The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm performance the case of in vietnamese companies

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY VIETNAM ERASMUS UNVERSITY ROTTERDAM INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL STUDIES THE NETHERLANDS VIETNAM – THE NETHERLANDS PROGRAMME FOR M.A IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS THE IMPACT OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ON FIRM PERFORMANCE: THE CASE OF VIETNAMESE COMPANIES BY TRAN PHUOC LOC MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS HO CHIMINHCITY, NOVEMBER2016 UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHIMINHCITY VIETNAM INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL STUDIES THE HAGUE THE NETHERLANDS VIETNAM - NETHERLANDS PROGRAMME FOR M.A IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS THE IMPACT OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ON FIRM PERFORMANCE: THE CASE OF VIETNAMESE COMPANIES A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS By TRAN PHUOC LOC Academic Supervisor: Prof Dr NGUYEN TRONG HOAI HO CHI MINH CITY, NOVEMBER2016 DECLARATION This is to certify that this thesis titled “The impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Firm Performance: The case of Vietnamese companies”, which is submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Development Economics to the VietnamNetherlands Program (VNP) The thesis constitutes only my original work and due supervision and acknowledgement have been made in the text to all material used i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I would like to thank and gratefully express my special appreciation to my supervisor – Prof Dr Nguyen Trong Hoai for all of his guidance, useful recommendations and valuable comments for my thesis Secondly, I wish to convey my deep gratitude to Dr Pham Khanh Nam, Dr Truong Dang Thuy for their valuable suggestions and comments for my TRD as well as the econometrics models Furthermore, I will never forget the dedication of all VNP teachers and supporting staffs to give us high-quality lectures Next, I am also grateful to my wonderful teammates and classmates at VNP C21 for their help and motivation in our great time together Special thanks to my family, friends and colleagues who support and encourage me during the thesis and studying time in this program ii ABBREVIATIONS GSO General Statistics Office of Vietnam OLS Ordinary Least Square FEM Fixed effects model R&D Research and Development REM Random effects model ROA Return on assets ROE Return on equity SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises SOEs State-owned enterprises TCS Vietnam Technology and Competitiveness Survey UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization VCCI Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry VES Vietnam Enterprise Survey ABSTRACT This study attempts to identify the determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and to examine the impacts of CSR on firm’s financial performance of 6435 Vietnamese firms extracted from the combination of the Vietnam Technology and Competitiveness Survey (TCS) and the Vietnam Enterprise Survey (VES) within a three year period from 2010 to 2012 By applying the panel data and Fixed Effects Model, the empirical results suggest that CSR may have positive relationships with firm performance whereas the determinants of CSR include firm size, R&D participation, final goods ratio and ownership structures These results are supported by a majority of empirical papers about CSR (Erhemjamts et al., 2012; Margolis et al., 2007; Russo and Fouts, 1997) and theories about CSR such as stakeholder theory, resource-based view and stewardship theory In addition, the study also reveals the situation of CSR in Vietnam: although a large number of Vietnamese firms are already aware of CSR, most of firms only participate in Labor CSR, which is mandatory by laws while Community-related CSR is generally ignored Based on the findings, the thesis may propose several policy recommendations to improve the CSR practice in Vietnam TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents DECLARATION i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABBREVIATIONS iii ABSTRACT iv TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES vii INTRODUCTION 1.1 Problem statement 1.2 Research objectives 1.3 Research questions 1.4 Research scope 1.5 Research methodology 1.6 The structure of this study LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility 2.1.1 Definitions 2.2.2 Measurement of CSR 2.2 Firm Performance 10 2.2.1 Definitions 10 2.2.2 Measurements of firm performance 11 2.3 Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance 12 2.3.1 Theoretical review 12 2.3.2 Empirical review 18 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 23 3.1 Data collection 23 3.1.1 Vietnam Enterprise Survey 24 3.1.2 Vietnam Technology and Competitiveness Survey 24 3.1.3 Data sample in this study 26 3.1.4 Corporate Social Responsibility Index (CSR Index) .27 3.2 Variables and measurements 29 3.2.1 Dependent variables 29 3.2.2 Explanatory variables 30 3.2.3 Control variables 30 3.3 Conceptual framework and model specification 35 3.3.1 Conceptual framework 35 3.3.2 Model specification 36 3.4 Analytical approach 38 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 41 4.1 Overview of Corporate Social Responsibility and performance in Vietnam 41 4.2 Descriptive analysis results 46 4.3 Empirical results 52 4.3.1 Determinants of CSR engagement 52 4.3.2 Effects of CSR on Firm Performance 54 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 59 5.1 Main findings 59 5.2 Policy implications 60 5.3 Limitations of the thesis 62 5.4 Future research 63 REFERENCES 64 APPENDIX 71 Appendix 1: Regression results for Fixed Effect Model 71 Appendix 2: Hausman test results 77 Appendix 3: Awareness of CSR questionnaires on the Baseline Survey Report 2010 79 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Theories about CSR 18 Table 3.1: Number of firms surveyed in VES and TCS dataset from 2010 to 2012 .24 Table 3.2: Structure of Survey Questionnaires in TCS 25 Table 3.3: Categories of firm size 26 Table 3.4: Categories of ownership type 26 Table 3.5: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Indicators 28 Table 3.6: Summary of variables, measurements and expectations 34 Table 4.1: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Indicators by years 47 Table 4.2: Mean value of CSR aspects by Firm Size 48 Table 4.3: Mean value of CSR aspects by Ownership Type 48 Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics of key variables 49 Table 4.5: Correlation Matrix of key variables 51 Table 4.6: Determinants of CSR participation 53 Table 4.7: Summary of Hausman test results for all regressions 53 Table 4.8: Regression results examining the impact of CSR on ROA 55 Table 4.9: Regression results examining the impact of CSR on ROE 56 Table 4.10 Regression results examining the effect of three dimensions of CSR on firm performance 58 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: The Pyramid Model of CSR 17 Figure 3.1: Conceptual Framework 36 Figure 4.1: CSR Awareness category 43 Figure 4.2: Awareness scores by sectors 43 Figure 4.3: Awareness on topics of social responsibility 44 Figure 4.4: Awareness on topics of social responsibility – by number of firms 45 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Problem statement In recent decades, social effects of enterprises are increasingly becoming essential in the field of economics and management (Fiori et al., 2007) However, the main objective of an enterprise is to obtain profits or in other words, to increase firm’s financial performance Generally, performance may be affected by both firm’s own decisions and strategies in its business In this sense, researchers and scholars may raise a controversial question: what is the level of social and environmental adoption that firm should consider but still achieve the financial targets? Eventually, the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) emerged as a new approach to resolve both social and environmental issues (Uadiale & Fagbemi, 2012) In general, CSR refers to the basic idea that enterprises attempt to satisfy social concerns and expectations in certain ways (Gossling & Vocht, 2007) Until the late 1970s, CSR was still considered as a joke or an opposite standpoint by contemporary investors and scholars (Lydenberg, 2005) However, from the 1990s, the concept of CSR has been widely accepted and promoted from governments, enterprises to individuals Nowadays, CSR has emerged and become an essential concept in the fields of management, economics and firm’s theory (Moir, 2001; Lindkvist & Llewellyn, 2003; Margolis & Walsh, 2003) Generally, CSR focuses on issues related to social and environmental effects from enterprises’ operations and decisions Carroll (1979, 1999) defines CSR as social responsibility that enables firm to operate in a profitable, law-abiding, moral and discretionary manners Previously, companies utilized many measures such as diversifying their products, improving the quality of goods and services to gain competitive advantages on the marketplace Nowadays, companies tend to reinforce their images, Huergo, E., & Jaumandreu, J., (2004) How does probability of innovation change with firm age? Small Business Economics, 22 (3/4), 193–207 Jensen M C, & Meckling W H (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.94043 Jensen, M.C., (1986) Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers American Economic Review, 76, 323-339 Jensen, M C (2002) Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256 Jones, T.M (1995) Instrumental stakeholder theory: a synthesis of ethics and economics Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–437 Johnson, R.A and Greening, D.W (1999) The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance Academy of Management Journal, 42, 564–576 Karaye Y I., Ishak Z., & Che-Adam N (2014) The Mediating Effect of Stakeholder Influence Capacity on The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Financial Performance Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 164 (2014) 528-534 Krisnawati A., Yudoko G., & Bangun Y R., (2014) Development Path of Corporate Social Responsibility Theories World Applied Sciences Journal 30 (Innovation Challenges in Multidiciplinary Research & Practice): 110-120, 2014 ISSN 1818-4952 DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2014.30.icmrp.17 Le, T V & Buck, T (2009) State ownership and listed firm performance: A universally negative governance relationship? Journal of Management and Government, 10, 9098-5 Lieberman M B & Kang J (2008) How to measure company productivity using value-added: A focus on Pohang Steel (POSCO) Asia Pacific J Manage, 25, 209–224 DOI 10.1007/s10490-007-9081-0 Lindkvist, L & Llewellyn, S (2003) Accountability, responsibility and organization Scandinavian Journal of Management, 19(2), 251-73 Lin Chin-Huang, Yang Ho-Li & Liou Dian-Yan (2009) The impact of corporate social responsibility on financial performance: Evidence from business in Taiwan Technology in Society, 31, 56–63 Lo, C.K.Y., Yeung, A.C.L., Cheng, T.C.E., 2012 The impact of environmental management systems on financial performance in fashion and textiles industries International Journal of Production Economics 135 (2), 561–567 Lockett, A., Moon, J and Visser, W (2006) Corporate social responsibility in management research: focus, nature, salience and sources of influence Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), pp 115-36 Lozano, J M (2008) CSR or RSC? (beyond the Humpty Dumpty syndrome) Society and Business Review, 3(3), 191–206 Lydenberg, S.D (2005) Corporations and the Public Interest: Guiding the Invisible Hand San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Luo, X., Wang, H., Raithel, S., & Zheng, Q (2015) Corporate Social Performance, Analyst Stock Recommendations, and Firm Future Returns Strategic Management Journal, 36(1), 123–136 Margolis J., & J Walsh 2003 Misery loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268-305 Margolis J D., Elfenbein H A., & Walsh JP (2007) Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance Working paper, Harvard Business School, Boston McGuire, J B., Sundgren, A & Schneeweis, T (1988) Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance Academy of Management Journal, 31, pp 854–872 McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D S (2000) Corporate social responsibility and finance performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603– 609 McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D (2001) Corproate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm perspective Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127 McWilliams, A & Siegel, D (1997) Event studies in management research: Theoretical and empirical issues Academy of Management Journal, 40, 626-657 Muth M., & Donaldson L (1998) Stewardship Theory and Board Structure: a contingency approach Corporate Governance An International Review, 6(1), 5-28 Nguyen, Q V (2007) Current Status of CSR in Vietnam Business Office for Sustainable Development Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry Nguyen, H., & Pham, H (2011) The Dark side of Development in Vietnam: Lessons from the Killing of the Thi Vai River Journal of Macromarketing, 32 (1), 74-86 Nguyen B T N., Tran H T T., Le O H., Nguyen P T., Trinh T H., & Le V (2015) Association between corporate social responsibility disclosures and firm value – empirical evidence from Vietnam International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting 5(1), 212-228 Oba, V.C (2009) The impact of corporate social responsibility on market value of quoted conglomerates in Nigeria Unpublished M Sc Thesis Accounting Department Ahmadu Bello University Zaria Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F L., & Rynes, S L (2003) Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441 Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D S., & Waldman, D A (2011) Strategic corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability Business and Society, 50(1), 6-27 doi: 10.1177/0007650310394323 O'Sullivan, D & Dooley, L (2008) Applying Innovation Penrose, E (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm New York: Wiley Posnikoff, J F (1997) Disinvestment from South Africa: They did well by doing good Contemporary Economic Policy, 15 (1), pp 76-86 Pham, V T (2010) Corporate Social Responsibility in Viet Nam: A Study of Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Retrieved from http://dl.is.vnu.edu.vn/bitstream/123456789/263/1/PHAM VAN THUAN.pdf Reverte C., Gomez-Melero E., & Cegarra-Navarro J G (2015) The influence of corporate social responsibility practices on organizational performance: evidence from EcoResponsible Spanish firms Journal of Cleaner Production, 1-15 Richard, P J., Devinney, T M., Yip, G S., Johnson, G (2009) Measuring organizational performance: towards methodological best practice Journal of Management, 35 (3), 718–804 doi:10.1177/0149206308330560 Russo, M V., & Fouts, P A (1997) A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534–559 Saeidi S P., Sofian S., Saeidi P., Saeidi S.P., & Saaeidi, S A (2015) How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction Journal of Business Research, 68, 341– 350 Sharfman, M., Fernando, C., (2008) Environmental risk management and the cost of capital Strategic Management Journal, 29, 569–592 Surroca, J., Tribo, J.A & Waddock, S (2010) Corporate responsibility and financial performance: the role of intangible resources Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463490 Talaei, G H., & Nejati, M (2008) Corporate social responsibility in auto industry: An Iranian perspective Lex et Scientia, International Journal, XV(1), 84–94 Tiago M., (2012) Slack-resources hypothesis: a critical analysis under a multidimensional approach to corporate social performance Social Responsibility Journal, 8(2), 257-269 Twose, N., & Rao, T (2003) “Strengthening Developing Country Governments” Engagement with Corporate Social Responsibility: Conclusions and Recommendations from Technical Assistance in Vietnam Final Report, World Bank’s Program 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 UNIDO (2011) Baseline survey report 2010: Awareness, understanding and usage of Social Cooperate Responsibility (CSR) among Vietnam‘s Small and Medium Enterprises Van Marrewijk, M (2003) Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 95–105 Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V (1987) Measurement of business economic performance: an examination of method convergent Journal of Management, 13(1), 109-122 doi: 10.1177/014920638701300109 Waddock, S A., & Graves, S B., (1997) The corporate social performance-financial performance link Strategic Management Journal, 18 (4), 303–319 Wang, D.H.-M., et al., The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand equity and firm performance, Journal of Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.003 Wernerfelt, B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180 Wood, D J (2010) Measuring corporate social performance: A review International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50–84 Wright, P & Ferris, S (1997) Agency conflict and corporate strategy: the effect of divestment on corporate value Strategic Management Journal, 18, 77–83 Wu, Meng-Wen, & Shen, Chung-Hua (2013) Corporate social responsibility in the banking industry: Motives and financial performance Journal of Banking & Finance doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.04.023 Zhang, X., Zhang, S., (2001) Technical efficiency in China's iron and steel industry: evidence from the new census data International Review of Applied Economies, 15 (2), 199–211 70 APPENDIX Appendix 1: Regression results for Fixed Effect Model  For determinants of CSR adoption xtreg Total_CSR firm_size firm_age rd_engage export leverage final_goods state_firm foreign_firm joint_stock_firm, fe robust Fixed-effects (within) regression Group variable: firm_id Number of obs Number of groups = = 19305 6435 R-sq: Obs per group: = avg = max = 3.0 within = 0.0164 between = 0.2238 overall = 0.1757 corr(u_i, Xb) F(9,6434) Prob > F = 0.1047 = = 14.77 0.0000 (Std Err adjusted for 6435 clusters in firm_id) -| Robust Total_CSR | Std Err Coef t P>|t| [95% Conf Interval] -+ -firm_size | 1940129 0395101 4.91 0.000 1165601 2714658 firm_age | 0580062 0744857 0.78 0.436 -.0880105 2040229 rd_engage | 4000887 0690285 5.80 0.000 2647699 5354075 export | 0514568 0446691 1.15 0.249 -.0361096 1390232 leverage | 1165436 0622692 1.87 0.061 -.0055248 238612 final_goods | 3297676 0462962 7.12 0.000 2390116 4205236 state_firm | 1.68482 3717867 4.53 0.000 9559948 2.413646 foreign_firm | 1.235212 3398031 3.64 0.000 5690846 1.901339 joint_stock_firm | 8559368 2669593 3.21 0.001 3326078 1.379266 _cons | 3.419624 2601821 13.14 0.000 2.909581 3.929667 -+ -sigma_u | 1.7961728 sigma_e | 1.3497765 rho | 63909501 (fraction of variance due to u_i)  For impacts of Total CSR on ROA xtreg roa Total_CSR firm_size firm_age rd_engage export leverage state_firm foreign_firm joint_stock_firm, fe robust Fixed-effects (within) regression Group variable: firm_id R-sq: within = 0.0185 between overall = 0.0557 = 0.0397 71 Number of obs Number of groups = = 19305 6435 Obs per group: avg max F(9,6434) = = = = 3.0 21.88 corr(u_i, Xb) = -0.2366 Prob > F = 0.0000 (Std Err adjusted for 6435 clusters in firm_id) -| Robust roa | Coef Std Err t P>|t| [95% Conf Interval] -+ -Total_CSR | 0026628 0002812 9.47 0.000 0021117 003214 firm_size | 0051936 0010746 4.83 0.000 003087 0073002 firm_age | -.0154548 0021297 -7.26 0.000 -.0196298 -.0112799 rd_engage | 0006695 0017076 0.39 0.695 -.0026779 004017 export | -.0023063 0013649 -1.69 0.091 -.004982 0003694 leverage | -.0059022 0024329 -2.43 0.015 -.0106715 -.0011329 state_firm | 021362 0105934 2.02 0.044 0005953 0421287 foreign_firm | 0312456 0118248 2.64 0.008 0080651 0544262 joint_stock_firm | 0074732 0060964 1.23 0.220 -.0044779 0194243 _cons | 0088551 0074446 1.19 0.234 -.0057389 0234491 -+ -sigma_u | 04254375 sigma_e | 04068442 rho | 52232891 (fraction of variance due to u_i)  For impacts of Total CSR on ROE xtreg roe Total_CSR firm_size firm_age rd_engage export leverage state_firm foreign_firm joint_stock_firm, fe robust Fixed-effects (within) regression Group variable: firm_id Number of obs Number of groups = = 19305 6435 R-sq: Obs per group: = avg = max = 3.0 within = 0.0338 between = 0.0588 overall = 0.0418 corr(u_i, Xb) = -0.4027 F(9,6434) Prob > F = = 38.73 0.0000 (Std Err adjusted for 6435 clusters in firm_id) -| Robust Std Err roe | Coef t P>|t| [95% Conf Interval] -+ -Total_CSR | 0056017 0004766 11.75 0.000 0046674 006536 firm_size | 008346 0018367 4.54 0.000 0047455 0119465 firm_age | -.0244866 003635 -6.74 0.000 -.0316123 -.0173608 rd_engage | 0031956 0031153 1.03 0.305 -.0029114 0093025 export | -.0037126 0024547 -1.51 0.130 -.0085247 0010995 leverage | 0419387 0043096 9.73 0.000 0334905 0503869 state_firm | 0568039 0183425 3.10 0.002 0208465 0927613 foreign_firm | 085078 0215589 3.95 0.000 0428154 1273405 joint_stock_firm | 017825 0091798 1.94 0.052 -.0001704 0358204 _cons | -.0195257 012856 -1.52 0.129 -.0447277 0056764 -+ -sigma_u | 07198004 sigma_e | 07260897 rho | 49565036 (fraction of variance due to u_i)  For individual impacts of three CSR dimensions on ROA xtreg roa Labor_CSR firm_size firm_age rd_engage export leverage state_firm foreign_firm joint_stock_firm, fe robust Fixed-effects (within) regression Group variable: firm_id Number of obs Number of groups = = 19305 6435 R-sq: Obs per group: = avg = max = 3.0 within = 0.0129 between = 0.0490 overall = 0.0337 corr(u_i, Xb) = -0.2684 F(9,6434) Prob > F = = 16.88 0.0000 (Std Err adjusted for 6435 clusters in firm_id) -| Robust roa | Coef Std Err t P>|t| [95% Conf Interval] -+ -Labor_CSR | 0032175 0005485 5.87 0.000 0021422 0042928 firm_size | 00542 0010761 5.04 0.000 0033105 0075295 firm_age | -.0151401 0021339 -7.09 0.000 -.0193233 -.0109569 rd_engage | 0015642 0017121 0.91 0.361 -.0017921 0049205 export | -.0023151 0013675 -1.69 0.091 -.0049959 0003657 leverage | -.0056561 0024356 -2.32 0.020 -.0104308 -.0008814 state_firm | 025189 0108205 2.33 0.020 0039773 0464007 foreign_firm | 0338719 0120351 2.81 0.005 0102792 0574646 joint_stock_firm | 0094137 0061193 1.54 0.124 -.0025823 0214096 _cons | 0100104 0074776 1.34 0.181 -.0046482 024669 -+ -sigma_u | 04305051 sigma_e | 04080081 rho | 52681033 (fraction of variance due to u_i) - xtreg roa Management_CSR firm_size firm_age rd_engage export leverage state_firm foreign_firm joint_stock_firm, fe robust Fixed-effects (within) regression Group variable: firm_id Number of obs Number of groups = = 19305 6435 R-sq: Obs per group: = avg = max = 3.0 within = 0.0147 between = 0.0488 overall = 0.0342 corr(u_i, Xb) = -0.2493 F(9,6434) Prob > F = = 18.48 0.0000 (Std Err adjusted for 6435 clusters in firm_id) | Robust Std Err roa | Coef t P>|t| [95% Conf Interval] -+ -Management_CSR | 0040611 0006097 6.66 0.000 0028658 0052563 firm_size | 005556 0010782 5.15 0.000 0034423 0076696 firm_age | -.0153812 00213 -7.22 0.000 -.0195566 -.0112057 rd_engage | 0011398 0017192 0.66 0.507 -.0022304 00451 export | -.0021513 0013673 -1.57 0.116 -.0048316 0005291 leverage | -.005769 0024358 -2.37 0.018 -.010544 -.000994 state_firm | 0251469 0109428 2.30 0.022 0036954 0465984 foreign_firm | 0335058 0120592 2.78 0.005 0098659 0571458 joint_stock_firm | 0093436 0062475 1.50 0.135 -.0029035 0215908 _cons | 0142024 0074102 1.92 0.055 -.000324 0287289 -+ -sigma_u | 04283075 sigma_e | 04076332 rho | 52471661 (fraction of variance due to u_i) xtreg roa Community_CSR firm_size firm_age rd_engage export leverage state_firm foreign_firm joint_stock_firm, fe robust Fixed-effects (within) regression Group variable: firm_id Number of obs Number of groups = = 19305 6435 R-sq: Obs per group: = avg = max = 3.0 within = 0.0142 between = 0.0456 overall = 0.0321 corr(u_i, Xb) = -0.2274 F(9,6434) Prob > F = = 16.00 0.0000 (Std Err adjusted for 6435 clusters in firm_id) -| Robust Std Err roa | Coef t P>|t| [95% Conf Interval] -+ -Community_CSR | 0026074 0004515 5.77 0.000 0017223 0034926 firm_size | 0055224 0010762 5.13 0.000 0034127 0076321 firm_age | -.015555 0021349 -7.29 0.000 -.0197401 -.0113699 rd_engage | 001241 0017057 0.73 0.467 -.0021027 0045847 export | -.0021981 0013652 -1.61 0.107 -.0048744 0004782 leverage | -.0057385 0024357 -2.36 0.019 -.0105134 -.0009637 state_firm | 0225029 0105385 2.14 0.033 0018439 0431618 foreign_firm | 0326502 0118494 2.76 0.006 0094214 055879 joint_stock_firm | 0081321 0060454 1.35 0.179 -.003719 0199832 _cons | 0183549 0073312 2.50 0.012 0039833 0327265 -+ -sigma_u | 04266077 sigma_e | 0407742 rho | 52259972 (fraction of variance due to u_i)  For individual impacts of three CSR dimensions on ROE xtreg roe Labor_CSR firm_size firm_age rd_engage export leverage state_firm foreign_firm joint_stock_firm, fe robust Fixed-effects (within) regression Group variable: firm_id Number of obs Number of groups = = 19305 6435 R-sq: Obs per group: = avg = max = 3.0 within = 0.0266 between = 0.0503 overall = 0.0344 corr(u_i, Xb) = -0.4407 F(9,6434) Prob > F = = 28.60 0.0000 (Std Err adjusted for 6435 clusters in firm_id) -| Robust roe | Coef Std Err t P>|t| [95% Conf Interval] -+ -Labor_CSR | 0072395 0010259 7.06 0.000 0052283 0092507 firm_size | 0087814 0018365 4.78 0.000 0051812 0123816 firm_age | -.0237985 0036441 -6.53 0.000 -.0309422 -.0166548 rd_engage | 0050498 0031128 1.62 0.105 -.0010522 0111518 export | -.0037524 0024686 -1.52 0.129 -.0085916 0010869 leverage | 0424479 0043299 9.80 0.000 0339597 050936 state_firm | 0647519 0183036 3.54 0.000 0288708 100633 foreign_firm | 0904919 0215817 4.19 0.000 0481847 1327991 joint_stock_firm | 0218501 0091565 2.39 0.017 0039003 0397999 _cons | -.0183041 0130285 -1.40 0.160 -.0438442 007236 -+ -sigma_u | 07368749 sigma_e | 07288211 rho | 50549467 (fraction of variance due to u_i) - xtreg roe Management_CSR firm_size firm_age rd_engage export leverage state_firm foreign_firm joint_stock_firm, fe robust Fixed-effects (within) regression Group variable: firm_id R-sq: within = 0.0326 between overall = 0.0518 = 0.0372 corr(u_i, Xb) = -0.4158 Number of obs Number of groups = = 19305 6435 Obs per group: avg max F(9,6434) Prob > F = = = = = 3.0 36.69 0.0000 (Std Err adjusted for 6435 clusters in firm_id) -| Robust roe | Coef Std Err t P>|t| [95% Conf Interval] -+ -Management_CSR | 0112829 001071 10.53 0.000 0091833 0133825 firm_size | 0090117 0018333 4.92 0.000 0054178 0126056 firm_age | -.0243745 0036313 -6.71 0.000 -.031493 -.017256 rd_engage | 0037702 0031079 1.21 0.225 -.0023224 0098628 export | -.0033737 0024519 -1.38 0.169 -.0081802 0014328 leverage | 0421034 0043092 9.77 0.000 0336559 0505508 state_firm | 0642641 018162 3.54 0.000 0286606 0998675 foreign_firm | 0890752 0213142 4.18 0.000 0472923 1308581 joint_stock_firm | 0214499 0092411 2.32 0.020 0033342 0395655 _cons | -.0110203 0128613 -0.86 0.392 -.0362327 0141921 -+ -sigma_u | 07272692 sigma_e | 07265612 rho | 50048701 (fraction of variance due to u_i) - xtreg roe Community_CSR firm_size firm_age rd_engage export leverage state_firm foreign_firm joint_stock_firm, fe robust Fixed-effects (within) regression Group variable: firm_id Number of obs Number of groups = = 19305 6435 R-sq: Obs per group: = avg = max = 3.0 within = 0.0257 between = 0.0441 overall = 0.0310 corr(u_i, Xb) = -0.3976 F(9,6434) Prob > F = = 27.35 0.0000 (Std Err adjusted for 6435 clusters in firm_id) -| Robust Std Err roe | Coef t P>|t| [95% Conf Interval] -+ -Community_CSR | 0039882 0007119 5.60 0.000 0025927 0053838 firm_size | 0091392 0018403 4.97 0.000 0055315 0127468 firm_age | -.024561 0036496 -6.73 0.000 -.0317155 -.0174066 rd_engage | 0046925 0031129 1.51 0.132 -.0014097 0107948 export | -.0034689 0024694 -1.40 0.160 -.0083097 0013718 leverage | 0423638 0043337 9.78 0.000 0338683 0508593 state_firm | 061149 018376 3.33 0.001 0251259 0971722 foreign_firm | 0891685 0216749 4.11 0.000 0466784 1316586 joint_stock_firm | 0201704 0092033 2.19 0.028 0021289 0382118 _cons | 0004096 0128015 0.03 0.974 -.0246856 0255047 -+ -sigma_u | 07229613 sigma_e | 07291261 rho | 49575461 (fraction of variance due to u_i) Appendix 2: Hausman test results  For determinants of CSR adoption hausman fixed random | | Coefficients -(b) (B) fixed random (b-B) Difference sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E + -firm_size | 1940129 5204416 -.3264286 0330977 firm_age | 0580062 2213135 -.1633073 0569277 rd_engage | 4000887 7531173 -.3530285 0260317 export | 0514568 1849854 -.1335286 0228246 leverage | 1165436 2303845 -.1138409 035003 final_goods | 3297676 283928 0458396 0215377 state_firm | 1.68482 1.438134 2466863 185523 foreign_firm | 1.235212 3005854 9346263 2435968 joint_stoc~m | 8559368 914888 -.0589512 1655616 -b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(9) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 320.77 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000  For the impact of CSR on ROA hausman fixed random Coefficients -| (b) (B) (b-B) sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) fixed S.E | random Difference -+ -Total_CSR | 0026628 0025474 0001154 0001769 firm_size | 0051936 0062203 -.0010267 0010277 firm_age | -.0154548 0008625 -.0163173 0018003 rd_engage | 0006695 0011191 -.0004495 0009234 export | -.0023063 -.0021723 -.000134 0008002 leverage | -.0059022 -.0156049 0097027 0012278 state_firm | 021362 026826 -.005464 0059299 foreign_firm | 0312456 007335 0239106 0074197 joint_stoc~m | 0074732 0041667 0033065 0050885 -b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(9) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 179.56 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000  For the impact of CSR on ROE hausman fixed random Coefficients -| (b) (B) (b-B) sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) | fixed random Difference S.E -+ -Total_CSR | 0056017 0054333 0001684 0003352 firm_size | 008346 0084887 -.0001427 0018582 firm_age | -.0244866 00222 -.0267066 0032709 rd_engage | 0031956 0045982 -.0014026 0017737 export | -.0037126 -.0026004 -.0011122 0015231 leverage | 0419387 0253898 0165489 0023324 state_firm | 0568039 0431877 0136163 0108416 foreign_firm | 085078 0133471 0717308 0132873 joint_stoc~m | 017825 0092748 0085502 0091439 -b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(9) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 165.24 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000 Appendix 3: Awareness of CSR questionnaires on the Baseline Survey Report 2010 In order to ascertain their awareness of CSR, the respondents were administered a list of statements which they had to rate on a point scale of importance: 0=not important 1=less important 2=important 3=very important The 20 statements covered the seven subjects of social responsibility as emphasized in the ISO Guidance on social responsibility: Subject 1: Organizational Governance Statement 1: The company consults employees on important issues Statement 2: The company ensures effective feedback (in the form of improving products, services, business relationships ) through regular dialogue/consultation with customers, suppliers and other people you business with Subject 2: Human Rights Statement 3: The company ensures adequate steps are taken against all forms of discrimination both in the workplace and at the time of recruitment Subject 3: Labor Practices Statement 4: The company monitors compliance with labor laws and fair working conditions for employees and home workers Statement 5: The company upholds health and safety policy and record formally work-related incidents, injuries and illnesses on an annual basis Statement 6: The company encourages employees to develop real skills and long-term careers Subject 4: Environment Statement 7: The company monitors information on existing environmental laws Statement 8: The company saves money by reducing the environmental impact by energy consumption Statement 9: The company saves money by reducing the environmental impact by waste minimization and recycling Statement 10: The company saves money by reducing the environmental impact by pollution prevention Statement 11: The company gains an advantage over competitors by using the sustainability of your products and services Statement 12: The company adheres to an environmental management certification (for example ISO14000) in order to better compete in the global market place and increase your organization's competitive advantage Subject 5: Fair Operating Practices Statement 13: The company's values and roles of conduct are clearly defined Statement 14: The company registers and resolves complaints for customers, suppliers and business partners Statement 15: The company upholds a fair purchasing policy, provisioning for consumer protection and timely payment of suppliers' invoices Subject 6: Consumer Issues Statement 16: The company conducts assessments of the health and safety effects of your products on the wellbeing of customers through a quality control system, for example by identifying restricted substances used in your products 80 Statement 17: The company conducts surveys/enquiries to determine customer satisfaction Statement 18: The company supplies clear and accurate information on its products, services and activities to customers, suppliers, local communities through correct product labelling Subject 7: Community Involvement Statement 19: The company offers training opportunities to people from the local community Statement 20: There is an open dialogue (regular meetings where both sides can speak frankly) with the local community on adverse controversial an sensitive issues 81 ... 2012 In addition, the firm performance in this research only focuses on financial performance; and other concepts of performance such as economic performance and social performance are beyond the. .. Prof Dr NGUYEN TRONG HOAI HO CHI MINH CITY, NOVEMBER2016 DECLARATION This is to certify that this thesis titled ? ?The impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Firm Performance: The case of Vietnamese. .. Regression results examining the impact of CSR on ROA 55 Table 4.9: Regression results examining the impact of CSR on ROE 56 Table 4.10 Regression results examining the effect of three