Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries
Introduction
The modern era of corporate social responsibility (CSR) started from 1953 with Bowen’s publication (Bowen, 1953), “Social Responsibilities of Businessman,” according to Carroll (1979). Such CSR issues carried to tourism as a form of sustainability and have been investigated in the literature for the past several decades (Holden, 2000). In recent years, the significance of CSR for tourism-related industries has further increased (Kang, Lee, & Huh, 2010). Today, these industries face challenging tasks to satisfy more socially-conscious travelers who are concerned with CSR issues (ETN, 2009) and consequently have adopted various socially responsible activities to respond to their customers’ demands (Bremner, 2009). From a profit-seeking firm’s perspective, implications and benefits of investments in socially responsible activities are important matters to be considered, in particular, in the form of financial performance. This is because if the CSR investment does not enhance a firm’s bottom line, such investment may not be considered sustainable in a long run.
Given this, a handful of research has investigated the effect of CSR on firm performance in tourism-related industries (e.g., Kang et al., 2010, Lee and Park, 2009) and in general (e.g., Brammer and Millington, 2008, McWilliams and Siegel, 2000). The fundamental question addressed in the literature is whether or not firms, actively involved in CSR initiatives, outperform other companies that do not demonstrate the same degree of social involvement (Lee and Park, 2009, McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). Critics of CSR argue that “the responsibility [of businesses] is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible” (Friedman, 1970, p. 1). Accordingly, firm investments in CSR could be regarded as the indication of agency problems in that managers make use of corporate resources to pursue their own interests, rather than maximizing shareholders’ wealth (Brammer & Millington, 2008). Alternatively, several scholars have proposed that CSR can be a source of competitive advantages (e.g., Porter & Kramer, 2006) and have demonstrated that CSR positively affects various aspects of firm performance, such as firm reputation (Brammer and Millington, 2005, Turban and Greening, 1996), consumer satisfaction (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006), attractiveness of a firm as an employer (Backhaus et al., 2002, Turban and Greening, 1996), and organizational commitment among employees (Peterson, 2004).
Despite of this ample empirical evidence indicating positive relationships between CSR and several aspects of firm performance, the positive effects of CSR on corporate financial performance (CFP) remain inconclusive (Godfrey and Hatch, 2007, Margolis and Walsh, 2003, McWilliams and Siegel, 2000). CFP has been operationalized in terms of a company’s market value or short-term profitability (Schuler & Cording, 2006). To date, over a hundred studies have investigated the link between CSR and CFP (Margolis & Walsh, 2003). However, the literature has yielded mixed sets of results, including positive, negative, or neutral relationships, and thereby demonstrates no agreement on whether or not high CSR activity leads to improved CFP (Margolis and Walsh, 2003, McWilliams and Siegel, 2000).
To explain these inconclusive results, several meta-analytic reviews have attempted to identify methodological issues in the extant CSR–CFP studies (Godfrey and Hatch, 2007, Griffin and Mahon, 1997, Margolis and Walsh, 2003, McWilliams and Siegel, 2000). In particular, Godfrey and Hatch (2007) pointed out three key issues that remain unresolved: the use of multi-industry samples, cross-sectional observations, and the aggregation of different CSR dimensions (e.g., natural environment, employee relations, and community involvement). Given these issues, Godfrey and Hatch further suggested that future research should investigate a long-term relationship between CSR and CFP within a single industry using disaggregated CSR measures. Such investigations are important because “industries exhibit special uniqueness in that the internal competencies or external pressures inherent in the industry create a ‘specialization’ of social interests” (Griffin & Mahon, 1997, p. 10). That is, since each industry faces unique social interests and issues based on internal and external environments, financial returns that a firm gains from a certain dimension of CSR activity may differ depending on the specific industry (Godfrey and Hatch, 2007, Griffin and Mahon, 1997). Consequently, a need exists to ascertain how a company’s involvement in different CSR dimensions may affect its financial performance on an industry basis.
Tourism-related companies currently engage in various CSR activities (e.g., Holcomb et al., 2007, Holden, 2000, Holden, 2003, Robson and Robson, 1996). Some examples of these activities include community involvement, environmental management, customer relations, and employee relations (Holcomb et al., 2007). However, extant research has failed to investigate the relationship between certain dimensions of CSR activities and CFP within these firms. For example, Lee and Park (2009) used an aggregate CSR measure that combined different aspects of CSR to investigate the CSR–CFP relationship among hotel and casino companies. Furthermore, although Kang et al. (2010) separately examined the effects of positive and negative CSR activities on CFP for tourism-related industries (airline, casino, hotel, and restaurant), they did not examine how CSR effects would differ by corporate attention to specific dimensions.
The purpose of this study is, therefore, to examine how different CSR dimensions would affect financial performance among firms within four tourism-related industries (airline, casino, hotel, and restaurant industries).2 More specifically, building upon the stakeholder framework proposed by Clarkson (1995), this study proposes that CSR can be divided into five different dimensions based on types of primary stakeholder issues: (1) employee relations, (2) product quality (proxy for consumer relations), (3) community relations, (4) environmental issues, and (5) diversity issues (proxy for minorities/women and suppliers). On the basis of the resource-based view (Barney, 1991) and neo-classical economic view (McWilliams & Siegel, 2000), the study further investigates whether each of the five CSR dimensions positively influence both short-term and future profitability.
The current research contributes to the body of the literature by addressing all three key issues identified by Godfrey and Hatch (2007) discussed above through a long-term, industry-specific investigation using multidimensional CSR measures. Furthermore, this study provides tourism managers with clear insight into which CSR activity areas would improve their companies’ financial performance. The following section presents theoretical frameworks regarding the multidimensional structure of CSR and the link between the five CSR dimensions and CFP. Subsequently, the paper explains the methodology used in the study and provides its empirical results. This study concludes by offering practical and theoretical implications.
Section snippets
Multidimensionality of CSR
CSR refers to a company’s voluntary activities “that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law” (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001, p. 117). Examples include the adoption of advanced human resource management programs, the reduction of environmentally hazardous substances, philanthropic activities, the production of products integrating social attributes, and support for local businesses (Barnett, 2007, McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). While
Corporate social responsibility
The five proposed dimensions of CSR are measured using the KLD STATS database which evaluates firms based on their degrees of corporate attention to several stakeholder issues, such as employee relations, product quality, the natural environment, diversity, community relations, corporate governance, human rights, and other controversial business issues. Among these categories, this study focuses on the five categories that represent the level of corporate voluntary activities for primary
Descriptive statistics
Table 2 illustrates a descriptive summary of the variables. Regarding the Community scores, the restaurant industry had the highest mean of .14; the airline had the lowest of −.04; and the hotel had a mean of .04. On the other hand, a mean and standard deviation of 0 in the casino industry indicates that firms in this industry had no ratings in both strength and concern areas. In terms of corporate activities for diversity issues, the hotel industry, on average, exhibited the highest
Overall findings
This study attempts to disaggregate CSR into five dimensions (community, diversity, employees, the natural environment, and product) and examines the effects of each dimension on short-term profitability and market evaluations of future profitability for the four tourism-related industries. As shown in Table 8, corporate voluntary activity for community significantly decreases short-term profitability for the airline industry, but increases both short-term and future profitability for the hotel
Limitations and suggested future research
The current research entails several limitations. First, despite the wide use of extant CSR literature, KLD STATS database still suffers from limited construct validity. Although previous literature suggests that KLD STATS uses a comprehensive practice to measure CSR investment, especially when compared to other measures (for example, Fortune reputation rating), an inaccurate weight problem may still exist due to its evaluation practice of assigning a mostly binary value to each CSR activity.
References (73)
- et al.
Comparisons of stakeholder perceptions of tourism impacts in rural eastern North Carolina
Tourism Management
(2009) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders
Business Horizon
(1991)In need of new environmental ethics for tourism?
Annals of Tourism Research
(2003)- et al.
Impacts of positive and negative corporate social responsibility activities on company performance in the tourism industry
International Journal of Hospitality Management
(2010) - et al.
Do socially responsible activities help hotels and casinos achieve their financial goals?
International Journal of Hospitality Management
(2009) - et al.
Privileging the male gaze: gendered tourism landscapes
Annals of Tourism Research
(2000) - et al.
Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model
Annals of Tourism Research
(1999) - et al.
Financial management for the hospitality industry
(2007) - et al.
Exploring the relationship between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness
Business & Society
(2002) Shareholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility
Academy of Management Review
(2007)
Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage
Journal of Management
The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: progress and prospects
Academy of Management Journal
Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance
Academy of Management Journal
Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent
Sloan Management Review
Social responsibilities of businessman
Corporate reputation and philanthropy: an empirical analysis
Journal of Business Ethics
Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance
Strategic Management Journal
Sustainable tourism moves slowly in the right direction
Simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation
Econometrica
Determinants of financial performance: a meta-analysis
Management Science
A three-dimensional model of corporate social performance
Academy of Management Review
Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct
Business & Society
Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management
A simple approximation of Tobin’s q
Financial Management
A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance
Academy of Management Review
Corporate social responsibility and financial performance
Academy of Management Journal
The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications
Academy of Management Review
In focus: CSR and sustainability in the tourism-supply chain
Social responsibility of business is to increase profit
The New York Times Magazine
Researching corporate social responsibility: an agenda for the 21st century
Journal of Business Ethics
The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: 25 years of incomparable research
Business & Society
Basic econometrics
Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what’s the bottom line?
Strategic Management Journal
Corporate social responsibility: what are top hotel companies reporting
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
Environment and tourism
Firm performance: the interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation
Strategic Management Journal
Cited by (477)
A bibliometric analysis of the hospitality and tourism environmental, social, and governance (ESG) literature
2024, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism ManagementThe more diverse, the better? Exploring the moderating role of hospitality top management team diversity on CSR-FP link
2024, International Journal of Hospitality ManagementMapping progress in hospitality CSR research: A bibliometric review from 2006 to 2023
2023, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism ManagementSymbol or substance? Environmental regulations and corporate environmental actions decoupling
2023, Journal of Environmental ManagementCSR, financial and non-financial performance in the tourism sector: A systematic literature review and future research agenda
2023, International Review of Financial AnalysisHow does social responsibility investment strategy contribute to hospitality firms’ recovery from public health emergencies? The case of COVID-19 pandemic
2023, International Journal of Hospitality Management
- 1
Tel.: +1 215 204 0543.