & Eilert, M. (2013). Product and environmental social performance: Varying effect on firm performance . Strategic Management Journal, 34(10), 1255-1264.
  13. 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.
  14. Kitzmueller, M., & Shimshack, J. (2012). Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(1), 51-84.
  15. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
  16. Lee, S., Seo, K., & Sharma, A. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance in the airline industry: The moderating role of oil prices . Tourism Management, 38, 20-30.
  17. Lin, C., Yang, H., & Liou, D. (2009). The impact of corporate social responsibility on financial performance: Evidence from business in Taiwan. Technology in Society, 31, 56-63.
  18. Mahon, J., & Wartick, S. L. (2012). Corporate social performance profiling: using multiple stakeholder perceptions to assess a corporate reputation. Journal of Public affairs, 12(1), 12-28.
  19. Mishra, S., & Suar, D. (2010). Does corporate social responsibility influence firm performance of Indian companies? Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 571-601.
  20. Nelling, E., & Webb, E. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The "virtuous circle" revisited. Review of Quantitative Financial Accounting, 32, 197-209.
  21. Poolthong, Y., & Mandhachitara, R. (2009). Customer expectations of CSR, perceived service quality and brand effect in Thai retail banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 27(6), 408-427.
  22. Qu, R. (2009). The impact of market orientation and corporate social responsibility on firm performance: Evidence from China . Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(4), 570-582.
  23. Ratanajongkol, S., Davey, H., & Low, M. (2006). Corporate social reporting in Thailand: The news is all good and increasing. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 3(1), 67-83.
  24. Robinett, D. (2013, May 14). Corporate governance reforms pay dividends in Thailand. Retrieved from World Bank: http://blogs.worldbank.org/psd/corporate-governance-reforms-pay-dividends-thailand
  25. Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59(5), 1045-1061.
  26. SETSMART. (2013). SET Marekt Analysis and Reporting Tool. Retrieved from 
  27. http://www.setsmart.com/
  28. Tang, Z., Hull, C., & Rothenberg, S. (2011). How corporate social responsibility is pursued affects firm financial performance. Academy of management Proceedings, Meeting abstract supplement, 1-6.
  29. Walls, J. L., Berrone, P., & Phan, P. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal, 33(8), 885-913.
  30. Zikmund, W. G., Babin, J. C., & Carr, M. G. (2012). Business research methods (9th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.