The relationship between corporate social responsibility and the three : corporate performance; national cultures; and economic growth. Evidence from G7 countries : Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom & United States of America
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose This study explores the relationships between corporate social responsibility and each of the three: corporate performance, national cultures, and economic growth. It uses the three-chapter paper empirical approach. Design/methodology/approach The study's sample employs the topmost global equity-performing firms as rated by their indices on respective listings from the Great Seven (G7) countries. A total of 714 firms are included in the study’s final sample, translating in 9,996 firm-year observations of panel data set covering a 14-year duration (2006-2019). Data is analysed using a mix of single or multiple Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regressions, the General Least Squares (GLS) regression on a random effects model, the comparisons of means tests for the related subgroups of interest created from the master panel data set. Findings For Paper 1: First, weak but statistically significant positive relationships between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and each component of corporate performance: operational, financial, market, and liquidity - are established. Second, firms located in G7 countries with the stakeholders’ model of corporate governance (Germany, France, Japan, and Italy) exhibit a higher Environmental (E) performance than those with the shareholders’ one (Canada, USA, and UK). Third, a higher mean Environmental (E) performance in firms belonging to extractive industries than those in non-extractive ones is detected. For Paper 2): First, using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, this study establishes a statistically significant positive relationship between CSR promoted by staff in firms from communities with cultures more collectivistic than individualistic, more feminine than masculine, more uncertainty avoidant than tolerant, more restrained than more indulgent, more long-term than short-term oriented, and with a larger power distance dynamic. Second, it pioneers new knowledge that firms operating in more restrained countries (France, Germany, Japan, and Italy) reveal a higher ESG performance than those in more indulgent countries (Canada, UK, and USA). Third, study establishes variations in the controlling influence of world governance on the relationship between national cultures and CSR. For Paper 3: First, a statistically significant, strong, and negative relationship between each of a firm’s environmental and social performance versus the economic growth is discovered. In contrast, a statistically insignificant weaker and positive relationship with a firm’s governance performance exists. Second, firms in HighGDPCountries (Germany, Canada, and USA) exhibit a lower mean of the combined ESG performance than those in LowGDPCountries (Japan, France, UK, and Italy). Third, firms in HighGDPCountries exhibit a lower mean of Environmental (E) performance and Governance (G) performances than those in LowGDPCountries. Fourth, G7 firms invested more in CSR activities during the Post Great Recession (2010-2019) than during the Great Recession (2006-2009). Fifth, pioneer knowledge is found on the controlling influence of three country-specific control variables: level of human development, the degree of natural resources endowment, and the size of the stock market. Significance The multiple findings by this study on links between CSR and: corporate performance, national cultures and economic growth - could all be of interest to government policy makers or CSR units in firms, who may instead opt to revisit their CSR/ESG related activities and investments in G7 countries. There is room for further research in new areas of knowledge found, using large and wider mixed samples. Keywords: Corporate social responsibility, ESG performance, Corporate performance, Great Seven (G7) countries, Corporate governance, Stakeholder Theory, Shareholder Theory, Legitimacy Theory. National culture, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, Institutional Theory, World governance indicators (WGIs), Resource-Based View (RBV), Economic Growth & its Theory, Natural resources rent, Human Development Index (HDI), GDP per capita, Stock market size.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».