Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Risk: Controversial Versus Noncontroversial Industries

被引:5
|
作者
Eriandani, Rizky [1 ]
Wijaya, Liliana Inggrit [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Surabaya, Fac Business & Econ, Dept Accounting, Surabaya 60293, Jawa Timur, Indonesia
[2] Univ Surabaya, Fac Business & Econ, Dept Management, Surabaya, Indonesia
来源
关键词
Corporate Social Responsibility; Firm Risk; Controversial Industry; Systematic Risk; Perceived CSR; CSR; PERFORMANCE; REPUTATION; IMPACT; DISCLOSURE; LEGITIMACY;
D O I
10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no3.0953
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This study aims to analyze the benefits of corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance on corporate risk in controversial and noncontroversial industries. The hypothesis of this study is based on the conflicting effects of industry type on CSR and firm risk. The research sample consisted of 927 companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange from 2016 to 2019. The main method for data processing was the ordinary least square method and subgroup analysis as a robustness test. The findings suggest that the performance of CSR can reduce corporate risk. However, the impact was only significant for non-controversial firms and weakened for controversial industries. These results support risk management and signaling theory. Firm risk in this study reflects the company's total risk, further research can categorize it into systematic and idiosyncratic risk. Besides, the number of samples of controversial industry research is not as much as noncontroversial; further research can use paired samples. Regulators can use the results to create a new policy regarding CSR implementation. This study contributes to the existing literature by showing that the ability of social responsibility to reduce corporate risk only works in non-controversial industries. This result may be due to the controversial industry receiving negative stigma from its stakeholders.
引用
收藏
页码:953 / 965
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Online corporate social responsibility communication strategies and stakeholder engagements: A comparison of controversial versus noncontroversial industries
    Song, Baobao
    Wen, Jing
    CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2020, 27 (02) : 881 - 896
  • [2] Corporate social responsibility and environmental reporting in controversial industries
    Kilian, Thomas
    Hennigs, Nadine
    EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW, 2014, 26 (01) : 79 - 101
  • [3] Corporate social responsibility information and involvement strategies in controversial industries
    Vollero, Agostino
    Conte, Francesca
    Siano, Alfonso
    Covucci, Claudia
    CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2019, 26 (01) : 141 - 151
  • [4] Corporate social responsibility in controversial industries: A literature review and research agenda
    Jansen, Linda
    Cunningham, Peggy
    Diehl, Sandra
    Terlutter, Ralf
    CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2024, 31 (05) : 4398 - 4427
  • [5] Corporate social responsibility versus corporate shareholder responsibility: A family firm perspective
    Abeysekera, Amal P.
    Fernando, Chitru S.
    JOURNAL OF CORPORATE FINANCE, 2020, 61
  • [6] The effect of corporate social responsibility on firm risk
    Nguyen, Pascal
    Nguyen, Anna
    SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL, 2015, 11 (02) : 324 - +
  • [7] Corporate Social Responsibility, Religion, and Firm Risk
    Cui, Jinhua
    Jo, Hoje
    Na, Haejung
    ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL STUDIES, 2017, 46 (02) : 305 - 340
  • [8] Corporate social responsibility, firm performance and tax risk
    Lin, Xiaojun
    Liu, Ming
    So, Simon
    Yuen, Desmond
    MANAGERIAL AUDITING JOURNAL, 2019, 34 (09) : 1101 - 1130
  • [9] Climate Risk, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Firm Performance
    Ozkan, Aydin
    Temiz, Huseyin
    Yildiz, Yilmaz
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, 2023, 34 (04) : 1791 - 1810
  • [10] Analyst coverage, corporate social responsibility, and firm risk
    Jo, Hoje
    Harjoto, Maretno
    BUSINESS ETHICS-A EUROPEAN REVIEW, 2014, 23 (03) : 272 - 292