nach oben

Journal of Business Ethics

Erschienen in:

01.09.2015

Corporate Philanthropy, Ownership Type, and Financial Transparency

verfasst von: Cuili Qian, Xinzi Gao, Albert Tsang

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 4/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Drawing on stakeholder theory and the concept of enlightened self-interest, we argue that firms that actively engage in corporate philanthropic giving also tend to demonstrate greater concern for investors’ interests by providing more transparent financial information and avoiding corporate misconduct. Moreover, the relationships between corporate giving, financial information transparency, and corporate misconduct vary significantly according to the firm’s ownership type, which affects the fundamental motivations for corporate philanthropy. In a sample of Chinese publicly listed firms from the 2003–2009 period, we find a positive relationship between corporate giving and financial transparency, and note that the relationship is stronger for non-state-owned enterprises (non-SOEs). We also find a significantly negative association between corporate giving and corporate misconduct for non-SOEs, but not for SOEs. Taken together, these findings suggest that responsibility to both stakeholders and shareholders is a vital part of building trust and reputations in China’s non-SOE sector.

Vorheriger Artikel Firm Characteristics, Industry Context, and Investor Reactions to Environmental CSR: A Stakeholder Theory Approach

Nächster Artikel Corporate Social Responsibility and Insider Trading

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Following the definition of the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), we define corporate philanthropy (also referred to as corporate giving) as “an unconditional transfer of cash or other assets to an entity or a settlement or cancellation of its liabilities in a voluntary nonreciprocal transfer by another entity acting other than as an owner” (FASB 1993; SFAS 116).

The instrumental theory of stakeholder management is based on a synthesis of the stakeholder concept, economic theory, behavioral science, and ethics (Jones 1995, p. 404). It should be noted that in spite of the instrumental nature of our arguments, this study does not preclude ethically motivated corporate giving or any other related socially responsible activities (Chiu and Sharfman 2011).

In December 2007, the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC) released an official guide on CSR implementation for SOEs controlled by the central government. Further, in 2008, both the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges issued guidelines encouraging listed companies in China to engage in more CSR activities.

Shleifer (2004) and Gelb and Strawser (2001) also find that socially responsible firms provide better/more accounting information.

See http://www.sasac.gov.cn/n1180/n1566/n259760/n264851/3621925.html.

Building close ties with the government helps non-SOEs to overcome many obstacles to smooth business operations, secure better property rights protection, and ultimately achieve better financial performance and an increase in firm value (Fisman 2001; Su and He 2010).

In contrast to China’s non-SOEs, its SOEs are strongly attached to the political regime through many channels, and thus encounter less difficulty in accessing the product and capital markets (Wang et al. 2008b), obtaining favorable regulations (Agrawal and Knoeber 2001), accessing bank loans (Faccio 2006; Khwaja and Mian 2005), and securing property rights protection (Su and He 2010).

Panel A of Table 1 shows that the number of firms that make donations (or do not make donations) in 2008 is significantly different from other years, possibly due to the earthquake in Wenchuan China that occurred that year (Gao et al. 2012). To check the robustness of our results, in an additional test (untabulated) we remove all of the observations from 2008 and obtain quantitatively similar results.

In seven cases among the samples with D_Enforce = 1, the level of enforcement imposed by CSRCwas recorded as “Others”; as such we drop these seven observations in all the tests which use Enforce as dependent variable (i.e., model 6-10 in Table 6).

Our final sample included 51, 64, 1, 2, 1, and 50 observations with Enforce equal to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively; there were no cases where Enforce was equal to 7.

Some studies on corporate giving also use the total dollar value of the contribution (Seifert et al. 2003) or total giving scaled by sales (Brown et al. 2006; Wokutch and Spencer 1987) to measure corporate giving activities. We conducted an additional robustness test using these measures and obtained similar results.

The results are available upon request.

Several prior studies have examined the relationship between financial reporting quality and CSR performance (Kim et al. 2012); however, they did not examine corporate philanthropic giving in particular.

Agrawal, A., & Knoeber, C. R. (2001). Do some outside directors play a political role? Journal of Law and Economics, 44, 179–198.CrossRef

Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G., & Liu, S. (2000). Navigating China’s changing economy: Strategies for private firms. Business Horizon, 43(1), 5–15.CrossRef

Atkins, B. (2006). Is corporate social responsibility responsible? Corp. Govern. Advert, 14, 28–29.

Balakrishnan, R., Sprinkle, G. B., & Williamson, M. G. (2011). Contracting benefits of corporate giving: An experimental investigation. The Accounting Review, 86(6), 1887–1907.CrossRef

Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Johns, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.CrossRef

Bhattacharya, U., Daouk, H., & Welker, M. (2003). The world price of earnings opacity. The Accounting Review, 78(3), 641–678.CrossRef

Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2005). Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), 29–44.CrossRef

Brown, W. O., Helland, E., & Smith, J. K. (2006). Corporate philanthropic practices. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(5), 855–877.CrossRef

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.CrossRef

Chen, G., Firth, M., Gaoand, D. N., & Rui, O. M. (2005). Is China’s securities regulatory agency a toothless tiger? Evidence from enforcement actions. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(6), 451–488.CrossRef

Chen, J. C., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. (2008). Corporate charitable contribution: A corporate social performance or legitimacy strategy? Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 131–144.CrossRef

Chih, H., Shen, C., & Kang, F. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, investor protection, and earnings management: Some international evidence’. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(1–2), 179–198.CrossRef

Chiu, S., & Sharfman, M. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation of the instrumental perspective. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1558–1585.CrossRef

Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

Davidson, W. N., & Worrell, D. L. (1988). The impact of announcements of corporate illegalities on shareholder returns. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 195–200.CrossRef

Dickson, B. J. (2003). Red capitalists in China: The Party, private entrepreneurs, and prospects for political change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

Faccio, M. (2006). Politically connected enterprises. American Economic Review, 96(1), 369–386.CrossRef

Fang, J., Li, W., & Li, Y. (2011). What drives corporate charitable contributions: market forces, government influences, or political goodwill? Evidence from China. University of Toronto working paper.

Farber, D. B. (2005). Restoring trust after fraud: Does corporate governance matter? The Accounting Review, 80(2), 539–561.CrossRef

FASB (Financial Accounting Standard Board). (1993). SFAS 116, Accounting for contributions received and contributions made (issued 6/93).

Fisman, R. (2001). Estimating the value of political connections. American Economic Review, 91(4), 1095–1102.CrossRef

Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13, 32–33, 122, 124, 126.

Galaskiewicz, J. (1997). An urban grants economy revisited: Corporate charitable contributions in the twin cities, 1979-81, 1987-89. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 445–471.CrossRef

Gao, F., Faff, R., & Navissi, F. (2012). Corporate philanthropy: Insights from the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 20(3), 363–377.CrossRef

Gelb, D. S., & Strawser, J. A. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and financial disclosure: An alternative explanation for increased disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics, 33(1), 1–13.CrossRef

Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777–798.CrossRef

Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36(1), 5–31.CrossRef

Haley, U. C. V. (1991). Corporate contributions as managerial masques: Reframing corporate contributions as strategies to influence society. Journal of Management Studies, 28(5), 485–509.CrossRef

Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.CrossRef

Hemingway, C., & Maclagan, P. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33–44.CrossRef

Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.CrossRef

Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency cost and capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRef

Du X., Jian, W., Du, Y., Feng W., & Zeng, Q. (2013). Religion, the nature of ultimate owner, and corporate philanthropic giving: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1804-1.

Jones, T. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. The Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

Khwaja, A., & Mian, A. (2005). Do lenders favor politically connected enterprises? Rent provision in an emerging financial market. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1371–1411.CrossRef

Kim, Y., Park, M., & Wier, B. (2012). Is earnings quality associated with corporate social responsibility? The Accounting Review, 87(3), 761–796.CrossRef

Leuz, C., Nanda, D., & Wysocki, P. D. (2003). Investor protection and earnings management: An international comparison. Journal of Financial Economics, 69(3), 505–527.CrossRef

Lev, B., Petrovits, C., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2010). Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 182–200.

Li, W., & Zhang, R. (2010). Corporate social responsibility, ownership structure, and political interference: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 631–645.CrossRef

Lin, L. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in China: Window dressing or structural change? Berkeley Journal of International Law, 28(1), 64–100.

Linthicum, C., Reitengaand, A., & Sanchez, J. (2010). Social responsibility and corporate reputation: The case of the Arthur Andersen Enron audit failure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 29(2), 160–176.CrossRef

Luo, X., & Zhang, J. (2009). Institutional or instrumental: What affects corporate social responsibility behavior in emerging economies. Academy of Management, 1, 1–6.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business? Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–306.CrossRef

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, P. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1–18.CrossRef

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

Navarro, P. (1988). Why do corporations give to charity? Journal of Business, 61(1), 65–93.CrossRef

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.CrossRef

Paine, L. S. (2002). Value shift. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. (2000). Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 486–501.CrossRef

Petrovits, C. (2006). Corporate-sponsored foundations and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 41(3), 335–362.CrossRef

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 5–16.

Pozner, J. E. (2008). Stigma and settling up: An integrated approach to the consequences of organizational misconduct for organizational elites. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1), 141–150.CrossRef

Rosen, S., Simon, J., Vincent, J. R., MacLeod, W., Fox, M., & Thea, D. M. (2003). AIDS is your business. Harvard Business Review, 81(2), 80–87.

Saiia, D. H., Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Philanthropy as strategy when corporate charity “begins at home”. Business and Society, 42(2), 169–201.CrossRef

Sánchez, C. M. (2000). Motives for corporate philanthropy in El Salvador: Altruism and political legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 363–375.CrossRef

Seifert, B., Morris, S. A., & Bartkus, B. R. (2003). Comparing big givers and small givers: Financial correlates of corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3), 195–211.CrossRef

Seifert, B., Morris, S. A., & Bartkus, B. R. (2004). Having, giving and getting: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial performance. Business and Society, 43(2), 135–161.CrossRef

Sharfman, M. (1994). Changing institutional rules: The evolution of corporate philanthropy, 1983-1953. Business and Society, 33(3), 236–269.CrossRef

Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian foreign products industry. Strategy Management Journal, 26(2), 159–180.CrossRef

Shleifer, A. (2004). Does competition destroy ethical behavior? The American Economic Review, 94(2), 414–418.CrossRef

Su, J., & He, J. (2010). Does giving lead to getting? Evidence from Chinese private enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 73–90.CrossRef

Verschoor, C. (2006). Consumers consider the importance of corporate social responsibility. Strategic Finance, 88(2), 20–22.

Wang, H., & Qian, C. (2011). Corporate philanthropy and financial performance of Chinese firms: The roles of social expectations and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1159–1181.CrossRef

Wang, H., Choi, J., & Li, J. (2008a). Too little or too much? Untangling the relationship between corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance. Organization Science, 19(1), 143–159.CrossRef

Wang, Q., Wong, T. J., & Xia, L. (2008b). State ownership, the institutional environment, and auditor choice: Evidence from China. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 46(1), 112–134.CrossRef

Wang, L., & Yung, K. (2011). Do state enterprises manage earnings more than privately owned firms? The case of China. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 38(7), 794–812.CrossRef

Williams, R. J., & Barrett, J. D. (2000). Corporate philanthropy, criminal activity, and firm reputation: Is there a link? Journal of Business Ethics, 26(4), 341–350.CrossRef

Wokutch, R. E., & Spencer, B. A. (1987). Corporate saints and sinners: The effects of philanthropic and illegal activity on organizational performance. California Management Review, 29(2), 62–77.CrossRef

Xin, K., & Pearce, J. (1996). Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for formal institutional support. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1641–1658.CrossRef

Zhang, R., Rezaeeand, Z., & Zhu, J. (2010). Corporate philanthropic disaster response and ownership type: Evidence from Chinese firms’ response to the Sichuan earthquake. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 51–63.CrossRef

Titel: Corporate Philanthropy, Ownership Type, and Financial Transparency
verfasst von: Cuili Qian
Xinzi Gao
Albert Tsang
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2015
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 4/2015
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2109-8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2015

Theoretical Lenses for Understanding the CSR–Consumer Paradox

Reclaiming the Child Left Behind: The Case for Corporate Cultural Responsibility

The Normativity and Legitimacy of CSR Disclosure: Evidence from France

CEO Ethical Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Moderated Mediation Model

Being Good When Being International in an Emerging Economy: The Case of China

A Case for Consumer Social Responsibility (CnSR): Including a Selected Review of Consumer Ethics/Social Responsibility Research

Premium Partner