Open access peer-reviewed chapter

The Moderating Effect of Firm Visibility on the Corporate Social Responsibility-Firm Financial Performance Relationship: Evidence from France

Written By

Zyed Achour and Sonia Boukattaya

Submitted: 20 November 2020 Reviewed: 06 January 2021 Published: 28 January 2021

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.95861

From the Edited Volume

Corporate Social Responsibility

Edited by Beatrice Orlando

Chapter metrics overview

689 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


This research aims to analyze the role played by firm visibility in moderating the relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Firm Financial Performance (FFP). Based on the legitimacy theory, a firm’s responses to stakeholder’s expectations would be affected by its public visibility; we hypothesize a positive link between CSR and firm visibility. Moreover, visibility is expected to moderate the CSR-FFP relationship. We applied a Moderated Regression Analysis using the aggregate ESG scores as a CSR proxy on a panel data of listed French Companies (SBF120) over the period 2008–2017. Our findings are in line with legitimacy theory, suggesting that social initiatives would be mean to strengthen the legitimacy and to secure “license to operate”. Furthermore, firm visibility would be a contingency variable that moderates positively CSR-FFP relationship.


  • corporate social responsibility (CSR)
  • financial performance
  • firm visibility
  • legitimacy theory
  • SBF 120

1. Introduction

The link between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Firm Financial Performance (FFP) remains one of the most controversial issues during the past fifty years. Despite the extensive research, both theoretical and empirical carried out in different contexts; it seems that no consensus has been reached on causality, sign and even less on its shape. On a theoretical level, the arguments in favor of a positive relationship are mainly found in the social impact hypothesis defended by the stakeholder approach according to which good stakeholder management would generate better performance. In contrast, the trade-off hypothesis stemming from a liberal view postulates that CSR would divert the company from its main mission of profit maximization Friedman [1]. Regarding the causality of the relationship, two hypotheses are also theoretically defensible: on the one hand, it is the Available Fund Hypothesis [2, 3] that would play an initiating element in CSR practices. This hypothesis is based on Slack Resource Theory [4, 5], maintaining that availability of financial resources would encourage companies to get involved in CSR activities, [6, 7]. On the other hand, according to the Managerial Opportunism Hypothesis [8], good financial performance would push managers to reduce their commitment to CSR actions to increase short-term profitability as well as their personal remuneration. Conversely, poor financial performance would lead to an increase in social spending in order to divert attention and justify their poor performance [8, 9]. On an empirical level, the researches carried out to date do not seem to have been sufficient either to draw a definitive conclusion as to the relationship between CSR and financial performance. Indeed, these investigations do not allow us to rule on a general and stable relationship between CSR and performance given many contingent factors that affect this relationship. In recent Meta-analysis, [10, 11] conclude that even if empirical research on the CSR-FFP relationship favors a positive link, the latter would be affected by several contingent variables (moderators and mediators). Thus, several variables are likely to influence this relationship such us firm size [12], firm’ origin country [13], Competition intensity within the industry [14], Industry [15, 16], earning management [17], ownership concentration [18], R and D expenditures [19], leadership styles [20], cultural differences and the crucial role that owner-managers could play when dealing with CSR agenda [21].

Furthermore, others arguments have been put forward to justify the lack of consensus on the nature of this relationship, such as the difficulties and biases related to the operationalization of CSR, the performance measurement indicators retained as well as the delay effects necessary to be able to judge the interaction between the two variables [22]. At last, some other recent empirical research questions the linearity of the relationship - when it exists - evoking cubic, or quadratic forms [2324]. Thus, specifying the nature of the relationship between CSP and FFP is a very “challenging task”. According to legitimacy theory [25], a firm needs to appropriate certain legitimacy granted by the stakeholders. Indeed, Stakeholders tend to pay more attention, surveillance and exert more intense pressure on the most visible companies by their size, their industry, their presence in the media …. The response to these different pressures depends on the firm’s Corporate Social Responsiveness as firms may tend to manage their legitimacy according to the intensity of the pressures to which they are subject. Thus, CSR commitment would be a way of responding to various pressures whose intensity depends on the degree of visibility of the company. The main arguments put forward to justify the impact of organizational visibility on social performance relate to the fact that large companies are supposed to be more visible would be subject to greater pressure from stakeholders to encourage them to consolidate their legitimacy. Much more, firm visibility has been identified as a factor impacting the social performance by recent empirical work [26, 27]. On the other hand, by reducing information asymmetry, firm visibility is supposed to attract more investor’s attention. Investors could better assess the company’s financial performance and make predictions on firm prospects. Firm visibility could also be affected by its sustainable innovation commitment. Cillo et al., [28], conducted a systematic literature review on this subject emphasizing the need for companies to adopt a collaborative approach with different stakeholders to implement new products and processes suggesting that firms should develop organizational and individual capabilities by integrating external sources of information while adopting sustainable innovation strategies. Previous studies have also indicated that organizational visibility could reduce the cost of equity, which can improve a company’s financial performance [29]. Additionally, under tighter control from external stakeholders, visibility decrease agency costs and increase financial performance by reducing free cash flow to managers. Given the reduction in the cost of equity and agency cost and easy access to greater financial and political resources, visibility could improve the financial performance of the company. In other words, visibility is probably going to increase the company’s exposure to implied claims. Thus, when these complaints are ignored by management, they might impact the performance of the company and compromise its legitimacy since as the firm visibility increases, the involvement of the general public in a company increases, initiatives will become more and more necessary leading to more social involvement.

However, if firm visibility is liable to affect CSR on one hand and financial performance on the other hand, it will probably be a moderating variable in the CSR-FFP relationship. Hence, our research aims to test the impact of CSR on FFP and to highlight the moderating effect of firm visibility on this relationship on a sample of large French companies. This study makes three contributions to the literature. First, it provides proof of the significant impact of visibility on CSR. Then, it contributes to the literature on CSR by presenting visibility as a predictor of CSR initiatives. Third, this study demonstrates that visibility has a moderating effect on the link between CSR and FFP.

The remainder of this study will be organized as follows: Section 2 represents the research hypothesis, Section 3 describes the methodology, Section 4 provides the results and discussion of results and Section 5 presents the conclusion and recommendations.


2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses

CSR can be defined as the commitment to an improvement process in which companies integrate social, environmental, and economic considerations into management in a voluntary, systematic, and consistent manner with their stakeholders. Two theories are likely to shed light on the behavior of the company in society. Firstly, stakeholder theory [30] suggests that the success of the company depends on its ability to develop and maintain exchanges and transactions involving several resources with the various stakeholders [31]. It also recognizes that the expectations and interests of stakeholders are varied and sometimes contradictory [32]; it would therefore be called upon to take care of a real dialog to reply to its conflicting expectations and continually seek their support. From this angle, CSR is considered as a form of a dialog between the company and the various stakeholders. Secondly, legitimacy theory postulates that organizations continually seek to confirm that they operate within the bounds and in step with the standards of their respective Societies. According to Chiu and Sharfman [33], any institution – firms in particular - operates in society through an explicit or implicit contract. This continuous look for legitimacy could depend upon the degree of exposure of the firm to the assorted stakeholders and so, on the degree of its visibility. Indeed, visibility increases the company’s exposure to implicit claims, media, and the general public and can therefore lead to higher CSR; visibility is more consistent and a more powerful predictor of CSR initiatives than other factors previously studied [34].

2.1 Direct relationship between CSR and firm financial performance

Stakeholder theory [30], has marked the literature on the relationship between CSR and company performance [11, 35]. It states that if a company satisfies its stakeholders, by carrying out social projects, for instance, it will improve its image and reputation, and thereby it’s financial performance [4]. However, if the company fails to achieve a positive social impact, this will create fears among its stakeholders about its image which will increase costs and decrease profits [36]. A company that seeks to reduce its implicit costs (environmental costs, product quality costs, etc.) through irresponsible social actions should face higher explicit cost (reputation, payment of penalties, etc.). This will have a negative effect on its profitability and competitiveness. Therefore, authors who support this view predicting a positive correlation between CSR and FFP. This assumption is called “positive social impact” or “good management”. According to Cristache et al. [37], integration of social responsibility dimensions into companies’ strategies, would help to increase their long-term performance.

According to the legitimacy theory, CSR legitimizes firm’s businesses and guaranteed their existence [38]. Thus, the disclosure of the assorted CSR activities expected and desired by Society, make it possible to legitimize their commercial activities and failure to go with this instruction compromises overall profitability.

Resource Based View approach [39] suggests that by satisfying the expectations of stakeholders, the company develops inimitable and non-substitutable resources and skills. These resources can be intangible assets [40] such as innovation, human capital, leadership, etc. If the company manages to create and exploit these new resources, it will be able to develop sustainable competitive advantages [41].

Signaling theory [42] also provided an argument for the positive impact of CSR on financial performance. Thus, through their social achievements and especially through their disclosure, companies will try to send a positive signal in order to obtain a positive response from the market.

On an empirical level, several researchers have concluded a positive link between CSR and financial performance. Laskar [43] detected a positive relationship between CSR scores (based on content analysis) and Market-to-Book Value (MBV) on a sample of 119 large Southeast Asian companies over the period 2009–2014. By adopting the same approach, Nguyen [44] established a positive link between CSR scores and ROA on a sample of 31 Vietnamese commercial banks. Choi et al. [45] were also able to conclude that there is a positive link between philanthropic commitment (as an indicator for measuring CSR) and ROA; their research focused on 11,000 observations over the period 2002–2014 in Korea.

In Europe, Rodríguez-Fernández [46] constructed a social behavior index to show the existence of a positive relationship between this index and financial performance apprehended by both ROA, ROE and Tobin’s Q; their study focused on a sample of 107 companies listed on the Madrid stock exchange. Adeneye and Ahmed [47] also found a positive link between CSR scores and market to book value (MBV) on a sample of 500 British companies. More recently, in a recent second-order Meta analysis, covering 25 primary Meta analyzes, 1274 empirical researches, or nearly one million observations, Busch and Fried [10] concluded that a positive and highly significant relationship between CSR and financial performance.

Based on theoretical justifications, empirical literature and our research questions, we make the following central hypothesis (H1):

H1: CSR is positively related to firm financial performance.

2.2 Moderating effect of firm visibility

Firm visibility describes the extent to which companies are observed by their stakeholders. It can be viewed as a unique attribute that reflects the exposure and attractiveness of a firm [48]. Visibility is a concept close to reputation. However, it is necessary to make a distinction: if the reputation reflects the image stakeholders have of the firm (good or bad), visibility mainly reflects the presence and ‘observability’ within the community and it is related to the level of ‘stakeholder recognition’ [49].

Such presence can be affected by size, brand, impact on the natural environment, employability, presence in the media but also by various scandals within which firm may well be involved. Firm visibility could be the source of an “excess” of pressure and oversight on the part of stakeholders, since they have more information on corporate social responsibility. Thus, companies with high visibility are more likely to obtain more positive responses from their external stakeholders prompting them to improve their social performance, with more effort in terms of innovation. On the other hand, companies with high visibility can attract more attention from investors. Additionally, visibility may be a recognizable attribute that can help customers differentiate them from other businesses [50]. In keeping with Pfeffer and Salancik [51], external stakeholders are more curious about visible firms which affect the intensity of the pressures they are subjected to. Visible firms would be under more public scrutiny. Hörisch et al. [52, 53] noted that the more exposed position lead to higher public pressure and more CSR activities.

Firm visibility also can reduce information asymmetry degree between companies and their stakeholders and amplify the information disclosed by companies [54]. Thus, companies with higher visibility are more likely to elicit adverse reactions from their stakeholders. For example, within the case of high firm visibility of companies, violations of environmental regulations are going to be particularly pronounced [55], to which investors react strongly negatively. Additionally, a high firm visibility can even allow customers to understand their environmental irresponsibility [56]. Wu et al. [57] underlines the existence of a correlation between positive stakeholder’s responses and firm’s level visibility. Visible companies are likely to attract and gain support of community stakeholders as well as favorable evaluations from regulatory stakeholders. Likewise, CSR practices are expected to increase firm visibility which might help talented workers attraction as an effective knowledge management spillover [58]. The authors showed empirically the positive effect of a firm’s CSR practices, operating in knowledge-based industries, on attracting highly skilled workers, thus enhancing the company’s competitiveness.

Finally, the active CSR behaviors of companies are much easier to know by governments allowing them to access preferential policies, like access to bank loans, tax deductions and market access that stimulate social innovation [33]. Therefore, we make the subsequent assumption:

H2: Firm visibility strengthen the positive effect of CSR on Firm Financial performance


3. Research methodology

3.1 Sample and data collection

Our sample consists of French SBF120 listed firms from the year 2008 to 2017. The final sample includes 88 French companies. We are base on a balanced panel dataset of 880 firm-year observations. We used secondary data drawn from the Thomson Reuters Inc. database on the French companies in our sample.

The choice of the period analysis coincides with the adoption of the Grenelle1 law which makes the production of annual CSR report mandatory for all large companies. This period also coincides with the dissemination of the main codes of governance in France. Furthermore, the analysis period of 10 years makes it possible to constitute a fairly large panel which enriches the results and improves the estimates and econometric tests. The SBF120 index includes the 120 largest companies in terms of market capitalization and trading volumes on the Euronext Paris market. These large companies, mostly groups, remain very “visible” when it comes to their societal achievements and are subject to permanent “monitoring” by societal rating organizations, media, and investors. It should be noted that companies with a lot of missing data were also removed from the sample.

3.2 Measurement of variable

3.2.1 Dependent variables

There are many ways to measure Firm Financial Performance. However, in this study, we use the return on assets (ROA). ROA is an accounting measure, calculated by reporting the result before taxes and interest to the total assets. It has the advantage of providing information on the operating profitability of the business by eliminating the effect of debt and corporate tax. This ratio provides information on the performance of the company in carrying out its “business” regardless of the financing structure.

3.2.2 Independent variable

Given the multidimensional nature of CSR and taking into consideration that the weights of its various dimensions must consider cross-sectoral specificities and socio-cultural differences, we retain in this research a measure including three fundamental dimensions of CSR (Environmental, Societal, and Governance: ESG). ESG score is based on a company’s performance in the environmental (E), social (S) and governance (G). In this study we use the Thomson Reuters/S-Network which attributes a specific weight to very indicator on the basis of selected considerations and their relative importance. ESG ratings provided by the Thomson Reuters Asset4 are widely employed in the literature as a CSR measure [59].

3.2.3 Moderating variable

Visibility is a concept that remains difficult to measure. Previous research has tried to develop own measures. For example, firm citations in the specialized press [60]; firm size [61], the distinction between B2B and B2C companies [49] or even the media coverage [62] were used as proxies of the visibility of the firm. Firm visibility (VBL), following the lead of previous research [63, 64] was calculated as the ratio of advertising expenses to sales.

3.2.4 Control variables

Following prior-related studies, we control for a variety of variables that may affect CSR-FFP link.

According to Waluyo [65], firm age affects CSR since mature firms are more experienced and pay more attention to social issues and reputation. Moreover, mature firms are likely to invest significantly more in CSR. Indeed, the predictability of income allows mature companies to invest more in CSR; on the opposite hand, younger companies with less predictable income may pursue survival and growth-oriented strategies and subsequently run out of funds to invest in CSR activities. This hypothesis is criticized by other authors. For instance, Withisuphakorn and Jiraporn [66] who argue that mature companies, enjoy a reputation regardless of their CSR engagement. Otherwise, Age can affect the general public firm’s visibility [67, 68]: On one hand, older firms are speculated to be “known” by the public through patronage and sponsorship, on the other hand, young firms would even be tempted to ascertain a brand image with the public by an increased media presence. In this study, we measure firm age (AGE) by Natural logarithm of the number of years since the inception of the firm.

On the other side, considering that large companies are alleged to have more resources to commit to CSR initiatives [27] and that larger firms have more exposed position lead to higher public pressure and more CSR activities [52, 53], SIZE, measured by Natural logarithm of total assets is introduced into the model as a control variable. Following pervious researches [69, 70], we also control by leverage (LEV). Indeed, we would expect companies with high levels of leverage to have less cash available to engage in CSR actions. On the other hand, excessive leverage could negatively impact financial performance. In this study, we used the total debt ratio by dividing the sum of financial debts (regardless of their horizons) by total assets as a measure of leverage.

Finally, we integrate innovation (RDI) measured by R&D expenditures divided by total annual sales, as a control variable to the extent that it is theoretically accepted that innovation often allows dissipating a competitive advantage and improving profitability [41, 71, 72]. On the other hand, there is empirical evidence that the degree of innovation has an impact on firm social performance [73, 74]. McWilliams and Siegel [75] highlighted that innovation is important for the understanding of the CSR influence on financial performance. According Luo and Du [76], CSR can be a catalyst for innovation.

3.3 Methods

In this study, we aim at examining the effect of CSR on REM and the moderating role of firm visibility on this relationship. For this purpose, we proceed by two steps. We start first by estimating the following equation:


In order to examine the moderating effect of firm visibility on the CSR-FFP relationship described in our basic model, we regress FFP on the CSR variable, visibility variable and the interaction between both of these variables.


In Eq. (1), FFPit is the dependent variable which is measured by Return on assets and CSRit is lagged by two years to avoid simultaneity. In Eq. (2), CSRxVBLit is the interaction variable lagged by two years and is used to avoid the endogeneity with FFP. εit is the error term for firm i during the period t. For more detailed description of variables see Table 1.

Figure 1.

The research design is presented in Figure 1.

Firm financial performanceFFPReturn On Assets ratio
Corporate Social ResponsibilityCSRESG global score
Firm VisibilityVBLAdvertising expenses to sales ratio
Firm AgeAGENatural logarithm of the number of years since the inception of the firm
Firm SizeSIZENatural logarithm of total assets (in millions of Euros)
LeverageLEVTotal debt to total assets ratio
R&D expenditure IntensityRDIR&D expenditures divided by total annual sales

Table 1.

Variables description.

We consider the GMM equations for panel data to estimate models. The GMM estimator has the advantage of controlling for endogeneity between variables and unobservable heterogeneity. For this purpose, the following two models have been specified by using random-effects panel regression.


4. Findings

4.1 Descriptive statistics

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics. It shows the minimum value, maximum value, average and standard deviation. The dependent variable, ROA, has an average value of 0.398 with a standard deviation of 0.0689. Thus, on average result before taxes and interest represent 3.98% of total assets of companies of our study. The average firm visibility variable equals 5.69% with a standard deviation of 0.1466 suggesting high dispersion between the companies of our sample. The averages of the control variables are 3.670 for firm age, 9.996 for firm size, 0.7328 for leverage and 0.0486 for R&D intensity.

LEV8800. 73280.22810.25310.9768

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics.

Note: For description of variables seeTable 1

The mean value of overall ESG score for all the companies in our sample over the period studied is 0.5787 with a standard deviation of 0.1852. This score did not change significantly over the analysis period with a maximum recorded in 2015 (65.91%) and a minimum of 49.43% in 2011. For international comparison, the average ESG score observed on a sample of 94 Korean companies listed on the KOSPI (Korea Stock Exchange) over the period 2008–2014 is close to 46%. According to the rating agency Novethic, the average ESG score of European companies is 45.4% in 2017.

4.2 Correlation matrix

Table 3 shows the Pearson correlation matrix. All correlation coefficient are less than the acceptable limit (0.5). Therefore, there are no multicoliniarity problems in our study.

RDI0.1864−0.01740.0936***0.17480. 1562**0. 0514***1

Table 3.

Pearson correlation matrix.

Note: For description of variables see Table 1

The superscripts *, ** and *** indicate significance at the 5%, 1% and 0.01% levels, respectively.

The correlation coefficient shows that visibility has a high positive correlation with CSR variable at a significance level of 5%. This is can be in accordance with the hypothesis that more visibility should create incentives for a firm to engage in social initiatives and to divulgate their social performance and is additionally in line with the results of previous researches [62, 77, 78]. There is also a significant positive correlation between visibility and firm age. This is expected as old firms should have more visibility and access to media. Visibility also has strong correlations with R&D intensity [72, 79]. In fine, significant correlation was reported between CSR and firm leverage in our sample. This is consistent with the literature up to this point which has supported a strong positive correlation between leverage and CSR [80]. Indeed, firms that participate in more CSR initiatives are more likely to be less leveraged. This is often expected as firms that are highly leveraged should find it tougher to participate in “non-essential” spending [34].

4.3 Multivariate regression analysis

The main objective of this research was to study the link between CSR and FFP and the moderating effect of firm visibility on CSR and firm performance relationship. Table 4 presents the results. The findings of the first model demonstrate that CSR have a positive and significant relationship with firm performance. Our first hypothesis H1 is accepted. These findings are in line with previous studies [81, 82, 83] which have determined that greater CSR activities enhance firm performance.

Dependant variable: Financial Firm Performance measured by ROA
Model 1Model 2
CSR x VBL0.0150**0.022
Wald χ273.0179.33

Table 4.

Multivariate regression analysis.

The superscripts *, ** and *** indicate significance at the 5%, 1% and 0.01% levels, respectively.

With the second model, we employed Aguinis’s [84] Moderate Multiple Regression (MMR) model by creating a new variable (product between the two predictors). The effect of interaction variable (CSR × VBL) is positive on firm performance (coef. 0.0137, p-value = 0.022) and significant at 5 percent level. Our second hypothesis H2 is accepted which suggests that firm visibility moderates the link between CSR and FFP. This indicates that as a firm is more visible, the positive effect of CSR on ROA becomes stronger. Thus, increased visibility would encourage more commitment and disclosure of societal achievements that can be valued by stakeholders and leading to better financial performance. Our results are also supported by Park [85] who demonstrated that visibility moderates the correlation between CSR and reputation, which mediates the CSR-FFP relationship in the long run. These results are also in accordance with those of Madsen and Rodgers [86] who underlined the role of firm visibility and “stakeholder attention” when studying CSR-FFP link.

Regarding the control variables, firm leverage was found to be negatively and significantly related to firm performance in both models. This finding is congruent with that observed in researchers carried out in the same context (see, for example, [87]).

Firm size has negative and statistically significant effect on firm performance within the two models at a 5 percent level. The results are in line with those of prior studies [88, 89]. Finally, the coefficients of firm age and R&D intensity are negative but not significant.


5. Conclusion

Over the past decades there has been growing interest, both in academic literature and within the business world, in CSR and its impact on the actions and results of companies. The empirical research carried out to date does not seem to be sufficient to draw a stable and definitive conclusion about the existence, direction and stability of CSR-FFP link, to give for investigations about contingent variables which could affect this relationship. In this research, we essentially mobilized legitimacy theory to advance that the firm’s response to several pressures exerted thereon by the various stakeholders could vary consistently with its degree of visibility and therefore the attention given by the community. The empirical validation on a sample of large French firms allowed us to conclude that visibility plays the role of a positive moderator on the link between CSR and financial performance. Indeed, we have demonstrated the existence of a positive and significant relationship between ESG scores (CSR measure) and the return on assets (firm financial performance measure) to validate our first hypothesis. Likewise, we have demonstrated the existence of a positive relationship between visibility level and CSR to argue that visibility increases the company’s exposure to implicit complaints can therefore lead to higher CSR. This study showed significant positive relationships between visibility and CSR demonstrated by correlation and multivariate analyzes.

This research also made for an interesting finding that might be the topic of further investigations: the chosen visibility indicator has a significant positive relationship with the ESG scores. This observation is in step with that revealed by other studies carried out in other contexts [85, 90, 91]. French companies with high visibility seem to support CSR issues to manage social expectations and reinforce their legitimacy. These results match in particular with what was revealed by Aouadi and Marsat [92] who found that ESG scores are positively related to company value for highly visible companies after using a large sample of over 4,000 companies from 58 countries between 2002 and 2011.

The results of this study have practical implications; they can be interesting and useful for managers in their decision making since they indicate that decision makers should be aware of the importance of visibility to gain legitimacy. Indeed, this research shows that the visibility positively moderates the correlation between CSR and financial performance. This moderating effect would most likely be exerted through the firm’s reputation, suggesting that companies should pay more attention to visibility when implementing and disclosing their CSR programs.

The main limitation of this study is related to the visibility metric, future research may well be inquisitive about further developing indicators for firm visibility measures based, for instance, on media coverage or on the interest given to the company by social networks or Internet search engines. Comparative studies with other countries would be possible. Finally, in this research, we used an overall ESG score; it would be interesting to perform the effect of specific ESG components on financial performance.


Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1. Friedman, M. (1970) The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. New York Times Magazine. September 13, 1970
  2. 2. Auer, B. R., & Schuhmacher, F. (2016). Do socially (ir) responsible investments pay? New evidence from international ESG data. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 59, 51-62
  3. 3. Sayekti, Y. (2017). The Effect of Slack Resources on Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Empirical Evidence on Indonesian Listed Companies. Global Journal of Business & Social Science Review, 5(2), 70-75
  4. 4. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic management journal, 18(4), 303-319
  5. 5. Watson, L. (2015). Corporate social responsibility, tax avoidance, and earnings performance. The Journal of the American Taxation Association, 37(2), 1-21
  6. 6. Julian, S. D., & Ofori-dankwa, J. C. (2013). Financial resource availability and corporate social responsibility expenditures in a sub-Saharan economy: The institutional difference hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11), 1314-1330
  7. 7. Lys, T., Naughton, J. P., & Wang, C. (2015). Signaling through corporate accountability reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(1), 56-72
  8. 8. Preston, L. E., & O’bannon, D. P. (1997). The corporate social-financial performance relationship: A typology and analysis. Business & Society, 36(4), 419-429
  9. 9. Choi, B. B., Lee, D., & Park, Y. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Governance and Earnings Quality: Evidence from Korea. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(5), 447-467
  10. 10. Busch, T., & Friede, G. (2018). The robustness of the corporate social and financial performance relation: A second-order meta-analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(4), 583-608
  11. 11. Wang, Q., Dou, J., & Jia, S. (2016). A meta-analytic review of corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance: The moderating effect of contextual factors. Business & Society, 55(8), 1083-1121
  12. 12. Tanggamani, V., Amran, A., & Ramayah, T. (2018). The corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance virtuous loop: A theoretical framework. Global Business and Management Research, 10(1), 331-343
  13. 13. Rodrigo, P., Duran, I. J., & Arenas, D. (2016). Does it really pay to be good, everywhere? A first step to understand the corporate social and financial performance link in Latin American controversial industries. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25(3), 286-309
  14. 14. Kim, K. H., Kim, M., & Qian, C. (2018). Effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance: A competitive-action perspective. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1097-1118
  15. 15. 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(3), 367-388
  16. 16. Youn, H., Hua, N., & Lee, S. (2015). Does size matter? Corporate social responsibility and firm performance in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 51, 127-134
  17. 17. Sial, M. S., Chunmei, Z., Khan, T., & Nguyen, V. K. (2018). Corporate social responsibility, firm performance and the moderating effect of earnings management in Chinese firms. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration
  18. 18. Peng, C. W., & Yang, M. L. (2014). The effect of corporate social performance on financial performance: The moderating effect of ownership concentration. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 171-182
  19. 19. Blanco, B., Guillamón-Saorín, E., & Guiral, A. (2013). Do non-socially responsible companies achieve legitimacy through socially responsible actions? The mediating effect of innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 67-83
  20. 20. Javed, M., Rashid, M. A., Hussain, G., & Ali, H. Y. (2020). The effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate reputation and firm financial performance: Moderating role of responsible leadership. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), 1395-1409
  21. 21. Del Giudice, M., Khan, Z., De Silva, M., Scuotto, V., Caputo, F., & Carayannis, E. (2017). The micro level actions undertaken by owner-managers in improving the sustainability practices of cultural and creative small and medium enterprises: A United Kingdom–Italy comparison. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(9), 1396-1414
  22. 22. Hang, M., Geyer-Klingeberg, J., & Rathgeber, A. W. (2019). It is merely a matter of time: A meta-analysis of the causality between environmental performance and financial performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), 257-273
  23. 23. Adegbite, E., Guney, Y., Kwabi, F., & Tahir, S. (2019). Financial and corporate social performance in the UK listed firms: the relevance of non-linearity and lag effects. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 52(1), 105-158
  24. 24. Gao, Y., Wu, J., & Hafsi, T. (2017). The inverted U-shaped relationship between corporate philanthropy and spending on research and development: A case of complementarity and competition moderated by firm size and visibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(6), 465-477
  25. 25. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific sociological review, 18(1), 122-136
  26. 26. Schreck, P., & Raithel, S. (2018). Corporate social performance, firm size, and organizational visibility: Distinct and joint effects on voluntary sustainability reporting. Business & Society, 57(4), 742-778
  27. 27. Yu, J., Lo, C. W. H., & Li, P. H. Y. (2017). Organizational visibility, stakeholder environmental pressure and corporate environmental responsiveness in China. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(3), 371-384
  28. 28. Cillo, V., Petruzzelli, A. M., Ardito, L., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(5), 1012-1025
  29. 29. Yao, S., & Liang, H. (2019). Analyst following, environmental disclosure and cost of equity: research based on industry classification. Sustainability, 11(2), 300
  30. 30. Freeman, R. (1984). E.(1984), Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman
  31. 31. Miles, S. (2017). Stakeholder theory classification: A theoretical and empirical evaluation of definitions. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 437-459
  32. 32. Chen, J. C., & Roberts, R. W. (2010). Toward a more coherent understanding of the organization–society relationship: A theoretical consideration for social and environmental accounting research. Journal of business ethics, 97(4), 651-665
  33. 33. Chiu, S. C., & 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
  34. 34. Li, F., Morris, T., & Young, B. (2019). The Effect of Corporate Visibility on Corporate Social Responsibility. Sustainability, 11(13), 1-16
  35. 35. Allouche, J., & Laroche, P. (2005). A meta-analytical investigation of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Revue de gestion des ressources humaines, (57)
  36. 36. Cornell, B., & Shapiro, A. C. (1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial management, 5-14
  37. 37. Cristache, N., Năstase, M., Petrariu, R., & Florescu, M. (2019). Analysis of Congruency Effects of Corporate Responsibility Code Implementation on Corporate Sustainability in Bio-Economy. The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, 21(52), 536-536
  38. 38. Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures–a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282-311
  39. 39. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1), 99-120
  40. 40. Coff, R. W. (1997). Human assets and management dilemmas: Coping with hazards on the road to resource-based theory. Academy of management review, 22(2), 374-402
  41. 41. Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of management Journal, 40(3), 534-559
  42. 42. Spence, A. M. (1973). Time and communication in economic and social interaction. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(4), 651-660
  43. 43. Laskar, N. (2018). Impact of corporate sustainability reporting on firm performance: an empirical examination in Asia. Journal of Asia Business Studies
  44. 44. Nguyen, N. (2018). The effect of corporate social responsibility disclosure on financial performance: Evidence from credit institutions in Vietnam. Available at SSRN 3101658
  45. 45. Choi, J. H., Kim, S., & Yang, D. H. (2018). Small and medium enterprises and the relation between social performance and financial performance: Empirical evidence from Korea. Sustainability, 10(6), 1816
  46. 46. Rodríguez-Fernández, M. (2015). Company financial performance: Does board size matter? Case of the EUROSTOXX50 index. Cuadernos de Gestión, 15(2), 15-38
  47. 47. Adeneye, Y. B., & Ahmed, M. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and company performance. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 7(1), 151
  48. 48. Ma, L., Cao, Y., Jiang, D., Gao, Y., & Du, X. (2020). Does ethics really matter to the sustainability of new ventures? The relationship between entrepreneurial ethics, firm visibility and entrepreneurial performance. PLOS ONE, 15(1), 1-23
  49. 49. Puck, J. F., Rogers, H., & Mohr, A. T. (2013). Flying under the radar: Foreign firm visibility and the efficacy of political strategies in emerging economies. International Business Review, 22(6), 1021-1033
  50. 50. Lenox, M. J., & Eesley, C. E. (2009). Private environmental activism and the selection and response of firm targets. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1), 45-73
  51. 51. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external of organizations: A resource–dependence perspective. New York
  52. 52. Hörisch, J., Ortas, E., Schaltegger, S., & Álvarez, I. (2015). Environmental effects of sustainability management tools: An empirical analysis of large companies. Ecological Economics, 120, 241-249
  53. 53. Udayasankar, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and firm size. Journal of business ethics, 83(2), 167-175
  54. 54. Dawkins, C., & Fraas, J. W. (2011). Coming clean: The impact of environmental performance and visibility on corporate climate change disclosure. Journal of business ethics, 100(2), 303-322
  55. 55. Huang, C. L., & Kung, F. H. (2010). Drivers of environmental disclosure and stakeholder expectation: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(3), 435-451
  56. 56. Alniacik, U., Alniacik, E., & Genc, N. (2011). How corporate social responsibility information influences stakeholders’ intentions. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 18(4), 234-245
  57. 57. Wu, W., Liu, Y., Chin, T., & Zhu, W. (2018). Will green CSR enhance innovation? A perspective of public visibility and firm transparency. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(2), 268
  58. 58. González-Masip, J., Martín-de Castro, G., & Hernández, A. (2019). Inter-organisational knowledge spillovers: attracting talent in science and technology parks and corporate social responsibility practices. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23 (5), 975-997
  59. 59. Shaukat, A., Qiu, Y., & Trojanowski, G. (2016). Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 569-585
  60. 60. Meznar, M. B., & Nigh, D. (1995). Buffer or bridge? Environmental and organizational determinants of public affairs activities in American firms. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 975-996
  61. 61. Hansen, W. L., & Mitchell, N. J. (2000). Disaggregating and explaining corporate political activity: Domestic and foreign corporations in national politics. American Political Science Review, 94(4), 891-903
  62. 62. Li, F., & Morris, T. (2018). An Analysis of the Impact of Corporate Visibility in Print Media and it’s Effects on Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of Global Business, 11(1)
  63. 63. Wang, H., & Qian, C. (2011). Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management journal, 54(6), 1159-1181
  64. 64. Wu, W., Liang, Z., & Zhang, Q. (2020). Effects of corporate environmental responsibility strength and concern on innovation performance: The moderating role of firm visibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), 1487-1497
  65. 65. Waluyo, W. (2017). Firm Size, Firm Age, and Firm Growth on Corporate Social Responsibility in Indonesia: The Case of Real Estate Companies. European Research Studies Journal, 20(4A), 360-369
  66. 66. Withisuphakorn, P., & Jiraporn, P. (2016). The effect of firm maturity on corporate social responsibility (CSR): do older firms invest more in CSR?. Applied Economics Letters, 23(4), 298-301
  67. 67. Carroll, C. E., & McCombs, M. (2003). Agenda-setting effects of business news on the public’s images and opinions about major corporations. Corporate reputation review, 6(1), 36-46
  68. 68. Schultz, M., Mouritsen, J., & Gabrielsen, G. (2001). Sticky reputation: Analyzing a ranking system. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(1), 24-41
  69. 69. 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
  70. 70. Vishwanathan, P., van Oosterhout, H., Heugens, P. P., Duran, P., & Van Essen, M. (2020). Strategic CSR: a concept building meta-analysis. Journal of Management studies, 57(2), 314-350
  71. 71. Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management journal, 43(4), 663-680
  72. 72. Padgett, R. C., & Galan, J. I. (2010). The effect of R&D intensity on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(3), 407-418
  73. 73. Fischer, T. M., & Sawczyn, A. A. (2013). The relationship between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance and the role of innovation: Evidence from German listed firms. Journal of Management Control, 24(1), 27-52
  74. 74. Ruggiero, P., & Cupertino, S. (2018). CSR strategic approach, financial resources and corporate social performance: The mediating effect of innovation. Sustainability, 10(10), 3611
  75. 75. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification?. Strategic management journal, 21(5), 603-609
  76. 76. Luo, X., & Du, S. (2015). Exploring the relationship between corporate social responsibility and firm innovation. Marketing Letters, 26(4), 703-714
  77. 77. Ali, W., Faisal Alsayegh, M., Ahmad, Z., Mahmood, Z., & Iqbal, J. (2018). The relationship between social visibility and CSR disclosure. Sustainability, 10(3), 866
  78. 78. Campbell, D. J., & Slack, R. (2006). Public visibilty as a determinant of the rate of corporate charitable donations. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(1), 19-28
  79. 79. Rahman, M., Rodríguez-Serrano, M. Á., & Lambkin, M. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and marketing performance: The moderating role of advertising intensity. Journal of Advertising Research, 57(4), 368-378
  80. 80. Sheikh, S. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and firm leverage: The impact of market competition. Research in International Business and Finance, 48, 496-510
  81. 81. Alareeni, B. A., & Hamdan, A. (2020). ESG impact on performance of US S&P 500-listed firms. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society
  82. 82. Pham, H. S. T., & Tran, H. T. (2020). CSR disclosure and firm performance: The mediating role of corporate reputation and moderating role of CEO integrity. Journal of Business Research, 120, 127-136
  83. 83. Yoon, B., Lee, J. H., & Byun, R. (2018). Does ESG performance enhance firm value? Evidence from Korea. Sustainability, 10(10), 3635
  84. 84. Aguinis, H. (2004). Regression analysis for categorical moderators. Guilford Press
  85. 85. Park, S. (2017a). Corporate social responsibility, visibility, reputation and financial performance: empirical analysis on the moderating and mediating variables from Korea. Social Responsibility Journal
  86. 86. Madsen, P. M., & Rodgers, Z. J. (2015). Looking good by doing good: The antecedents and consequences of stakeholder attention to corporate disaster relief. Strategic Management Journal, 36(5), 776-794
  87. 87. Beji, R., Yousfi, O., Loukil, N., & Omri, A. (2020). Board Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-23
  88. 88. Assidi, S. (2020). The effect of voluntary disclosures and corporate governance on firm value: a study of listed firms in France. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 17(2), 168-179
  89. 89. Zoghlami, F. (2020). Does CEO compensation matter in boosting firm performance? Evidence from listed French firms. Managerial and Decision Economics
  90. 90. Bouten, L., Everaert, P., Van Liedekerke, L., De Moor, L., & Christiaens, J. (2011, September). Corporate social responsibility reporting: A comprehensive picture? In Accounting Forum 35(3), 187-204
  91. 91. Chiu, T. K., & Wang, Y. H. (2015). Determinants of social disclosure quality in Taiwan: An application of stakeholder theory. Journal of business ethics, 129(2), 379-398
  92. 92. Aouadi, A., & Marsat, S. (2018). Do ESG controversies matter for firm value? Evidence from international data. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 1027-1047


  • Law N° 2010–788 on the environment national commitment (Grenelle II).

Written By

Zyed Achour and Sonia Boukattaya

Submitted: 20 November 2020 Reviewed: 06 January 2021 Published: 28 January 2021