IBIMA Publishing

Journal of Economics Studies and Research

http://www.ibimapublishing.com/journals/JESR/jesr.html
Vol. 2015 (2015), Article ID 260450, 11 pages
DOI: 10.5171/2015.260450

Research Article

An Empirical Research on the Relationship

Between Corporate Social Responsibility
Ratings and U.S. Listed Companies Value
tefan Cristian Gherghina, Georgeta Vintil and Diana Dobrescu

Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania

Correspondence should be addressed to: tefan Cristian Gherghina; [email protected]

Received date: 3 March 2014; Accepted date: 20 June 2014; Published date: 22 April 2015

Academic Editor: Mihaela-Carmen Muntean

Copyright 2015. tefan Cristian Gherghina, Georgeta Vintil and Diana Dobrescu . Distributed under
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0
Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) ratings and
firm value, by using a sample of U.S. companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange and
NASDAQ Stock Market, over 2008-2011. The Corporate Social Responsibility Index (CSRI)
developed by Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Reputation Institute was
used as a proxy for corporate social responsibility. A certain company is perceived in three
dimensions: citizenship (the community and the environment), governance (ethics and
transparency), and workplace practices, that quantified through numerical variables are
reflected into the CSRI ranking score. The Tobins Q ratio adjusted according to activity sector
was employed in order to quantify firm value. After the estimation of panel data regression
models, unbalanced, both without cross-sectional effects and with fixed effects, our results show
that corporate social responsibility positively influences firm value. The empirical evidence is
consistent with the instrumental stakeholder theory view, since the companies involved in
corporate social responsibility undertakings use in a more effective way their resources in order
to better satisfy stakeholders needs. CSR activities can add value to the firm if they are wisely
managed and implemented, as well as sufficiently disclosed and reported.

Keywords: Corporate social responsibility, instrumental stakeholder theory, firm value, panel
data models.

Introduction businessmen have the obligations to pursue

those policies, to make those decisions, or to
Bowen (1953) has outlined the modern follow those lines of action which are
debate regarding corporate social desirable in terms of the objectives and
responsibility (CSR), stating that values of our society. Business operates
according to societys orientations based on

______________

Cite this Article as: tefan Cristian Gherghina, Georgeta Vintil and Diana Dobrescu (2015), An Empirical
Research on the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility Ratings and U.S. Listed Companies
Value", Journal of Economics Studies and Research, Vol. 2015 (2015), Article ID 260450,
DOI: 10.5171/2015.260450
 Journal of Economics Studies and Research 2
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the existence of a social contract, as a set of environmental conditions, but it could act
rights and obligations, similar to the irresponsible or unethical. As well, Wartick &
governmental system. The specificity of the Cochran (1985) emphasized that
contract could be changed in relation to responsiveness completes, but does not
changes in society, but generally the contract replace the responsibility. Branco &
remains always the source of business Rodrigues (2007) highlighted the fact that
legitimacy (Donaldson, 1982). The social firms are perceived from the perspective of
contract represents the means by which their obligation to take into consideration
business ethics are congruent with societys social needs and long term societys desires,
objectives. According to which implies that they engage in activities
The Committee for Economic Development which promote benefits for the society and
(1971), social contracts are not convenient minimize the negative effects related to the
for the companies, being instead necessary employed actions, as long as the society is
from a moral point of view, at the same time not harmed by such activities.
stimulating the companies to adopt a vision
towards the members of the society. The aim of this study is to research the
However, the social activities will diminish relationship between corporate social
the costs related to stakeholders which responsibility proxied by Corporate Social
request an equitable atitude of the company Responsibility Index (CSRI), reported by
related to the rights and profit distribution Boston College Center for Corporate
(Sen, 1997; Swanson, 1995). As a Citizenship and Reputation Institute, and
consequence, a company that honors this firm value, by using a sample of U.S.
contract will gather implicitly social harmony companies listed on the New York Stock
and will reduce the costs for maintenance of Exchange (NYSE) and NASDAQ Stock Market,
good relationships with the stakeholders over 2008-2011. The study is structured as
(Jones, 1995). Otherwise, the non- follows. The second section highlights
compliance with contractual terms will previous research results regarding
determine the rise of the business operating corporate social responsibility and
costs. companies value and develops the research
hypothesis. The third section describes the
Based on Wartick & Cochrans (1985) database, the variables, and the quantitative
definition, Wood (1991) defined corporate models to be used. The fourth section
social performance as a business presents the results of the empirical
organizations configuration of principles of research. The last section concludes the
social responsibility, processes of social paper.
responsiveness, and policies, programs, and
observable outcomes as they relate to the Literature Review and Hypothesis
firms societal relationships. According to Development
Frederick (1994), social responsibility is
fundamented on moral and ethical concepts, By considering the relationship between
whereas social responsiveness deals with social/environmental performance (CSP) and
managerial processes related to the response corporate financial performance (CFP),
(planning, social forecasting, organizing for Orlitzky, Schmidt & Rynes (2003) have
social answers, control of social activities, introduced several hypotheses: a positive
social decision processes, corporate social relationship between corporate social
policies), thus having a problematic performance and financial performance
character. Besides, Carroll (1979) and Sethi across a wide variety of industry and study
(1979) have considered that social contexts; a bidirectional causality between
responsiveness cannot replace social corporate social performance and financial
responsibility, because companies could be performance; corporate social performance
very receptive to social pressures or is positively correlated with corporate

______________

tefan Cristian Gherghina, Georgeta Vintil and Diana Dobrescu (2015), Journal of Economics Studies and
Research, DOI: 10.5171/2015.260450
3 Journal of Economics Studies and Research
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

financial performance because CSP increases obligations, then juridical ones, and
managerial competencies, contributes to eventually the discretionary responsibilities.
organizational knowledge about the firms Additionally, the slack resources theory
market, social, political, technological, and conceived by Cyert & March (1963)
other environments, and thus enhances underlines the fact that firms do not operate
organizational efficiency; furthermore, CSP is within an exclusively efficient manner, excess
positively correlated with CFP since CSP resources representing the proper means
helps the company to develop a positive through which unpredicted events could be
reputation and goodwill with its external solved or programatic measures could be
stakeholders. By employing a meta-analysis taken. McGuire, Sundgren & Schneeweiss
of 52 studies, Orlitzky, Schmidt & Rynes (1988) and McGuire, Schneeweiss & Branch
(2003) found that CSP appears to be more (1990) stressed the appearence of a high
highly correlated with accounting-based level of financial performance if excess
measures of CFP (return on assets, return on resources are allocated to social field.
equity) than with market-based indicators,
whilst CSP reputation indices were more According to Servaes & Tamayo (2013),
highly correlated with CFP than were other corporate social responsibility activities
indicators of CSP. could enhance firm value for firms with high
public awareness, as proxied by advertising
According to Orlitzky (2013), the intensity. Nevertheless, firms with high
organizational signals related to corporate public awareness are also penalized more
social responsibility may have a harmful when there are corporate social
impact on equity markets seeing that responsibility concerns. Likewise, for firms
corporate social responsibility is not with low public awareness, the impact of
systematically correlated with the corporate social responsibility activities on
companies economic fundamentals, withal firm value is either insignificant or negative.
opportunistic managers are incentivized to As well, advertising has a negative impact on
distort the information provided to market the relationship between corporate social
participants as regards their firms corporate responsibility and firm value if there is an
social responsibility. Thus, there could be inconsistency between the firms efforts as
acknowledged the hardship faced by market regards CSR and the companys overall
participants in order to interpret the reputation. Furthermore, after considering
information about corporate social firm fixed effects, Servaes & Tamayo (2013)
responsibility accurately. In fact, the greater concluded that there is no direct relation
noise showed within financial markets between corporate social responsibility and
typically entails more noise trading, which in firm value.
turn leads to excess market volatility among
all publicly traded firms and, in a particular By using the scores provided by Credit
context of social-institutional processes and Lyonnais Securities (Asia) over 2001-2004,
structures, to excess market valuations of Cheung, Tan, Ahn & Zhang (2010) identified a
firms that are widely perceived as socially positive relationship between corporate
responsible. social responsibility and market valuation,
moreover CSR being positively related to the
The affordability theory emphasizes that only market valuation of the subsequent year thus
those companies registering an adequate present CSR actions reflecting into future
performance could afford the costs of social firm value. Jo & Harjoto (2011) established a
responsible actions. However, this positive association between the implication
assumption is in accordance with the in social responsibility actions and Tobins Q
corporate social responsibility model ratio, based on Kinder, Lydenberg, and
developed by Carroll (1979) which stated Dominis (KLDs) Stats database. Nelling &
that managers will firstly complete economic Webb (2009) used KLD Socrates Database in

______________

tefan Cristian Gherghina, Georgeta Vintil and Diana Dobrescu (2015), Journal of Economics Studies and
Research, DOI: 10.5171/2015.260450
 Journal of Economics Studies and Research 4
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

order to measure corporate social 2009, 39 companies in 2010, respectively 32

responsibility and found a weak relationship companies in 2011, summing up 155
between CSR and corporate performance statistical observations. The membership to
after using a time series fixed effects activity sector as regards the selected
approach. From a different perspective, Belal companies is varied, as follows: consumer
& Cooper (2011) focused on the absence of cyclical, consumer defensive, consumer
CSR reporting within a developing country goods, financial services, healthcare,
such as Bangladesh. There was examined the industrials, services, technology.
lack of disclosure on three particular eco-
justice issues as follows: child labor, equal Table 1 provides the definition and
opportunities, and poverty alleviation. measurement of all the variables employed
Thereupon, the findings of 23 semi- within empirical research. To measure firm
structured interviews which were value, we will employ Tobins Q ratio
undertaken with senior corporate managers according to Kaplan & Zingales (1997),
suggest that the main reasons for non- Gompers, Ishii & Metrick (2003), and
disclosure include the lack of resources, the Bebchuk, Cohen & Ferrell (2009). After
profit imperative, lack of legal requirements, computing Tobins Q ratio for each company,
lack of knowledge/awareness, poor we adjusted it according to activity sector,
performance, and the fear of bad publicity. due to the large spread of companies in
different sectors of activity, using the
Given these findings, we consider the methodology described by Eisenberg,
following hypothesis: Corporate social Sundgren & Wells (1998). Thus, the
responsibility actions positively influence difference between Tobins Q ratio for a
firm value. certain company and the median of the ratio
in that activity sector represents TobinQ,
Data and Estimation Framework whereas the adjusted ratio, TobinQadj, is
defined as follows: TobinQadj=
Sample Selection and Description of sign(TobinQ)*sqrt(|TobinQ), where
Variables sign(TobinQ) is the sign of the difference
between Tobins Q ratio for each company
Initially, the database consisted of 56 U.S. and the median in that activity sector. There
companies, over 2008-2011. Further, four was used the median instead of the average
companies were dropped from the sample because the data were not following a normal
due to their non-listing on the New York distribution. The source of financial data was
Stock Exchange or NASDAQ Stock Market. represented by the companies annual
Therefore, our final sample comprised 52 reports. All the data were hand-collected.
companies having the following distribution:
38 companies in 2008, 46 companies in

Table 1: Definition and Measurement of Variables

Variables Definition and measurement

Variables regarding firm value
Tobins Q ratio adjusted according to activity sector. Tobins Q ratio was computed
as the market value of assets divided by the book value of assets, where the market
QAdj
value of assets equals the book value of assets plus the market value of common
equity less the sum of the book value of common equity.
Variables regardingcorporate social responsibility
Corporate Social Responsibility Index (CSRI), developed by Boston College Center for
CSRI
Corporate Citizenship and Reputation Institute.

______________

tefan Cristian Gherghina, Georgeta Vintil and Diana Dobrescu (2015), Journal of Economics Studies and
Research, DOI: 10.5171/2015.260450
5 Journal of Economics Studies and Research
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Firm-level control variables

Size Firm size, as annual average number of employees (logarithmic values).
Leverage Leverage ratio, as total debt divided by total assets.
Growth Sales growth, as the relative increase of sales from the previous year (%).
Number of years since listing on the NYSE or NASDAQ Stock Market (logarithmic
Listing
values).
Source: Authors processing.

Corporate social responsibility is proxied by consider the growth opportunities, because

Corporate Social Responsibility Index (CSRI), there could be suggested the improvement of
the data being collected from Boston College employees and customer satisfaction through
Center for Corporate Citizenship and rising the turnover. We will include the age of
Reputation Institute. This index evaluates the company measured through the number
from the social implication point of view the of years since it has been listed on the NYSE
following three dimensions: citizenship or NASDAQ Stock Market (logarithmic
(responsible involvement in the community values).
and in the environment issues), governance
(performing the activities in a fair and Empirical Design
transparent manner and the evaluation of the
way on which stakeholders associate the In order to empirically investigate the
company with high ethical standards), relationship between Corporate Social
workplace (adopting a fair behaviour Responsibility Index (CSRI) and firm value
towards the employees, assuring a decent we will estimate several multivariate panel
salary, investments in developing employees data regression models, unbalanced, both
abilities, and offering career opportunities). without cross-sectional effects and with fixed
effects, by considering the following general
Additionally, we include a set of firm-level specification:
control variables which could influence
companies value. Thus, for evaluating Companies_valueit= + Xit + Zit + uit
companies size, the annual average number i = 1, ..., N; t =1, ..., T
of employees will be used (logarithmic (1)
values), similar to Arlow & Gannon (1982),
Ullmann (1985), Griffin & Mahon (1997), where for the company i in year t, we
Waddock & Graves (1997a), Husted & Allen consider as dependent variable the Tobins Q
(2007). The size influences the capacity to ratio adjusted according to activity sector, Xit
initiate social responsibility actions, because being the vector of independent variables
smaller firms have a reduced potential to representing corporate social responsibility
sustain these activities in contrast to larger actions proxied by CSRI conceived by Boston
companies which have a solid infrastructure College Center for Corporate Citizenship and
and high levels of cash flows. As the company Reputation Institute, and Zit is the vector of
develops, it becomes more visible and firm-level control variables. According to
responsible regarding stakeholders Baltagi (2005), models with only one
requests. According to Roberts (1992),
stakeholders wealth is influenced by the component for the error are used frequently,
existence of financial difficulties. The gearing as follows:
and debt level will be measured as the ratio
between total debt and total assets, a uit = i + it (2)
company with a solid orientation towards
stakeholder interests being considered well-
managed and less risky. As well, we will

______________

tefan Cristian Gherghina, Georgeta Vintil and Diana Dobrescu (2015), Journal of Economics Studies and
Research, DOI: 10.5171/2015.260450
 Journal of Economics Studies and Research 6
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i showing the specific individual effect, empirical research. We emphasize the

unobservable and it representing the following tiers as regards the scores related
remaining error. In the context of fixed to Corporate Social Responsibility Index
effects models, the component from error (CSRI), according to Boston College Center
parameter i could be correlated with the for Corporate Citizenship and Reputation
explicative variables Xit, but with the Institute: below 45 (poor/lowest tier), 45-55
maintenance for the hypothesis of
uncorrelation between Xit and random (weak/vulnerable), 56-65
errors component it. (average/moderate), 66-75 (strong/robust),
and above 75 (excellent/top tier). Therefore,
Empirical Findings the mean score (73.83) of Corporate Social
Responsibility Index (CSRI) reveals the fact
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation that the selected companies are
Analysis strong/robust towards citizenship,
governance, and workplace.
Table 2 shows descriptive statistics related
to all the variables employed within

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics

Variables N Mean Median Minimum Maximum SD

Variables regarding firm value
QAdj 155 0.106211 0.000000 -1.177645 2.382590 0.800379
Variables regardingcorporate social responsibility
CSRI 155 73.830645 73.700000 66.400000 82.670000 2.852035
Firm-level control variables
Size 155 11.010290 11.277204 7.049255 12.962194 1.171726
Leverage 155 0.610220 0.620221 0.110946 1.502779 0.224749
Growth 155 0.066774 0.039474 -0.689813 0.953574 0.208856
Listing 149 3.534487 3.663562 1.098612 4.770685 0.806501
Source: Authors computations. The description of the variables is provided in

Table 3: Correlation Matrix

Variables QAdj CSRI Size Leverage Growth Listing

QAdj 1 0.178* -0.216** -0.227** 0.269** -0.240**
(0.027) (0.007) (0.004) (0.001) (0.003)
0.178* 1 0.111 -0.167* 0.212** -0.040
CSRI
(0.027) (0.170) (0.038) (0.008) (0.625)
Size -0.216** 0.111 1 0.076 -0.172* 0.161
(0.007) (0.170) (0.350) (0.032) (0.050)
Leverage -0.227** -0.167* 0.076 1 -0.199* 0.383**
(0.004) (0.038) (0.350) (0.013) (0.000)
Growth 0.269** 0.212** -0.172* -0.199* 1 -0.167*
(0.001) (0.008) (0.032) (0.013) (0.042)

______________

tefan Cristian Gherghina, Georgeta Vintil and Diana Dobrescu (2015), Journal of Economics Studies and
Research, DOI: 10.5171/2015.260450
7 Journal of Economics Studies and Research
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Listing -0.240** -0.040 0.161 0.383** -0.167* 1

(0.003) (0.625) (0.050) (0.000) (0.042)
**Significant at 1% level. *Significant at 5% level.
Source: Authors computations. The description of the variables is provided in

Regression Results Towards the Influence and 3). By considering the impact of firm-
of Corporate Social Responsibility Index level control variables on Tobins Q ratio
(CSRI) on Firm Value adjusted according to activity sector, the
results provided support for a negative
We have estimated five econometric models, influence of firm size, as annual average
for both the models without cross-sectional number of employees, on firm value (models
effects and with fixed effects, in order to 1, 2, 3, and 5). Besides, there was established
catch the robustness of the relationship a negative relationship between leverage
between corporate social responsibility and ratio, as total debt to total assets and firm
firm value. value (model 1), likewise between the
Table 4 reveals the results of panel data number of years since listing on the New
regression models, unbalanced, without York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ Stock
cross-sectional effects as regards the Market (logarithmic values) and firm value
influence of Corporate Social Responsibility (models 2, 3, 4, and 5). On the contrary, sales
Index (CSRI) on firm value. Thus, the index growth, as the relative increase of sales from
related to corporate social responsibility the previous year, positively influences
positively influences the value of U.S. listed Tobins Q ratio adjusted according to activity
companies (models 1, 2, sector (models 1, 3, 4, and 5).

Table 4: Results of the Estimations Regarding the Influence of Corporate Social

Responsibility Index (CSRI) on Firm Value (Without Cross-Sectional Effects)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5
-0.989952 -1.297597 -0.986441 -1.291173 -0.779180
Intercept (-0.592759) (-0.788825) (-0.613471) (- (-0.477312)
0.794625)
0.038036 0.048781* 0.037583 0.028520 0.035610
CSRI (1.720054) (2.281779) (1.744123) (1.320145 (1.638789)
)
-0.129009* -0.126286* -0.099295 -0.099515
Size
(-2.434309) (-2.436561) (-1.905544) (-1.907055)
-0.552259* -0.328706 -0.221875 -0.224903
Leverage (-1.994989) (-1.122727) (- (-0.772299)
0.755030)
0.679207* 0.824537* 0.919873* 0.787210*
(2.223968) (2.555394) * (2.409482)
Growth
(2.855587
)
-0.159308 -0.169086* - -0.146640
(-1.941689) (-2.243315) 0.166226* (-1.813019)
Listing
(-
2.053234)
N 155 149 149 149 149
F- 6.512153*** 5.450248** 6.953912** 6.063293* 5.666829***

______________

tefan Cristian Gherghina, Georgeta Vintil and Diana Dobrescu (2015), Journal of Economics Studies and
Research, DOI: 10.5171/2015.260450
 Journal of Economics Studies and Research 8
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

statistic * * **

Adj R-sq 0.125242 0.107364 0.138612 0.120373 0.136191

p< 0.10. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. The t-statistic for each coefficient is reported in parentheses.
The description of the variables is provided in table 1.
Source: Authors computations.

Table 5 provides the results of the creation. To the extent that stakeholders and
estimations with fixed effects, regarding the customers are perceived to remark
influence of Corporate Social Responsibility companies corporate social responsibility
Index (CSRI) on firm value. Therefore, the activity, they are able to reward the firm for
positive relationship between Corporate its participation. A greater presence of CSR
Social Responsibility Index (CSRI) and firm programs engenders a favorable firm image
value was confirmed (models 1, 2, 3, and 5). that has a positive impact on the ability of the
Furthermore, there was underlined a firm to generate value through increased
negative impact related to firm size on customer loyalty and development of new
Tobins Q ratio adjusted according to activity products and markets. The increase in sales
sector (models 1, 2, 3, and 5), respectively, a (partially acquired through customer
positive impact of the relative increase of awareness of the good image created by the
sales from the previous year on firm value instrumentality of CSR involvement) also was
(models 1, 3, and 5). evidenced to have a positive impact on firm
Visibility in CSR policies reflected through value.
CSRI is understood to be related to value

Table 5: Results of the Estimations Regarding the Influence of Corporate Social

Responsibility Index (CSRI) on Firm Value (With Fixed Effects)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5
12.54102*** 9.176594** 13.12139*** -0.953222 12.96060***
Intercept
(5.124343) (3.318489) (4.371724) (-0.345843) (4.282941)
0.044890* 0.056722** 0.041865* 0.029313 0.041652*
CSRI
(2.602972) (3.150422) (2.293962) (1.316595) (2.273532)
-1.446202*** - -1.488875*** -1.492311***
(-7.002666) 1.237030** (-6.915192) (-6.903192)
Size *

(-6.170547)
0.215023 0.233779 0.223266 0.344605
Leverage
(0.381261) (0.367675) (0.296294) (0.558211)
0.641272* 0.768589** -0.099583 0.779394**
Growth
(2.614770) (2.666893) (-0.313139) (2.688555)
0.070072 0.073283 -0.335385 0.074748
Listing
(0.125429) (0.135903) (-0.510583) (0.138116)
N 155 149 149 149 149
F- 9.778831*** 8.071315** 8.794715*** 5.256359** 8.575071***
statistic * *

Adj R-sq 0.758179 0.716898 0.736242 0.603841 0.734317

p< 0.10. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. The t-statistic for each coefficient is reported in
parentheses. The description of the variables is provided in table 1.
Source: Authors computations.

______________

tefan Cristian Gherghina, Georgeta Vintil and Diana Dobrescu (2015), Journal of Economics Studies and
Research, DOI: 10.5171/2015.260450
9 Journal of Economics Studies and Research
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The negative correlation between firm size comparability of the variables for the
and Tobins Q ratio adjusted according to companies in each industry. The positive
activity sector could be explained in the case relationship is supported by the instrumental
of large listed companies through the stakeholder theory, according to Jones
allocation of resources, thus having many (1995), the companies involved in corporate
employees is leading to an increase in the social responsibility undertakings use in a
labour cost and from a certain level restrict more effective way the resources in order to
the usage of resources available to use for the satisfy the manifold needs related to
achievement of an increase in firm value. The stakeholders (Waddock & Graves, 1997b).
evidence provided on the negative The aforementioned theory is instrumental
relationship between the gearing level and since it suggests the use of corporate social
firm value (in the models without cross- responsibility in order to register a better
sectional effects) is consistent with other performance (Jones, 1995; McGuire,
authors findings (Roberts, 1992) because Sundgren & Schneeweiss, 1988).
the leverage measures the risk level and a Furthermore, the image on the market for a
highly valued corporation having orientation company with high social involvement and
towards stakeholders interests is considered good disclosure of corporate social
less risky and has lower levels of responsibility undertakings is reflected in the
indebtedness. rise of its number of customers and sales. It
has been also demostrated that the annual
In both panel data regression models, growth of sales leads to an increase in firm
without cross-sectional effects and with fixed value, reflected through Tobins Q ratio
effects, the same relationship between CSRI adjusted according to activity sector.
and Tobins Q ratio adjusted according to
activity sector expressing firm value was In addition to the variables of theoretical
proved. Thereby, the hypothesis of the interest, CSR researchers have emphasized
current research, according to which the the need to control the impact of firm size,
undertakings related to corporate social risk, and industry. Similar to other studies
responsibility positively influence firm value, (Husted & Allen, 2007), our research
is statistically validated. highlighted that firm size measured by the
annual average number of employees has a
Summary and Concluding Remarks slightly negative effect on firm value.
Likewise, firm size has a positive correlation
By using a sample of companies listed on the with CSRI, thereby companies with a large
New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ Stock number of employees have a higher potential
Market, over 2008-2011, the results provide to sustain CSR activities with a solid
support for a positive influence of corporate infrastructure and high levels of cash flows.
social responsibility measured through The limits of current research emerge from
Corporate Social Responsibility Index (CSRI) the reduced number of statistical
developed by Boston College Center for observations. As future research avenues, we
Corporate Citizenship and Reputation consider the elaboration of a corporate social
Institute, on firm value, proxied by Tobins Q responsibility index according to a self-
ratio adjusted according to activity sector. developed methodology for computing a
CSRI was chosen for the completeness of score that takes into consideration more CSR
information regarding CSR, since its related factors, and as well the research of its
computation comprising citizenship, impact on firm value, by using data from
several countries in order to compare the
governance, and workplace matters. The effects of corporate social responsibility on
adjustment related to the activity sector was performance disclosed in the context of
performed in order to ensure the different corporate governance systems.

______________

tefan Cristian Gherghina, Georgeta Vintil and Diana Dobrescu (2015), Journal of Economics Studies and
Research, DOI: 10.5171/2015.260450
Journal of Economics Studies and Research 10
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

References 11. Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S. and Wells, M.

T. (1998) Larger board size and decreasing
1. Arlow, P. and Gannon, M. J. (1982) Social firm value in small firms, Journal of Financial
responsiveness, corporate structure, and Economics, 48 (1), 35-54.
economic performance, Academy of
Management Review, 7 (2), 235-241. 12. Frederick, W. C. (1994) From CSR1 to
CSR2. The maturing of business-and-society
2. Baltagi, B. H. (2005) Econometric thought, Business & Society, 33 (2), 150-164.
analysis of panel data, Third Edition, West 13. Gompers, P., Ishii, J. and Metrick, A.
Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. (2003) Corporate governance and equity
prices, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118
3. Bebchuk, L., Cohen, A. & Ferrell, A. (1), 107-156.
(2009) What matters in corporate
governance?, The Review of Financial Studies, 14. Husted, B. W. and Allen, D. B. (2007)
22 (2), 783-827. Strategic corporate social responsibility and
value creation among large firms: lessons
4. Belal, A. R. and Cooper, S. (2011) The from the Spanish experience, Long Range
absence of corporate social responsibility Planning, 40 (6), 594-610.
reporting in Bangladesh, Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, 22 (7), 654-667. 15. Jo, H. and Harjoto, M. A. (2011)
Corporate Governance and firm value: The
5. Bowen, H. R. (1953) Social impact of corporate social responsibility,
responsibilities of the businessman, New Journal of Business Ethics, 103 (3), 351-383.
York: Harper.
16. Jones, T. M. (1995) Instrumental
6. Branco, M. C. and Rodrigues, L. L. (2007) stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and
Positioning stakeholder theory within the economics, Academy of Management Review,
debate on corporate social responsibility, 20 (2), 404-437.
Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and
Organization Studies, 12 (1), 5-15. 17. Kaplan, S. and Zingales, L. (1997) Do
investment-cash flow sensitivities provide
7. Carroll, A. B. (1979) A three-dimensional useful measures of financing constraints?,
conceptual model of corporate performance, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (1), 169-
Academy of Management Review, 4 (4), 497- 216.
505.
18. McGuire, J. B., Schneeweiss, T. and
8. Cheung, Y. L., Tan, W., Ahn, H.-J. and Branch, B. (1990) Perceptions of firm
Zhang, Z. (2010) Does corporate social quality: A cause or result of firm
responsibility matter in Asian emerging performance, Journal of Management, 16 (1),
markets?, Journal of Business Ethics, 92 (3), 167-180.
401-413.
19. McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A. and
9. Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963) A Schneeweiss, T. (1988) Corporate social
behavioral theory of the firm, Englewood responsibility and firm financial
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. performance, Academy of Management
Journal, 31 (4), 854-872.
10. Donaldson, T. (1982) Corporations and
morality, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: 20. Nelling, E. and Webb, E. (2009)
Prentice-Hall. Corporate social responsibility and financial
performance: The virtuous circle revisited,

______________

tefan Cristian Gherghina, Georgeta Vintil and Diana Dobrescu (2015), Journal of Economics Studies and
Research, DOI: 10.5171/2015.260450
11 Journal of Economics Studies and Research
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Review of Quantitative Finance and response patterns, Academy of Management

Accounting, 32 (2), 197-209. Review, 4 (1), 63-74.

21. Orlitzky, M. (2013) Corporate social 27. Swanson, D. L. (1995) Addressing a

responsibility, noise, and stock market theoretical problem by reorienting the
volatility, Academy of Management corporate social performance model,
Perspectives, 27 (3), 238-254. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), 43-
64.
22. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L. and Rynes, S.
L. (2003) Corporate social and financial 28. Ullmann, A. A. (1985) Data in search of a
performance: A meta-analysis, Organization theory: A critical examination of the
Studies, 24 (3), 403-441. relationships among social performance,
social disclosure, and economic performance
23. Roberts, R. (1992) Determinants of of U.S. firms, Academy of Management
corporate social responsibility disclosure, Review, 10 (3), 540-557.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17 (6),
595-612. 29. Waddock, S. A. and Graves, S. B. (1997a)
24. Sen, A. (1997) Economics, business The corporate social performance-financial
principles and moral sentiments, Business performance link, Strategic Management
Ethics Quarterly, 7 (3), 5-15. Journal, 18 (4), 303-319.

25. Servaes, H. and Tamayo, A. (2013) The 30. Waddock, S. A. and Graves, S. B. (1997b)
impact of corporate social responsibility on Quality of management and quality of
firm value: The role of customer awareness, stakeholder relations, Business & Society, 36
Management Science, 59 (5), 1045-1061. (3), 250-279.

26. Sethi, S. P. (1979) A conceptual 31. Wartick, S. L. and Cochran, P. L. (1985)

framework for environmental analysis of The evolution of the corporate social
social issues and evaluation of business performance model, Academy of
Management Review, 10 (4), 758-769.

______________

tefan Cristian Gherghina, Georgeta Vintil and Diana Dobrescu (2015), Journal of Economics Studies and
Research, DOI: 10.5171/2015.260450