نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه حسابداری دانشکده علوم اجتماعی و اقتصادی دانشگاه الزهرا (س)، تهران، ایران

2 استادیار گروه حسابداری دانشکده مدیریت و امور مالی دانشگاه خاتم،تهران،ایران

3 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد حسابداری، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی و اقتصادی، دانشگاه الزهرا (س)، تهران، ایران.

4 کارشناس ارشد حسابداری، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی و اقتصادی، دانشگاه الزهرا (س)، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

رعایت مسئولیت‍های اجتماعی و زیست‍محیطی از ملزومات عصر رقابتی کنونی است و فشار رقابتی شرکت‍ها در این شرایط، هزینه‍هایی را بر شرکت‍ها تحمیل می‍کند که می‍تواند عملکرد مالی شرکت را تحت تأثیر قرار دهد. در این پژوهش نقش تعدیلی قدرت رقابت در رابطه بین مسئولیت­های اجتماعی و زیست­محیطی با عملکرد مالی شرکت‍ها بررسی شده است. نمونه آماری این پژوهش شرکت‍های پذیرفته‍شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران در بازه 1395 تا 1400 است. با غربالگری منظم شرکت‍ها، 108 شرکت به‍عنوان نمونه انتخاب شده است. پس از بررسی فرض‍های کلاسیک رگرسیون، الگوی داده‍های تابلویی با اثرات ثابت استفاده شده است. نتایج نشان داد عملکرد اجتماعی با عملکرد مالی رابطه مثبت دارد و قدرت رقابت بر رابطه بین عملکرد اجتماعی با عملکرد مالی نقش تعدیلی منفی دارد. عملکرد زیست‍محیطی با عملکرد مالی رابطه مثبت دارد و قدرت رقابت بر این رابطه، نقش تعدیلی منفی دارد. با توجه به ضرایب به‍دست‍آمده، بُعد اجتماعی شرکت نسبت به بُعد زیست‍محیطی، در افزایش عملکرد مؤثرتر است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Moderating Role of Competitive Strength in the Relationship between Social and Environmental Performance and Financial Performance

نویسندگان [English]

  • Azam Valizadeh Larijani 1
  • Farzaneh Yousefi Asl 2
  • Fatemeh Shirzadi 3
  • Niloofar Zamani 4

1 Assistant Professor,Department of Accounting, Faculty of social sciences and economics, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor,Department Of Accounting Faculty & management Khatam University,Tehran,Iran

3 MA. Student of Accounting, Faculty of social sciences and economics, Alzahra University, Tehran. Iran.

4 MA. of Accounting, Faculty of social sciences and economics, Alzahra University, Tehran. Iran.

چکیده [English]

Compliance with social and environmental responsibilities is one of the requirements of the current competitive era, and the competitive pressure on companies in this situation imposes costs that can affect financial performance. This research investigates the moderating role of competitive strength in the relationship between social and environmental responsibilities and financial performance. The statistical sample for this research consists of companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange between 2016 and 2021. Using a regular screening method, 108 companies were selected as samples. After checking the classical assumptions of regression, the panel data model with fixed effects was used. The results showed that social performance has a positive relationship with financial performance. Competitive strength has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between social performance and financial performance. Environmental performance also has a positive relationship with financial performance, and competitive strength has a negative moderating role in this relationship. According to the coefficients of the variables, the social dimension of the company is more effective in increasing performance than the environmental dimension.
 
 
 

Introduction

A balance must be established between the modernization process and social and environmental concerns. Additionally, society's expectations regarding moral, legal, economic, and public interests require companies to commit to the communities in which they operate (Porter & Kramer, 2011). On the other hand, the growing interest of companies, especially large, national, and multinational companies, to demonstrate better environmental and social performance as part of their corporate social responsibility policy is often reflected in their management structures and investment policies. In line with the social responsibility policy, companies invest in the environmental field for three reasons: complying with environmental and social regulations and standards, improving company conditions, creating a favorable image of the company for society, and gaining access to other markets (Zaid et al., 2020).
Social responsibilities have been utilized in various businesses to achieve a competitive advantage and create stable relationships with society. In this regard, the theory of social responsibilities refers to the combined pursuit of economic progress, social equality, and environmental protection. The nature of social responsibilities is the interconnected and mutual realization of financial, social, and environmental goals (Donkor et al., 2023).
A company's environmental responsibility refers to its organizational behavior and commitment to the natural environment, which symbolizes the company's environmental ethics (Dilla et al., 2019). Several studies have shown conflicting results regarding a firm's environmental performance and financial performance. Some previous studies have shown that environmental responsibility improves long-term performance (Arda et al., 2019; Gilal et al., 2019). In addition, green knowledge and innovation promote an environmental orientation that allows companies to improve performance (Atan et al., 2018). On the contrary, since introducing environmental initiatives is costly (Zhang et al., 2019), evidence has shown that corporate environmental responsibility does not always lead to positive results (Chollet & Sandwidi, 2018). Based on a sample of companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange, this study examines the role of competitive strength in the relationship between firms’ social and environmental performance and financial performance.

Literature Review

Green theory emphasizes that community care helps organizations in sustainable development. Hence, government regulations and customer pressure encourage companies to adopt such practices in emerging markets. Environmental responsibility allows companies to improve their competitive advantages and dynamic capabilities (Arda et al., 2019). Incorporating environmental values supports environmental business in the long term (Gill et al., 2019). In general, green knowledge and innovation promote an environmental orientation and green resource management in companies, subsequently allowing them to improve their performance (Atan et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019). Based on this, this research expects to improve the effectiveness of a company by using organizational resources for environmental performance while simultaneously improving social performance.
Proponents of the positive effects of CSR argue that CSR enhances corporate value and image, as well as develops brand positioning, reputation, and corporate image, which in turn enhances financial performance in the long run (Hill, 2020). It is often assumed that the proper use of economic, social, and governance standards requires higher financial efficiency and performance.
Managers of firms with fewer resources have fewer opportunities to divert resources to their advantage (Kumar et al., 2023). They are more concerned about their presence in the market and maintaining their market share in the industry, and they consider themselves less socially responsible towards the company, market, and society (Jiang et al., 2019). The moderating power of competition encourages companies to act in socially responsible ways and helps maintain their reputation (Chih et al., 2010; Graafland, 2018). The intensity of competition affects decisions related to social responsibilities, including social and environmental performance (Jiang et al., 2019). Different levels of competition affect the relationship between the social and environmental performance of companies. Social practices and environmental ethics are intangible assets for a company in capital markets, and these assets change with shifts in competition levels. In particular, considering the role of competitive strength, the relationship between social performance and environmental performance with financial performance changes as the level of competition fluctuates (Saeed et al., 2023). Therefore, the following hypotheses can be proposed:
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between social performance and financial performance.
Hypothesis 2: Competitive strength moderates the relationship between social performance and financial performance.
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between environmental performance and financial performance.
Hypothesis 4: Competitive strength moderates the relationship between environmental performance and financial performance.

Methodology

This research is practical and post-event, conducted using the secondary data collection method. The information from companies was collected by referring to the Codal.ir website and using their financial statements and attached notes. The study period covers 2016 to 2021. Before testing the proposed model and hypotheses, the assumptions of the regression models were checked. The Chow test, Hausman test, and variance heterogeneity test indicated that the panel data model with fixed effects is suitable for the models of this research. In this study, the Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey test was used to check for heteroscedasticity. The results of the heteroscedasticity analysis show that the residuals of the normal regression models do not have constant variance, indicating heteroscedasticity, and the generalized least squares method was used to address this issue.

Results

The variable coefficient of social performance in models 1 and 2 is 0.0092 and 0.019, respectively, and is significant at the 99% confidence level in both models. There is a positive relationship between social performance and financial performance, meaning that compliance with social responsibilities leads to an increase in financial performance. However, in model 2, the moderating variable (strength of competition) reverses the relationship between social performance and financial performance. At the 99% confidence level, the strength of competition has a negative effect on the relationship between social performance and financial performance. The variable coefficient of environmental performance in models 3 and 4 is 0.003 and 0.004, respectively, and is significant at the 95% confidence level. There is a positive relationship between environmental performance and financial performance, indicating that compliance with environmental responsibilities leads to an increase in financial performance. In model 4, the sign of the coefficient for the moderating variable (strength of competition) is positive, meaning that the strength of competition has a positive relationship with financial performance. However, the moderating variable reverses the relationship between environmental performance and financial performance, so at the 99% confidence level, the strength of competition has a negative effect on the relationship between environmental performance and financial performance.

Conclusion

Disclosure of social performance leads to increased financial performance. The disclosure of social performance by the company, as a positive signal to the market and shareholders, directly benefits the improvement of the company’s reputation and value. Additionally, this disclosure can indirectly affect the company’s financial performance through mediators such as competitive advantage, reputation, customer satisfaction, access to capital, and environmental resource efficiency. The company's competitive advantages are one of the important dimensions of market characteristics that company leaders should consider in their efforts to make optimal decisions to maximize financial performance. When there are no competitive pressures, managers may become lax in their duties, leading to poor management and high agency costs.
Disclosure of environmental performance also leads to increased financial performance. Compliance with environmental responsibilities and publication of periodic reports raise awareness and judgment among society and stakeholders, thereby strengthening the company's brand. To ensure that environmental goals are met, environmental functions such as the development of environmental policies and programs, setting quantitative and measurable goals for reducing environmental pollution, implementing pollution prevention obligations, measuring and evaluating potential environmental effects, revising executive plans, and making reforms must be carried out.
Competitive strength has a negative moderating role in the relationship between environmental responsibilities and financial performance. Today, governments support and encourage companies to fulfill social and environmental responsibilities. On the other hand, when facing external pressures, companies rely on government support and try to attract technical and financial incentives to carry out social and environmental responsibilities at a lower cost and more easily. By actively implementing social and environmental responsibilities, companies can communicate with governing bodies and actively participate in the development and approval of environmental responsibility programs. These actions help companies gain external legitimacy and promote their corporate brand. In this way, by taking advantage of these factors, companies can increase profitability while raising product prices and consolidating customer loyalty. Additionally, emphasizing the reduction of physical waste through environmentally friendly solutions can lay the groundwork for reducing costs and increasing profitability.
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Competition Strength
  • Social Performance
  • Environmental Performance
  • Financial Performance
  1. اکبری، محسن؛ فرخنده، مهسا و ایاغ، زهرا. (1398). تأثیر رقابت در بازار محصول بر عملکرد مالی با تعدیل گری کیفیت افشای اطلاعات در شرکت‍های پذیرفته‍شده در بورس اوراق بهادار. مدیریت دارایی و تأمین مالی. 7(1)، 29-44. https://doi.org/10.22108‌/amf.2018.108951.1236
  2. برزگری خانقاه، جمال؛ عباسی، ابراهیم و قدک فروشان، مریم. (1399). اثر تعاملی ریسک مالیاتی و مسئولیت اجتماعی بر ارزش شرکت‍های پذیرفته‍شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. مجله دانش حسابداری. ۱۱ (1)، 159-189. https://doi.org/10.22103/JAK.2020.13089.2965
  3. حاجی‍علی‍زاده. سحر؛ خواجه حسنی، میترا و امیری، علی. (۱۳۹۹). رابطه بین تئوری ذینفعان، مسئولیت اجتماعی شرکت‍ها و عملکرد مالی شرکت‍های پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. رویکردهای پژوهشی نوین در مدیریت و حسابداری. 4(15)، 92-102.
  4. حساس یگانه، یحیی، و رضایی، شهروز. (1397). مدلی برای تأثیر مسئولیت اجتماعی و هزینه‍های مدیریت مالیات شرکت بر اجتناب و فرار مالیاتی. مطالعات تجربی حسابداری مالی، 15(58)، 27-58. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjma.2018.9425
  5. دیدار، حمزه، منصورفر، غلامرضا و رحیمی، جبراییل. (1397). بررسی رابطه بین مالکیت متقابل و کارایی شرکت‍های پذیرفته‍شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران با تأثیر متغیر میانجی رقابت بازار محصول. مطالعات تجربی حسابداری مالی، 15(58)، 137-159. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjma.2018.9429
  6. سرلک، نرگس و میرزایی، فاطمه. (1395). رابطۀ رقابت در بازار و سیاست‍های تقسیم سود. مدیریت دارایی و تأمین مالی. 4(4)، 45-60. https://doi.org/10.22108/amf.2016.21111
  7. سلیمان‍خان، آرامه و پورزمانی، زهرا. (1396). مقایسه تأثیر ریسک رقابت در بازار محصول بر سطح انباشت وجه نقد در شرکت‍های دارای محدودیت تأمین مالی و بدون محدودیت تأمین مالی بر اساس شاخص KZ. دانش حسابداری و حسابرسی مدیریت، 6(22)، 53–62.
  8. صداقت، علی و بیات، علی. (۱۴۰۰). تأثیر بهره‍وری کارکنان بر رابطه بین مسئولیت‍های اجتماعی و عملکرد مالی. چشمانداز حسابداری و مدیریت. 44، 147-135.
  9. کوهی، ابراهیم. (1401). رابطه بین رقابت بازار محصول و مسئولیت اجتماعی. چشمانداز مدیریت و حسابداری. ۷۰، 67-84.
  10. نادری، محسن و همت‍فر، محمود. (۱۴۰۰). ابعاد ایدئولوژی‍های اخلاقی مسئولیت‍پذیری اجتماعی بر عملکرد شرکت‍ها. فصلنامه جهان نوین. ۱۵، 1-11.
  11. ضیا، فرناز؛ وکیلی فرد، حمیدرضا و صراف، فاطمه. (۱۳۹۹). تأثیر گزارشگری پایداری بر کاهش عدم تقارن اطلاعاتی. حسابداری مدیریت. ۴۶، 121-135.
  12. Abbaszade, G. (2022). International Brand-Name Standardization / Adaptation. Università Ca' Foscari Venezia. http://hdl.handle.net‌/10579/22208
  13. Abdoh, H., & Varela, O. (2017). Product market competition, idiosyncratic and systematic volatility. Journal of Corporate Finance, 43, 500–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2017.02.009
  14. Abhishek, T., Roy, T., & Singh, R. (2014). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental protection: The way forward. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 4(3), 230–248.
  15. Akisik, O., & Gal, G. (2017). The impact of corporate social responsibility and internal controls on stakeholders’ view of the firm and financial performance. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8(3), 246–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2015-0044
  16. Albuquerque, R., Koskinen, Y., & Zhang, C. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: Theory and empirical evidence. Management Science, 65(10), 4451–4469. https://doi.org/10.1287‌/mnsc.2018.3043
  17. Altman, E. I., & Hotchkiss, E. (2010). Corporate financial distress and bankruptcy: Predict and avoid bankruptcy, analyze and invest in distressed debt (Vol. 289). John Wiley & Sons.
  18. Anderson, D. R. (2006). The critical importance of sustainability risk management. Risk Management, 53(4), 66–72.
  19. Arda, O. A., Bayraktar, E., & Tatoglu, E. (2019). How do integrated quality and environmental management practices affect firm performance? Mediating roles of quality performance and environmental proactivity. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2190
  20. Atan, R., Alam, M. M., Said, J., & Zamri, M. (2018). The impacts of environmental, social, and governance factors on firm performance: Panel study of Malaysian companies. Management of Environmental Quality, 29(2), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-03-2017-0033
  21. Babar, M., & Habib, A. (2021). Product market competition in accounting, finance, and corporate governance: A review of the literature. International Review of Financial Analysis, 73, 101607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2020.101607
  22. Beck, C., Frost, G., & Jones, S. (2018). CSR disclosure and financial performance revisited: A cross-country analysis. Australian Journal of Management, 43(4), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962‌18771438
  23. Bhandari, A., & Javakhadze, D. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and capital allocation efficiency. Journal of Corporate Finance, 43, 354–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2017.01.012
  24. Bhat, A. A., Mir, A. A., Allie, A. H., Lone, M. A., Al-Adwan, A. S., Jamali, D., & Riyaz, I. (2024). Unlocking corporate social responsibility and environmental performance: Mediating role of green strategy, innovation, and leadership. Innovation and Green Development, 3(2), 100112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.igd.2023.100112
  25. Caves, R. E. (1980). Industrial organization, corporate strategy and structure. In Readings in accounting for management control. Springer, Boston US. 335–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7138-8_16
  26. Chaudhry, S. M., Saeed, A., & Ahmed, R. (2021). Carbon neutrality: The role of banks in optimal environmental management strategies. Journal of Environmental Management, 299, 113545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113545
  27. Chen, C., Li, L., & Ma, M. L. Z. (2014). Product market competition and the cost of equity capital: evidence from China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 21(3), 227–261. ‌https://doi.org/10.1080/‌16081625.2014.893197
  28. Chen, R., & Cao, L. (2023). How do enterprises achieve sustainable success in green manufacturing era? The impact of organizational environmental identity on green competitive advantage in China. Kybernetes. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2022-0597
  29. Chih, H.-L., Chih, H.-H., & Chen, T.-Y. (2010). On the determinants of corporate social responsibility: International evidence on the financial industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 115–135. https://doi.org/‌10.1007/‌s10551-009-0186-x
  30. Chollet, P., & Sandwidi, B. W. (2018). CSR engagement and financial risk: A virtuous circle? International evidence. Global Finance Journal, 38, 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2018.03.004
  31. Deligianni, I. (2023). Revisiting the relationship between product and international diversification in new ventures: The moderating effect of effectuation processes. International Business Review, 32(1), 102051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2022.102051
  32. Deng, D., Wu, Y., & Qin, L. (2023). CSR preference, market competition, and corporate financial performance. Managerial and Decision Economics, 44(3), 1396–1409. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3754
  33. Dilla, W., Janvrin, D., Perkins, J., & Raschke, R. (2019). Do environmental responsibility views influence investors’ use of environmental performance and assurance information? Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 10(3), 476–497. ‌https://doi.org/‌10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2018-0357
  34. Donkor, A., Trireksani, T., & Djajadikerta, H. G. (2023). Board Diversity and Corporate Sustainability Performance: Do CEO Power and Firm Environmental Sensitivity Matter?. Sustainability, 15(23), 16142. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316142
  35. Dubravská, M., Marchevská, M., Vašaničová, P., & Kotulič, R. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and environmental management linkage: An empirical analysis of the Slovak Republic. Sustainability, 12(13), 5431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135431
  36. Gali, N., Niemand, T., Shaw, E., Hughes, M., Kraus, S., & Brem, A. (2020). Social entrepreneurship orientation and company success: The mediating role of social performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160, 120230.                   https://doi.org/10.1016/‌j.techfore.2020.‌120230
  37. Ghardallou, W. (2022). Corporate sustainability and firm performance: the moderating role of CEO education and tenure. Sustainability, 14(6), 3513. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063513
  38. Gilal, F. G., Ashraf, Z., Gilal, N. G., Gilal, R. G., & Channa, N. A. (2019). Promoting environmental performance through green human resource management practices in higher education institutions: A moderated mediation model. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1579–1590. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1835
  39. Gill, J. C., Mankelow, J., & Mills, K. (2019). The role of Earth and environmental science in addressing sustainable development priorities in Eastern Africa. Environmental Development, 30, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.03.003
  40. Graafland, J. (2018). Does corporate social responsibility put reputation at risk by inviting activist targeting? An empirical test among European SMEs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1422
  41. Hakobyan, N., Khachatryan, A., Vardanyan, N., Chortok, Y., & Starchenko, L. (2019). The implementation of corporate social and environmental responsibility practices into competitive strategy of the company. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.2-04
  42. 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. ‌https://doi.org‌/10.1002/bse.2215
  43. Hasan, M. M., & Habib, A. (2017). Corporate life cycle, organizational financial resources and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 13(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2017.01.002
  44. Hasas Yeghaneh, Y., & Rezaei, S. (2018). A Model for Impact of Corporate Social responsibility And Tax Management costs on Avoidance And Tax Evasion. Empirical Studies in Financial Accounting, 15(58), 27-58. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjma.2018.9425
  45. Heubeck, T. (2023). Looking back to look forward: a systematic review of and research agenda for dynamic managerial capabilities. Management Review Quarterly, 1-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00359-z
  46. Hill, J. (2020). Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing: A balanced analysis of the theory and practice of a sustainable portfolio. Academic Press.
  47. Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., & Cavezzali, E. (2018). Does it pay to be sustainable? Looking inside the black box of the relationship between sustainability performance and financial performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(6), 1198–1211. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1631
  48. Javeed, S. A., Latief, R., & Lefen, L. (2020). An analysis of relationship between environmental regulations and firm performance with moderating effects of product market competition: Empirical evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254, 120197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120197
  49. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (2000). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. In Corporate governance, Gower, 77-132.
  50. Jia, X. (2020). Corporate social responsibility activities and firm performance: The moderating role of strategic emphasis and industry competition. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1774
  51. Long, W., Li, S., Wu, H., & Song, X. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The roles of government intervention and market competition. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 525–541. ‌https://doi.org/‌10.1002/‌csr.1817
  52. Maqbool, S., & Zameer, M. N. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: An empirical analysis of Indian banks. Future Business Journal, 4(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016‌/j.fbj.2017.12.002
  53. Maury, B. (2022). Strategic CSR and firm performance: The role of prospector and growth strategies. Journal of Economics and Business, 118, 106031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2021.106031
  54. Nguyen, N. (2018). The effect of corporate social responsibility disclosure on financial performance: Evidence from credit institutions in Vietnam. Available at SSRN 3101658. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v14n4p109
  55. Nollet, J., Filis, G., & Mitrokostas, E. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: A non-linear and disaggregated approach. Economic Modelling, 52, 400–407. ‌https://doi.org/10.1016‌/j.econmod.2015.09.019
  56. Oncioiu, I., Petrescu, A.-G., Bîlcan, F.-R., Petrescu, M., Popescu, D.-M., & Anghel, E. (2020). Corporate Sustainability Reporting and Financial Performance. Sustainability, 12(10), 4297. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104297
  57. Poursoleyman, E., Mansourfar, G., Homayoun, S., & Rezaee, Z. (2022). Business sustainability performance and corporate financial performance: The mediating role of optimal investment. Managerial Finance, 48(2), 348–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-01-2021-0040
  58. Rehman, Z. ur, Khan, A., & Rahman, A. (2020). Corporate social responsibility’s influence on firm risk and firm performance: the mediating role of firm reputation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(6), 2991–3005. ‌https://doi.org/‌10.1002‌/csr.2018
  59. Saeed, A., Alnori, F., & Yaqoob, G. (2023). Corporate social responsibility, industry concentration, and firm performance: Evidence from emerging Asian economies. Research in International Business and Finance, 64, 101864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2022.101864
  60. Sameer, I. (2021). Impact of corporate social responsibility on organization’s financial performance: Evidence from Maldives public limited companies. Future Business Journal, 7(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-021-00075-8
  61. Saygili, A. T., Gecim, M., Ozturkoglu, Y., & Saygili, E. (2022). Analysis of Corporate Governance and Financial Sustainability Using the TOPSIS Method. International Journal of Contemporary Economics and Administrative Sciences, 12(1), 433–459. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7087832
  62. Shahzad, F., Baig, M. H., Rehman, I. U., Saeed, A., & Asim, G. A. (2022). Does intellectual capital efficiency explain corporate social responsibility engagement-firm performance relationship? Evidence from environmental, social and governance performance of US listed firms. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(2), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2021.05.003
  63. Ting, I. W. K., Azizan, N. A., Bhaskaran, R. K., & Sukumaran, S. K. (2019). Corporate social performance and firm performance: Comparative study among developed and emerging market firms. Sustainability, 12(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010026
  64. Tunio, R. A., Jamali, R. H., Mirani, A. A., Das, G., Laghari, M. A., & Xiao, J. (2021). The relationship between corporate social responsibility disclosures and financial performance: a mediating role of employee productivity. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 10661–10677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11247-4
  65. Zaid, M. A. A., Wang, M., Adib, M., Sahyouni, A., & Abuhijleh, S. T. F. (2020). Boardroom nationality and gender diversity: Implications for corporate sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 251, 119652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119652
  66. Zhang, Q., Oo, B. L., & Lim, B. T. H. (2019). Drivers, motivations, and barriers to the implementation of corporate social responsibility practices by construction enterprises: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 563–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/‌j.jclepro.2018.‌11.050