Future Business Journal 4 (2018) 195–205

HOSTED BY Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Future Business Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fbj

Investment in corporate social responsibility, disclosure practices,

T
and financial performance of banks in Nigeria
⁎
Obafemi R. Oyewumi , Oluwabunmi A. Ogunmeru, Collins S. Oboh
Department of Accounting, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Using panel data set from banks in Nigeria, a developing country, this paper examines the effects
Corporate social responsibility of corporate social responsibility (CSR) investment and disclosure on corporate financial per-
Financial performance formance. The results from the Wallace and Hussain estimator of component variances (a two-
Banks way random and fixed effects panel) suggest that CSR investment without due disclosure would
Disclosure
have little or no contribution to corporate financial performance. This paper supports the ar-
Developing country
Nigeria
gument that firms could benefit both financially and non-financially from a strategic CSR agenda.

1. Introduction

Hitherto, investment in corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a global phenomenon has remained a thriving corporate gov-
ernance concept and management strategy in most multinationals (Peng & Yang, 2014; Amin-Chaudhry, 2016). It keeps attracting the
interest of a vast number of scholars, economists, governmental and non-governmental organizations, and the public as a result of
industrial growth and economic prosperity of many nations (Abiodun, 2012; Adeyemi & Ayanlola, 2014; Harpreet, 2009; Uadiale &
Fagbemi, 2012; Uwuigbe & Uadiale, 2016). Documented evidence has shown that investments in CSR have the potentials of making
positive contributions to the development of society and businesses (Harpreet, 2009; Helg, 2007; Wahba & Elsayed, 2015; Hategan &
Curea-Pitorac, 2017). In effect, more organizations are beginning to see the benefits from setting up strategic CSR agenda
(Chaudhary, 2017; Famiyeh, 2017).
Historically, the concept of CSR became pervasive in the 1960s. Since then, it has been narrowly construed, and used indis-
criminately to cover legal and moral responsibilities (Uadiale & Fagbemi, 2012). In corporate sense, engaging in CSR activities is a
way of firms making restitutions to the society in respect of social and environmental degradation caused by their business opera-
tions. It is also an act of appreciation to the host community. In reality, corporate entities are social creations, and they depend largely
on the support of the society for survival (Reich, 1998). Arguably, while firms may engage in CSR activities to earn the continuous
support of the society, the stalemate here is whether investment in CSR has any financial returns, or it is a mere drain of corporate
resources (Galant & Cadez, 2017; Peng & Yang, 2014; Testa & D’Amato, 2017).
In the literature, there has been a deal of ambiguity and uncertainty about what CSR really means to a firm as well as the
motivation behind a firm's engagement in CSR (Abiodun, 2012; Wahba & Elsayed, 2015; Galant & Cadez, 2017; Hategan & Curea-
Pitorac, 2017). Business scholars and economic strategists have committed much research efforts to provide empirical evidence on
whether a proactive stance towards CSR is just a mere drain of a firm's profit, or it is a source for sustainable success and competitive
advantage (Hockerts, 2007; Famiyeh, 2017; Galant & Cadez, 2017). Generally, while it is assumed that firms act socially responsible

Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, Future University.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: femioyewumi@yahoo.com (O.R. Oyewumi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbj.2018.06.004
Received 27 September 2017; Received in revised form 16 January 2018; Accepted 24 June 2018
Available online 06 July 2018
2314-7210/ © 2018 Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, Future University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
O.R. Oyewumi et al. Future Business Journal 4 (2018) 195–205

because they anticipate some benefits, theories of CSR assert that firms engage in profit-maximizing CSR, being their lead motivation
(McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; Bagnoli & Watts, 2003; Amin-Chaudhry, 2016).
Accordingly, the proponents of CSR are convinced that it pays off for the firm as well as for the firm's stakeholders and the society.
They believed that investment in CSR enhances a firm's public image, and gives the firm unique comparative marketing advantages,
mostly among increasingly socially conscious consumers, which in turn, increases the firm's long-term revenue (Burke & Logsdon,
1996; Gras-Gil, Manzano, & Fernandez, 2016). In an international survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers, about 70% of the global chief
executives believed that CSR was vital to their firms’ profitability (Simms, 2002).
Generally, while studies on CSR abounds in the developed countries, evidence from a developing country's perspective appears to
be limited (Wahba & Elsayed, 2015). Particularly, CSR study in Nigeria is still sparse. This paper therefore is designed to provide
further empirical evidence on the effects of CSR investment and disclosure on corporate financial performance from the perspective of
a developing country. According to Wahba and Elsayed (2015), much CSR studies reflect the context of developed countries, and so,
adding evidence from less developed countries could possibly assist in developing existing theories of corporate finance as well as
corporate social responsibility.
Besides, most CSR studies in Nigeria have concentrated on multinational firms. Particularly, the oil and gas firms in the Niger
Delta region, while less has been done on indigenous firms and other industries like the banking industry (Amaeshi, Adi, Ogbechie, &
Amo, 2006; Oluyemi, Yinusa, Abdulateef, & Akindele, 2016). According to Oluyemi et al. (2016), the demand for CSR in the Nigerian
banking system is imperative seeing that the banks are instrumental to the development of the country. Hence, using data from banks
in Nigeria, a developing country, this paper adds to our understanding on the interactions between CSR investment and disclosure,
and banks’ financial performance. It also adds to the limited CSR literature in Africa as a whole, and Nigeria in particular.
The remaining part of this paper is structured as follows: the second part presents the review of literature related to CSR and
corporate financial performance. It also introduces the hypotheses formulated for the study. The third part presents the research
method and design for the study. In the fourth part, the results and discussions of the findings are presented, while the fifth part
concludes and presents the significance of the study.

2. Literature review and theoretical framework

Previously, the concept of CSR has been described extensively in different ways across the globe, with both similarities as well as
considerable differences (Crane, Matten, & Spence, 2008; Uadiale & Fagbemi, 2012; Asatryan & Březinová, 2014). In the report of the
National Association of Accountants (NAA) (1974), CSR is described as the identification, measurement, monitoring, and reporting of
the social and economic effects of an organization on society. It is the disclosure of those costs and benefits that may or may not be
quantified in monetary terms arising from the economic activities of firms, which are substantially borne by stakeholders and the
community at large (Perks, 1993). Similarly, Brown and Dacin (1997) described CSR as a firm's status and activities with respect to its
perceived societal or stakeholders’ obligations. It is seen as a cluster concept, overlapping with concepts such as business ethics,
corporate philanthropy, citizenship, environmental responsibility and sustainability (Al-Samman & Al-Nashmi, 2016; Gras-Gil et al.,
2016; Matten & Moon, 2004).
Generally, there has not been a strong consensus on the concept of CSR, nor its constituents (Wahba & Elsayed, 2015). However,
Belkaoui (1999) had earlier argued that the key features of social accounting include the ‘measurement’ and ‘communication’ of
information concerning the effects of a business and its activity on the society and the environment. Building on Belkaoui, Crane et al.
(2008) specified that the core essence of CSR is its voluntary feature, which goes beyond statutory obligations, managing ex-
ternalities, and multiple stakeholders’ orientation. They also noted that CSR feature goes beyond the alignment of social and eco-
nomic responsibilities, practices, and corporate philanthropy. Functionally, CSR serves as a veritable strategic structure that ensures
corporate and environmental sustainability.
In a more dynamic standpoint, CSR is being interpreted as the concept of triple bottom-line; people, planet, and profit, which
captures an expanded range of values and criteria for measuring organizational success (Abiodun, 2012; Harpreet, 2009). Although,
conflicting persuasions have emerged on the importance, or otherwise of CSR in business activity. For instance, the neoclassical
economists advanced that firms should devote more energy to supplying quality goods and services to its customers, minimize costs,
and maximize profits, all within the laws and regulations of the land (Carroll, 1979; Jamali & Mirshak, 2007; Quazi & O’Brien, 2000).
Overtly, the neoclassical economists’ position provides a motivated platform for firms to engage willingly in CSR so they can accrue
certain benefits from their host community, and from the society as a whole.
In recent years, businesses have started responding to the growing interest of stakeholders regarding their social significance.
While many of the individual policies, practices, and programmes toward societal development are not new as such (Al-Samman &
Al-Nashmi, 2016; Peng & Yang, 2014), firms are addressing their societal role far more coherently, comprehensively, and pro-
fessionally, an approach that is elegantly broadened by CSR (Crane et al., 2008; Galant & Cadez, 2017; Wahba & Elsayed, 2015).
Accordingly, in explaining CSR paradigm among firms, different CSR theories and paradigms have been proposed by scholars and
economists (Choi, 1999). For example, the enlightened shareholder model, legitimacy theory, and stakeholder theory have been
applied in explaining the motivation behind firms’ investments in CSR activities (Croker & Barnes, 2017; Hamid & Atan, 2011).
Recent studies have also employed the institutional theory in explaining CSR and firms’ motivations toward CSR investments (Bradly,
2015; Ruiviejo & Morales, 2016).

196
O.R. Oyewumi et al. Future Business Journal 4 (2018) 195–205

2.1. Investment in CSR and financial performance

Largely, a number of emerging evidences have suggested that firms could benefit both financial and non-financial from CSR
activities (Famiyeh, 2017; Hategan & Curea-Pitorac, 2017). This position is generally described as the enlightened shareholder
approach. It suggests that corporate decision-makers must consider a range of social and environmental matters if they are to
maximize long-term financial returns (Harpreet, 2009). However, the business case for CSR agenda has been subjected to much
debate and criticism. Promoters of CSR have argued that firms would benefit in multiple ways by operating with a CSR perspective
that is broader and longer than their own immediate, short-term profits, while critics of CSR argued contrarily that CSR distracts from
the fundamental economic role of businesses, which is just nothing more than superficial window-dressing (Harpreet, 2009).
The study of Soana (2011), which sampled banks both at the national and international levels, investigated the possible con-
nection between social performance and financial performance in the banking sector. From the results of the study, no statistically
significant link was found to support any positive or negative correlation between social performance and financial performance.
In Uadiale and Fagbemi (2012), the impact of CSR on the financial performance of selected quoted firms in Nigeria was examined.
From the results of the investigation, CSR was found to have positive impacts on firms’ return on equity (ROE) and return on assets
(ROA). They argued that firms in Nigeria could boost their reputation and increase their returns by investing in CSR activities. This
therefore could mean that a CSR agenda for firms in Nigeria may serve as an image booster. Especially, for firms whose business
operations impact on the environment negatively.
The study of Baird, Geylani, and Roberts (2012) reexamined the relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and
financial performance from an industry perspective using a linear mixed model analysis. The findings of their study suggest that a
significant relationship between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance exists, and that the relationship is
conditioned on the firms’ industry specific context. This could also be interpreted to mean that the effect of a firm's performance in
CSR activities on its financial performance would depend largely on the type of industry. Similarly, the study of Peng and Yang
(2014) examined the effect of corporate social performance on financial performance and the moderating effect of ownership con-
centration of Taiwan firms. The results suggest a negative relationship between corporate social performance and financial perfor-
mance.
Asatryan and Březinová (2014) likewise examined the relationship between CSR and financial performance of firms in the airline
industry in Central and Eastern Europe. From the results of the study, CSR initiatives were found to correlate positively with the
financial indicators of the firms examined. Contrarily, Bradly (2015) argued that the rationale for engaging with and supporting local
community investment is more concerned with long-term sustainability than short-term profitability. That is, the issues of legitimacy,
interdependence, and risk management are important strategic reasons for undertaking community investment (CSR activities) than
profit seeking.
Famiyeh (2017), which examined the relationship between CSR initiative and firms’ performance in Ghana, demonstrated that
CSR initiative by firms in Ghana correlated positively with the firms’ operational competitive performance in terms of cost, quality,
flexibility, and delivery performance as well as overall performance. Furthermore, Famiyeh demonstrated that competitive opera-
tional capabilities in terms of cost and flexibility would lead to firms’ overall performance from the Ghanaian business environment,
whereas delivery and quality would have little or no effect on the overall performance of the firms.
While the study of Hategan and Curea-Pitorac (2017) found strong statistical supports that suggest positive correlations between
CSR initiatives and the financial performance measures of Romanian listed firms, Jain, Vyas, and Roy (2017) found a weak positive
relation between CSR and financial performance.
From these studies, it is apparent that three principal strands of findings are associated with the relationship between CSR
activities and firms’ financial performance. These include; (1) the existence of a positive correlation between CSR and financial
results; (2) the lack of correlation between CSR and financial results; and (3) the existence of a negative correlation between CSR and
financial results (Galant & Cadez, 2017; Uadiale & Fagbemi, 2012; Peng & Yang, 2014; Baird et al. 2012).
Arguably, the positive correlation between CSR and financial performance reported in the literature may be interpreted to suggest
that a firm's investment in CSR would somewhat lead to increased financial benefits through a wide range of other benefits such as
corporate reputation and brand image, customers loyalty, cost reductions, operational flexibility, comparative advantage, and im-
proved service delivery (Galant & Cadez, 2017; Lee, Chang, & Lee, 2017). According to Wahba and Elsayed (2015), a firm's in-
vestment in CSR builds up stocks of reputational capital, and create some organizational capabilities, which would help the firm in
achieving some kind of competitive advantages, and financial boost. Hence, it could be concluded that the related benefits of en-
gaging in CSR activities exceed the related costs.
On the other hand, the negative correlation between CSR and financial performance reported in the literature may be interpreted
to agree with the conventional view of CSR, which holds that engaging in CSR is costly since being socially responsible incurs
additional expenses. Critics have also argued that firms’ engagement in CSR is nothing more than a superficial window-dressing,
which is just to preempt the role of governments as a watchdog over powerful multinational corporations (Harpreet, 2009; Testa &
D’Amato, 2017).
From the above discussions, it is obvious that the results on CSR and financial performance are somewhat mixed and inconclusive.
Thus, this paper seeks to provide empirical evidence from a developing country's perspective to illustrate whether investment in CSR
activities impacts positively (or negatively) on a firm's financial performance. Therefore, the first hypothesis of the paper, which is
stated in the null, is as follows:
H1. : investment in CSR activities has no significant effect on the financial performance of banks in Nigeria.

197
O.R. Oyewumi et al. Future Business Journal 4 (2018) 195–205

2.2. Disclosure of CSR activities and financial performance

The legitimacy theory is probably one of the oldest and the most widely used in explaining the motivation behind firms’ CSR
initiatives and disclosure practices (Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Guthrie & Parker, 1989; Milne & Patten, 2002; Murthy & Abeysekera,
2008; Uwuigbe & Uadiale, 2016; Wilmhurst & Frost, 2000). This theory is based generally on the premise that firms would signal
their legitimacy by making adequate disclosures of their activities (Gray, Kouhy, & Lavers, 1995).
As it applies to CSR studies, the legitimacy theory is not separated from the stakeholder theory; rather these theories are over-
lapping and complementary within the political economy assumptions (see Gray, Javad, Power, & Sinclair, 2001). According to
Uwuigbe and Uadiale (2016), the legitimacy theory seeks to explain attempts by firms to narrow any perceived legitimacy gap as an
effort to avoid sanctions or threats to their survival. This theory suggests that businesses operate in society via an expressed or implied
social contract upon which their survival and growth are dependent. Patten (1992) had earlier noted that disclosure of CSR initiatives
positively correlated with organizational legitimacy, which suggests that firms legitimized their operations through voluntary CSR
disclosures.
Applying the legitimacy theory, Uwuigbe and Uadiale (2016) examined whether a significant difference exists in the level of
corporate social environmental disclosure between building material and brewery industries. The results of the study suggest that the
level of corporate social environmental disclosures differ significantly between the selected industries. They however noted that
corporate social environmental disclosure among the selected listed firms in Nigeria is generally low and still at its nascent stage.
According to Perrini, Russo, Tencati, and Vurro (2011), CSR practices and related information disclosure usually become relia-
bility indicators, and brand positioning for corporate entities. They inspire firms to understand their customers’ needs better through
open dialogue and transparent interaction. They further noted that the integration of CSR in a firm's disclosure practices is seen as a
signaling exercise to avoid potential adverse selection risks and exposure to future social costs. That is, CSR disclosure facilitates a
firm's visibility, which shareholders and financial partners may interpret as a signal of the firm's successful attempts to meet their
expectations, thereby turning into lower perceived risks and easier access to capital markets. Likewise, voluntary CSR disclosure
supports the firm in facing social and political pressures to act in socially acceptable ways.
Normally, with the legitimacy theory undertone, corporate management reacts to the community and other stakeholders’ ex-
pectations because they continually seek to ensure that they are perceived as operating within the norms of their respective societies,
and that their activities are perceived as being legitimate (Campbell, 2000; Deegan, Rankin, & Tobin, 2002; Hamid & Atan, 2011;
Patten, 1992). Also, within this theory, it could be argued that with CSR disclosure, firms seek to create, maintain, or repair their
societal legitimacy (Uwuigbe & Uadiale, 2016), which they also stand to benefit from the supportive influences of the society, and
from the increased awareness of their products and services, and from the patronages of customers and other stakeholders.
It could also be argued that firms may be assumed to disclose their CSR activities voluntary, not with the expectation of any
financial benefits, but as Deegan (2006) suggested, for ethical reasons with respect to the accountability model. The legitimacy theory
in collaboration with the stakeholder theory, may assume that firms also legitimized their operations by treating all stakeholders
fairly (Freeman, 1984; Al-Samman & Al-Nashmi, 2016). Thus, one major platform for firms to fulfill this obligation is to disclose their
CSR activities voluntarily to meet the expectations of certain groups of stakeholders. Besides, CSR disclosure serves as channels of
advertisement for a firm to maintain good public image and to ensure competitive sustainability (Lee et al. 2017).
In the study of Gras-Gil et al. (2016), explaining why companies involve themselves in socially responsible activity, CSR indicator
was found to correlate significantly with ethical and moral issues concerning corporate decision-making. The authors suggested that
investments in socially responsible activities not only improve stakeholder satisfaction, but also affect corporate reputation posi-
tively, and lead to effective use of resources.
Although, results regarding CSR disclosure have been mixed, many prior CSR studies have employed the legitimacy theory and
the stakeholder theory in explaining firms’ motivations in response to social responsibility (Guthrie & Parker, 1990; Gras-Gil et al.,
2016; Gray et al., 1995; Patten, 1992). These inconsistent results may be due to different strategies used by firms to legitimize their
behavior as well as different legislative jurisdictions (Cormier & Gordon, 2001; Newson & Deegan, 2002). Generally, while the
discourses on CSR activities are broad, this paper is interested in testing whether CSR disclosure has any effect on the financial
performance of banks in Nigeria. Therefore, the second hypothesis of this paper, which is stated in the null, is as follows:
H2. : disclosure of CSR activities by banks in Nigeria has no significant effect on their financial performance.
In summary, the proposed interactions between CSR investment and disclosure, and corporate financial performance are de-
monstrated in Fig. 1 below.

CSR H1: FINPERF ≠ INVCSR

Investment Corporate
Financial
Performance
CSR H2: FINPERF ≠ DCSR
Disclosure

Fig. 1. Interaction between CSR investment and disclosure and Corporate Financial Performance.
Source: Authors’ conceptualization, 2017

198
O.R. Oyewumi et al. Future Business Journal 4 (2018) 195–205

3. Research methods and data

By way of an explanatory and content analysis designs, this paper examines the effects of CSR investment and disclosure on the
financial performance of banks in Nigeria. The sample consists of 21 money deposit banks in Nigeria (see Appendix A), which was
obtained from the website of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). After due screening, banks without consistent annual reports for the
period (2010 to 2014) were eliminated, which reduced the sample to 12 banks with 60 observations. Content analysis was used to
construct the panel dataset from the annual reports of the sampled banks within the reporting period (2010 to 2014).

3.1. Model specification

Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and Wallace and Hussain estimator of component variances were performed on the
panel data collected. The descriptive statistics was performed to give a summary of the variables. Each variable was presented in its
mean and standard deviation measures. The Pearson correlation was performed to establish empirical relationship among the
variables, and as a support to check for multicollinearity disturbances among the independent variables. Wallace and Hussain es-
timator of component variances was performed to test the hypotheses of the study.
Actually, panel data analysis was used based on its accorded advantages over conventional cross-sectional or time-series data sets.
According to Hsiao (2003), panel data give researcher a large number of data points, increasing the degrees of freedom and reducing
the collinearity among explanatory variables, therefore improving the efficiency of econometric estimates. Likewise, panel data allow
researchers to construct and test more complicated behavioral models than purely cross-sectional or time-series data. Accordingly,
panel data analysis was conducted to estimate the following model:
FINPERFit = ß0 + ß1INVCSRit + ß2 DCSRit + ß3 SIZEit + ß4 TANGit + εit (1)
Where FINPERFit is the financial performance of bank i at period t. It is the dependent variable, measured as return on assets (ROA).
That is, the proportion of profit after tax to total assets (see Galant & Cadez, 2017). On the other hand, INVCSRit and DCSRit are the
intrinsic explanatory variables for the model. INVCSRit represents bank i investment in CSR activities (see Appendix B) at period t
(that is, preceding year basis). According to Galant and Cadez (2017), measurement of CSR variable in prior empirical studies was
found to be the reason for the diverse outcome of relationship between CSR and corporate financial performance.
Accordingly, for this paper, a different measurement was used for CSR investment. Specifically, the natural log of the actual
amounts spent in executing CSR activities as reported in the prior year's annual reports of these banks were extracted and used to
measure this variable. The justification for this measurement is that, by plain reasoning, the actual effect of CSR investment in a
particular year is expected to be observed, not in the year of investment, but in the succeeding years.
Likewise, DCSRit represents disclosure of CSR activities by bank i at period t. It is a dummy variable and measured as 1, if bank i
has a dedicated section in the annual report that discloses CSR activities, and 0, if otherwise (note; prior year's disclosure was used to
regress current year's financial performance to reflect the true effect). As discussed above, it is only logical to expect that the
disclosure of CSR activities for a particular year would have impact, not on the same year's financial performance, but on the
succeeding years’ performance.
Furthermore, in order to control for the variation in the dependent variable, two control variables were initially included in the
model. The first, which is SIZEit, measured as the natural log of total assets for bank i at period t, and the second, TANGit, which was
measured as the proportion of non-current assets to total assets. The rationale for including these two variables was simply to control
the variation in the dependent variable (see Wahba & Elsayed, 2015). β0 is the intercept, and β1 - β4, are the coefficients for the
explanatory variables, while ε is the error term.

4. Analysis and results

4.1. Descriptive analysis

As part of the procedure for data analysis and interpretation, the paper presented the descriptive statistics for both the outcome
and explanatory variables required for analysis. Each variable was examined based on the mean score and standard deviation,
alongside the normal Skewness and Kurtosis distributions. To account for the Skewness distribution, a right-tailed position indicates a
positive Skewed distribution and a left-tailed position indicates a negative Skewed distribution, while Kurtosis distribution could
indicate either substantial peak distribution, or flatter peak distribution (Field, 2009). Table 1 presents the results of this analysis.
To report the outcomes of the descriptive statistics displayed in Table 1, the mean score (0.0211) for FINPERF simply suggests low
profitability across the sampled banks, having a right-tailed Skewness distribution with a substantial peak value (Skewness = 1.3533
& kurtosis = 9.7630 respectively). The mean score (4.1950) for INVCSR suggests that investment in CSR activities within the period
of investigation was substantial and consistent. The Skewness distribution for INVCSR is left-tailed, with a substantial peak value
(Skewness = -2.0720 & kurtosis = 8.7665 respectively). The mean score (0.6667) for DCSR indicates that more banks made dis-
closure of their CSR activities in their annual reports, having a section dedicated for CSR activities. This variable is Skewed toward the
left and have a flattered peak value (Skewness = -0.7071 & kurtosis = 1.5000 respectively).
Whereas the mean score (5.9359) for SIZE suggests larger banks across the sample, with a left-tailed Skewness and a slightly
peaked value (Skewness = -0.8862 & kurtosis = 3.2133 respectively), the mean score (0.0352) for TANG suggests very low tan-
gibility across the sampled banks, having a right-tailed Skewness distribution and a substantial peak value (Skewness = 1.1004 &

199
O.R. Oyewumi et al. Future Business Journal 4 (2018) 195–205

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics.
FINPERF INVCSR DCSR SIZE TANG

Mean 0.0211 4.1950 0.6667 5.9359 0.0352

Median 0.0166 4.2091 1.0000 5.9700 0.0328
Maximum 0.1736 4.7888 1.0000 6.5429 0.1071
Minimum -0.0987 2.2430 0.0000 4.8604 6.8500
Std. Dev. 0.0369 0.4697 0.4754 0.4254 0.0186
Skewness 1.3533 -2.0720 -0.7071 -0.8862 1.1004
Kurtosis 9.7630 8.7665 1.5000 3.2133 5.7857
Sum 1.2677 251.6975 40.0000 356.1528 2.1114
Sum Sq. Dev. 0.0802 13.0186 13.3333 10.6747 0.0205
Observations 60 60 60 60 60

kurtosis = 5.7857 respectively).

To generalize, INVCSR, DCSR, and SIZE are negatively (left-tailed) distributed, while FINPERF and TANG are positively (right-
tailed) distributed. Although, the normal distribution for statistical data should be a zero value with no right nor left tail distribution,
and neither a leptokurtic (peak), or platykurtic (flat) distribution (Field, 2005, 2009). However, this should not be generalized as
other factors such as sample size and population grouping may affect the normality of data distribution (Ajibolade & Sankay, 2013;
Field, 2009; Sankay, Adekoya, & Adeyeye, 2013).

4.2. Correlation analysis

Towards establishing correlational interactions among the participating variables, and to test for collinearity disturbance, cor-
relation matrix was computed, which is displayed in Table 2 below.
As displayed in Table 2, INVCSR and DCSR correlated significantly with the outcome variable – FINPERF (p-value = 0.0086 &
0.0076 respectively). The relationship between INVCSR and FINPERF is negative (r = -0.3362), while the relationship between DCSR
and FINPERF is positive (r = 0.3414). Among the explanatory variables, it could be seen that no significant correlation was found
except for SIZE, which significantly correlated with INVCSR (r = 0.0000). With the significant relationship reported between SIZE
and INVCSR, no doubt, it calls for collinearity concerns. This is because the accuracy of the regression estimate stands threatened.
Hence, in order to have a more accurate regression estimate, SIZE variable (a control variable) would be removed from Model 1 (see
Field, 2005, 2009). Accordingly, Model 1 is modified as follows:
FINPERFit = ß0 + ß1INVCSRit + ß2 DCSRit + ß3 TANGit + εit (2)

Where all other variables remain unchanged, Model 2 replaces Model 1 to adjust for the threat posited by the presence of multi-
collinearity interference caused by the SIZE variable. With this adjustment, the regression estimate is therefore free from multi-
collinearity interference.

4.3. Model estimation analysis

As earlier noted in the literature, to provide empirical evidence on the effects of CSR investment and disclosure on the financial
performance of banks in Nigeria, two hypotheses were formulated. The first hypothesis tests whether investment in CSR activities
impacts positively (or negatively) on a firm's financial performance. The second hypothesis tests whether CSR disclosure has any

Table 2
Covariance Analysis.
Variables FINPERF INVCSR DCSR SIZE TANG

FINPERF 1.0000
INVCSR -0.3362 1.0000
0.0086(**)

DCSR 0.3414 0.1579 1.0000

0.0076(**) 0.2282

SIZE -0.2234 0.7477 0.1553 1.0000

0.0861 0.0000(**) 0.2362

TANG -0.0704 0.1087 -0.0956 -0.0197 1.0000

0.5932 0.4086 0.4674 0.8811

Covariance Analysis: Ordinary;

Sample: 2010 2014; Observations.: 60
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); Dependent Var. FINPERF

200
O.R. Oyewumi et al. Future Business Journal 4 (2018) 195–205

Table 3
Correlated Random Effects - Hausman Test.
Test Summary Chi-Sq. Statistic Chi-Sq. d.f. Probability.

Cross-section random 1.340485 3 0.7195

Period random 0.000000 3 1.0000
Cross-section and period random 0.969256 3 0.8087

* Period test variance is invalid. Hausman statistic set to zero.

Test cross-section and period random effects

significant effect on the financial performance of banks in Nigeria. To test these two hypotheses, Wallace and Hussain estimator of
component variances (a two-way random and fixed effects panel) was performed at a 0.05 level of significance.
Over time, when this tool is applied researchers are usually faced with the option of choosing between using the fixed-effect panel
model or the random-effect panel model. As noted by Ajibolade and Sankay (2013), on one hand, the fixed-effects model is used when
it is important to control for omitted variables that differ between cases but are constant over time. It allows the use of the changes in
the variables over time to estimate the effects of the predictor (independent) variables on the outcome (dependent) variable. It is the
main technique used for analysis of panel data. On the other hand, the random-effects model is used when there are reasons to believe
that some omitted variables may be constant over time but vary between cases, and others may be fixed between cases but vary over
time.
Therefore, to justify the choice of model, the Hausman specification test is largely suggested by scholars (Gujarati, 2004). Ac-
tually, this test checks for a more efficient model against a less efficient but consistent model. It ensures that the more efficient model
also gives consistent results. It tests the null hypothesis that the coefficients estimated by the efficient random-effects estimator are
the same as the ones estimated by the consistent fixed-effects estimator. If the p-value > χ2 is larger than .05, then it is safe to use
random effects, but if the p-value < χ2 is less than .05, then the fixed-effects model should be adopted (Gujarati, 2004; Ajibolade &
Sankay, 2013). Table 3 shows the outcome of the Hausman specification Test.
Table 3 presents the outcome of the Hausman specification test. This classical test indicates to researchers whether to adopt the
fixed effects model or random effects model. Usually, the question here is whether a significant correlation exist between the un-
observed person-specific random effects and the regressors. If no such correlation exist, then the random effects model may be more
powerful and parsimonious. But if such a correlation exist, the random effects model would be inconsistently estimated and the fixed
effects model would be the model of choice. Accordingly, from Table 3, the Hausman test displayed no correlation between the
unobserved person-specific random effects and the regressors (p = 0.8087 > α = 0.05). With this outcome, the random effects
model is adopted for the panel analysis since it gives a more robust estimation of the model than the fixed model.
Accordingly, as suggested by the Hausman test of model efficiency, the random effects model was used to test the hypotheses (1
and 2) of the study. Table 4 presents the results of the Wallace and Hussain panel analysis for Model 2.
From the Table 4, it could be seen that INVCSR significantly predict FINPERF (p-value = 0.0015 < 0.05). However, this re-
lationship is negative (coef. = -0.031341 & t-stat. = -3.347810), which means that these variables (INVCSR and FINPERF) are
inversely related. Accordingly, with these outcomes, the first hypothesis of the study (H1) is rejected. This simply suggests that
investment in CSR activities impacts negatively on the financial performance of banks in Nigeria. With respect to the effect of CSR
disclosure on the banks’ financial performance, it could be seen from Table 4 that DCSR significantly predict FINPERF (p-value =

Table 4
Wallace and Hussain estimator of component variances.
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

INVCSR -0.031341 0.009362 -3.347810 0.0015

DCSR 0.030164 0.009387 3.213345 0.0022
TANG -0.034132 0.234941 -0.145278 0.8850
C 0.133694 0.039063 3.422493 0.0012

Effects Specification
S.D. Rho

Cross-section random 0.008285 0.0646

Period random 0.007908 0.0588
Idiosyncratic random 0.030528 0.8766

Weighted Statistics
R-squared 0.253055 Mean dependent variable 0.014331
Adjusted R-squared 0.213040 S.D. dependent variable 0.034424
S.E. of regression 0.030538 Sum squared resid 0.052223
F-statistic 6.324029 Durbin-Watson stat 1.912344
Prob(F-statistic) 0.000904

Dependent Variable: FINPERF; Method: Panel EGLS (Two-way random effects); Sample: 2010 2014
Periods included: 5; Cross-sections included 12. Observations: 60

201
O.R. Oyewumi et al. Future Business Journal 4 (2018) 195–205

0.0022 < 0.05), and this relationship is positive (coef. = 0.030164 & t-stat. = 3.213345), which means that DCSR and FINPERF are
positively related. Accordingly, with these outcomes, the second hypothesis of the study (H2) is also rejected. This simply suggests
that the disclosure of CSR activities by banks in Nigeria has a significant and positive effect on their financial performance. Still from
Table 4, it could be seen that no significant relationship was found between TANG and FINPERF (p-value = 0.8850 > 0.05). This
simply suggests that the banks’ tangibility has no significant effect on their financial performance.
With respect to the combined effect of the explanatory variables (INVCSR, DCSR, and TANG) on the outcome variable (FINPERF),
the F-test and its associated p-value (6.324029 & 0.000904 respectively) were reported in Table 4. By these outcomes, it is apparent
that the combine effect of the explanatory variables on the outcome variable is significant and positive, which suggests that when the
banks invest in CSR activities and disclose these activities in their annual reports, it will positively impact on their financial per-
formance.
Furthermore, to assess the robustness of Model 2, that is, the strength of its predictions, the R2 (0.2531) and adjusted R2 (0.2130)
were estimated alongside the panel analysis. The values suggest that Model 2 significantly explains 25.31% (R2) and 21.30% (Adj. R2)
variations in the outcome variable (FINPERF). In addition, to check for autocorrelation problem in Model 2, which is one of the
challenges faced when selecting variables to be included in a model, the Durbin-Watson test was performed. By the suggestion of
Kohler (1994), a value of four for this test indicates upper limit, while a value of zero indicates lower limit. If therefore the outcome
value equals two, there is an absence of autocorrelation, but a value lesser or greater signifies the presence of positive or negative
autocorrelation among the predictor variables. Akin to this assumption by Kohler (1994), the result of the Durbin-Watson test
(1.9123) suggests that Model 2 did not violate the independence of residuals assumptions (i.e. no collinearity problem).

5. Discussion of findings

The results of this research obviously suggest that banks’ investments in CSR activities affect their financial performance nega-
tively, which suggests that CSR investment depletes the financial resources of the banks. Arguably, it could be that the banks do not
financially benefit commensurately in relation to the money spent on CSR activities. In reality, while the banks may enjoy some non-
financial benefits from CSR investment, the associated financial benefits may not be commensurate with the related cost of CSR
investment. This finding contradicts that of Uadiale and Fagbemi (2012), who reported that CSR impacted positively on the financial
performance of selected quoted firms in Nigeria. It however agrees with the finding of Peng and Yang (2014), who reported a
negative result between CSR and financial performance of Taiwan firms.
This finding also agrees with critics of CSR, which argued that investments in CSR activities distract firms from their fundamental
economic roles, and deplete their financial resources. It also supports the legitimacy theory, where the focus of CSR is not necessary
for any immediate financial benefit, but to have a good public image, and be in favor with the government of the host community
where they operate. It could also be that banks invest in CSR activities, not with the immediate intention of profit making, but as a
way of appreciating the society. This however helps the banks to create awareness of their banking services, and increase their
customer base.
Some of the reasons that may help explain the outcome of the negative result could be measurement or theoretical issues (Galant
& Cadez, 2017). Also, most positive results reported in the literature are from manufacturing and multinationals firms. The pecu-
liarity of banking business is quite different from these manufacturing and multinationals firms. In addition, the negative result could
be explained in the light that banks in Nigeria engage in CSR activities to contribute to the development of the Nigerian society, and
not for profit making.
With respect to the positive impact of CSR disclosure on the banks’ financial performance, it could be suggested that a firm's
disclosure of its commitment to environmental sustainability through CSR activities to a spectrum of stakeholders would enhanced its
reputation and goodwill among the host communities. It could also be that through legitimizing their operations, the firm may attract
government's favorable disposition as well as increase the patronage of the host community, which will in turn, contributes to its long
term financial benefits.
In addition, disclosing CSR information may serve as a channel of advertising the services and products of a firm, giving it a
comparative marketing advantage within its industry. This paper therefore advocates for greater disclosure of CSR information,
which would be beneficial to a range of stakeholders when making economic decisions.

6. Conclusion

The practice of CSR has gone beyond the conventional individual firm's practices. It has become a global phenomenon and a
thriving corporate governance concept and management strategy in most multinationals. Although, while the motivation behind
firms’ investment in CSR has been an unresolved issue for which previous research has yielded mixed results (Gras-Gil et al., 2016),
this paper has been able to provide empirical evidence on the effect of CSR investment and disclosure on the financial performance of
banks in Nigeria.
This paper has also added to the growing number of CSR studies in developing countries by focusing on the Nigerian banking
industry, which has lacked sufficient research of a CSR nature despite the industry's imperative contributions to the development of
the Nigerian economy. The evidence presented in this paper suggests that in the context of the Nigerian banking industry, legitimacy,
rather than financial benefits may be the key motivation behind banks’ investments in CSR activities. As it were, the banking industry
is distinctive because its operations do not cause any harm to the society nor degradation to the environment like the oil and gas
industry as well as the manufacturing industry. Hence, banks’ motivations for investing in CSR activities may be quite different from

202
O.R. Oyewumi et al. Future Business Journal 4 (2018) 195–205

that of other industries like the oil and gas industry, and may be best explained within the legitimacy theory.
Consequent to the findings of this paper, the conclusion reached is simply that, mere investing in CSR activities without a channel
of disclosure of such activities to stakeholders will not impact positively on the firm's financial performance. Rather, it would only be
a depletion of its financial resources to service CSR activities. The paper therefore recommends that, if the motive for engaging in CSR
activities is for financial profiting, banks in Nigeria should also communicate their CSR activities to the different stakeholders by
making adequate disclosure of their CSR activities, which would in turn accrue some future financial benefits.

7. Policy implication and suggestion for future research

One major implication of this paper is that it supports the argument that corporate entities stand to benefit from voluntary
disclosures of CSR activities than mere engaging in CSR activities without proper channels of communicating to stakeholders. Hence,
banks should not only engage in CSR activities, but also make deliberate efforts to disclose such activities appropriately to accrue
certain financial benefits in the long run.
Presently, in Nigeria, CSR initiative is not mandatory for corporate entities, however firms should adopt voluntary CSR initiative
as part of management strategy, which would give them good public image and create a sustainable operational environment for
more business opportunities. Most especially, in the wake of civil unrest and infrastructural deplorability.
Although, this paper reported a negative impact of CSR investment on banks’ financial performance, it does not suggest that firms’
involvement in CSR activities is a waste of financial resources. The paper rather foresees future benefits (financial and non-financial),
than immediate financial returns.
A certain number of constraints limited the scope of this paper. First, it was limited by the dearth of scholarly evidence on the
impact of CSR activities on the financial performance of non-manufacturing firms in developing countries. Secondly, data availability
limited the sample size, and observation period. This is quite peculiar to most developing countries, where the issues of data
availability pose serious hindrances to empirical research.
This paper can be improved upon by expanding the scope and period of observation. Also, adopting other measures of financial
performance may improve on the findings of the paper. Though, this paper reported a negative relationship between CSR and
corporate financial performance; however, this result is limited to banks in Nigeria. Perhaps, research into other non-manufacturing
industries may report different results.

Appendix A

See Table A1.

Table A1
List of registered banks in Nigeria.
Source: retrieved from CBN website on the 30th December, 2014
(http://www.cenbank.org)
S/N Banks
1 Access Bank Plc
2 Citibank Nigeria Limited
3 Diamond Bank Plc
4 Ecobank Nigeria Plc
5 Enterprise Bank
6 Fidelity Bank Plc
7 First Bank of Nigeria Plc
8 First City Monument Bank Plc
9 Guaranty Trust Bank Plc
10 Heritage Banking Firm Ltd.
11 Keystone Bank
12 MainStreet Bank
13 Skye Bank Plc
14 Stanbic IBTC Bank Ltd.
15 Standard Chartered Bank Nigeria Ltd.
16 Sterling Bank Plc
17 Union Bank of Nigeria Plc
18 United Bank For Africa Plc
19 Unity Bank Plc
20 Wema Bank Plc
21 Zenith Bank Plc

203
O.R. Oyewumi et al. Future Business Journal 4 (2018) 195–205

Appendix B

See Table B1.

Table B1
Corporate social responsibility coding theme.
Sources: Guthrie and Parker (1989), Gray et al. (2001), Hamid and Atan, (2011), and Uadiale and Fagbemi (2012)
Community development/Performance Human resource/Employee relations Environmental management system

Donations to community groups and charitable bodies Health and safety General environmental considerations and
statements
Sponsoring public health, sporting and recreational Industrial relation Environmental policy statement
projects
Funding scholarship programs or activities Employee training and conditions Environmental education programs, awards and
studies
Sponsoring national pride government sponsored project Employee assistance, remuneration and
campaigns benefits.

Sponsoring communities programs and activities

References

Abiodun, B. Y. (2012). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firms' profitability in Nigeria. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences,
45, 39–50.
Adeyemi, S. B., & Ayanlola, O. S. (2014). Voluntary corporate social responsibility disclosure practice of non-financial organizations in Nigeria. ICAN Journal of
Accounting Finance, 3(1), 1–14.
Ajibolade, S. O., & Sankay, O. C. (2013). Working capital management and financing decision: Synergetic effect on corporate profitability. International Journal of
Management, Economics and Social Sciences, 2(4), 233–251.
Amaeshi, K. M., Adi, B. C., Ogbechie, C., & Amo, O. O. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in Nigeria: Western mimicry or Indigenous influences? Journal of
Corporate Social Citizenship, 24, 83–89.
Al-Samman, E., & Al-Nashmi, M. M. (2016). Effect of corporate social responsibility on non-financial organizational performance: Evidence from Yemeni for-profit
public and private enterprises. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(2), 247–262.
Amin-Chaudhry, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility – from a mere concept to an expected business practice. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(1), 190–207.
Asatryan, R., & Březinová, O. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance in the airline industry in central and eastern Europe. Acta Universitatis
Agriculturae Et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 62(4), 633–639.
Bagnoli, M., & Watts, S. (2003). Selling to socially responsible consumers: Competition and the private provision of public goods. Journal of Economics and Management
Strategy, 12, 419–445.
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.
Belkaoui, A. R. (1999). Corporate social awareness and financial outcomes. USA: Quorum Books.
Bradly, A. (2015). The business-case for community investment: Evidence from Fiji's tourism industry. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(2), 242–257.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The Firm and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.
Burke, L., & Logsdon, J. M. (1996). How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning, 29(4), 495–502.
Campbell, D. J. (2000). Legitimacy theory or managerial reality construction? Corporate social disclosure in Marks and Spencer Plc. corporate reports, 1969–1997.
Accounting Forum, 24(1), 80.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.
Chaudhary, R. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: Can CSR help in redressing the engagement gap? Social Responsibility Journal, 13(2),
323–338.
Choi, J. (1999). An investigation of the initial voluntary environment disclosure make in Korean semi-annual financial reports. Pacific Accounting Review, 11(1),
73–102.
Cormier, D., & Gordon, I. M. (2001). An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies. Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, 14(5), 587–616.
Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in Global Context. London: Routledge.
Croker, N. C., & Barnes, L. R. (2017). Epistemological development of corporate social responsibility: The evolution continues. Social Responsibility Journal, 13(2),
279–291.
Deegan, C. (2006). Legitimacy theory, in Z. Hoque, Methodological issues in accounting research: Theories and methods. London: Spiramus.
Deegan, C., & Gordon, B. (1996). Do Australian firms report environmental disclosure practices of Australian corporations. Accounting and Business Research, 26(3),
187–199.
Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. (2002). An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983–1997: A test of legitimacy theory.
Accounting, Auditing Accountability Journal, 15(3), 312–343.
Famiyeh, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and firm's performance: Empirical evidence. Social Responsibility Journal, 13(2), 390–406.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. New York: Pitman Publishing Co.
Galant, A., & Cadez, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance relationship: A review of measurement approaches. Economic Research-
Ekonomska Istraživanja, 30(1), 676–693.
Gras-Gil, E., Manzano, M. P., & Fernandez, J. H. (2016). Investigating the relationship between corporate social responsibility and earnings management: Evidence
from Spain. Business Research Quarterly, 19, 289–299.
Gray, R., Javad, M., Power, M. D., & Sinclair, C. D. (2001). Social and environmental disclosure and corporate characteristics: A research note and extension. Journal of
Business Finance and Accounting, 28(3 & 4), 327–356.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting,
Auditing Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77.
Gujarati, D. N. (2004). Basic Econometrics. New York, NY: McGraw−Hill Firms.
Guthrie, J. E., & Parker, L. D. (1989). Corporate Social Reporting: A Rebuttal of Legitimacy Theory. Accounting Business Research, 19(76), 343–352.

204
O.R. Oyewumi et al. Future Business Journal 4 (2018) 195–205

Guthrie, J. E., & Parker, L. D. (1990). Corporate social disclosure practice: A comparative international analysis. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3, 159–175.
Hamid, F. Z., & Atan, R. (2011). Corporate social responsibility by the Malaysian Telecommunication firms. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(5),
1–11.
Harpreet, S.B. (2009). Financial Performance and Social Responsibility: Indian Scenario. Retrieved 9 February 2016 from 〈http://ssrn.com/abstract=1496291〉.
Hategan, C., & Curea-Pitorac, R. (2017). Testing the Correlations between Corporate Giving, Performance and Firm Value. Sustainability, 9, 1–20.
Helg, A. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility from a Nigerian perspective (Master's Thesis No. 591013)Handelshogsklan Vid Doteborgs Universitet.
Hockerts, K. (2007). Managerial perceptions of the business case for corporate social responsibility: CSR & Business in Society CBS. Working Paper Series, No. 3, 1-34.
Hsiao, C. (2003). Analysis of panel data (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Jain, P., Vyas, V., & Roy, A. (2017). Exploring the mediating role of intellectual capital and competitive advantage on the relation between CSR and financial
performance in SMEs. Social Responsibility Journal, 13(1), 1–23.
Jamali, D., & Mirshak, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Theory and practice in a developing country context. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(3), 243–262.
Kohler, H. (1994). Statistics for business and economics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Lee, C., Chang, W., & Lee, H. (2017). An investigation of the effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate reputation and customer loyalty – evidence from the
Taiwan non-life insurance industry. Social Responsibility Journal, 13(2), 355–369.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for understanding CSR in Europe (ICCSR Research Paper Series 29)University of
Nottingham.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.
Milne, M. J., & Patten, D. M. (2002). Securing organizational legitimacy. An experimental decision case examining the impact of environmental disclosure. Accounting,
Auditing Accountability Journal, 31(4), 439–457.
Murthy, V., & Abeysekera, I. (2008). Corporate social reporting practices of top Indian software firms. Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, 2(1), 34–59.
National Association of Accountants (1974). Accounting for corporate social performance: Measurement of cost of social actions. Management Accounting, 56, 2–8.
Newson, M., & Deegan, C. (2002). Global expectations and their associations with corporate social disclosure practice in Australia, Singapore and South Korea. The
International Journal of Accounting, 37, 183–213.
Oluyemi, J. A., Yinusa, M. A., Abdulateef, R., & Akindele, I. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility and Workers' Well-being in Nigerian Banks. African Sociological
Review, 20(2), 89–101.
Patten, D. M. (1992). Intra-industry environment disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
15(5), 471–475.
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.
Perks, R. W. (1993). Accounting & Society. London: Chapman & Hall.
Perrini, F., Russo, A., Tencati, A., & Vurro, C. (2011). Deconstructing the relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Journal of
Business Ethics, 102(1), 59–76.
Quazi, A. M., & O’Brien, D. (2000). An empirical test of a cross- national model of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 33–51.
Reich, R. B. (1998). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 40(2), 3–17.
Ruiviejo, A. C. A., & Morales, E. M. S. (2016). Social responsibility in the Spanish financial system. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(1), 103–116.
Sankay, O. C., Adekoya, A. C., & Adeyeye, R. F. (2013). Profitability and debt capital decision: A reconsideration of the pecking order model. International Journal of
Business and Management, 8(13), 24–33.
Simms, J. (2002). Business corporate social responsibility – You know it makes sense. Accountancy, 130, 48–50.
Soana, M. G. (2011). The relationship between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance in the banking sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 104,
133–148.
Testa, M., & D’Amato, A. (2017). Corporate environmental responsibility and financial performance: Does bidirectional causality work? Empirical evidence from the
manufacturing industry. Social Responsibility Journal, 13(2), 221–234.
Uadiale, O. M., & Fagbemi, T. O. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance in developing economies: The Nigerian experience. Journal of
Economics and Sustainable Development, 3(4), 44–54.
Uwuigbe, U., & Uadiale, O. M. (2016). Corporate social and environmental disclosure in Nigeria: A comparative study of the building material and brewery industry.
Lagos Journal of Banking, Finance Economic Issues, 3(1), 63–74.
Wahba, H., & Elsayed, K. (2015). The mediating effect of financial performance on the relationship between social responsibility and ownership structure. Future
Business Journal, 1, 1–12.
Wilmhurst, D. W., & Frost, G. R. (2000). Corporate environmental reporting: A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting. Auditing Accountability Journal, 13(1), 10–26.

205