CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the study
Corporate Social Responsibility is the relationship that exists between the company and its
shareholders. CSR is a concept whereby organization adopts both social and environmental
concern in their business operations and in their relationship with the company’s stakeholders on
a voluntary basis. CSR is a relationship that exists between an organization and the local society
which it operates. CSR is also concerned with what the organization has to offer this society
within which the company operates (David & Gluer 2008).
According to Paul (2007), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) also has so many names, this
include, corporate accountability, corporate responsibility, corporate ethic, corporate citizenship,
responsible entrepreneurship. As CSR is increasing into the communities today, the trend of the
practice can also be known as “responsible entrepreneurship”.

The practice of corporate social responsibility is a thing known worldwide. it involves the
company accountability to the public, itself and shareholders. We can say another name for CSR
is corporate citizenship because corporate citizenship deals with the company’s responsibility to
its society. It is important for organization operating in a particular area to become familiar with
the area because of the implementation of their corporate social responsibilities to the people
around the organization domain. (Ukpabi, Ikaba, Enyindah, Orji & Idatoru, 2014).

Organizational goals cannot be separated from the environment in which the organizations
operate. In recent time’s economy and social environment, issues relating to corporate social
responsibility and sustainability have gained more and more importance, especially in the
organization (Nana & Doris 2016).

It has been shown that corporate social responsibility has received great attention and the
importance of corporate social responsibility has been over emphasized. (Lucia, Albert, &Ivan,
2012).

In the previous years, the community and other organizations have been paying huge attention to
the social responsibility of the organization towards its shareholders groups. To ensure the
implementation of social responsibility towards the society is successful, corporate social
responsibility should be included in the day-to-day operation and managerial decision making.
(Gholamhossein & Hamid, 2016).

Organization performance is the measurement of reality and the perception of the work done by
a firm which explain the multitude of critical reflection in the organization. Organization
performance is basically measuring the job well done by an organization. Studies have shown
that there is no perfect definition of the performance of an organization. In calculating whether
our organization is doing well or not, it is said to have performed its organizational performance
if it their organizational goals and objectives have been fully accomplished. (Ion, 2016).

Organization has various activities to be done before accomplishing their organizational goals. It
is this activity that the organization do to accomplish their goals that enables the organization
succeed, if the organization succeed, the organization is said to have performed well and if it
does not succeed, the organization go over the activity again even more better than the way they
did the previous activity in order to achieve their goal. In other for the organization to succeed
they have to make sure that their goals are well accomplished. It has been claimed that there is a
close relationship between organization objectives and organization performance, to achieve
their performance, there must be an objective already stated in order for the organization to
achieve its goals. In achieving organizational performance, there are two factors to be
considered, which are organizational objective and organizational inputs or resources (Hashem,
2015).

When organizational performance is put together it result to the following; organizational

structure it involves the way organization wants to deliver their services to the public in
achieving their goals. strategic objectives is a guide that ensure that everyone is working towards
one goal in achieving the objectives and working towards the end at the same time, business
performance measures; it involves the measures by which the organization is measured in
delivering their service, it is through measurement whereby the organization will direct behavior
more than any system to be put in place. Reward structures it may include promotion, bonus,
promo, a day leave for job well done, celebration etc. (Louise, 2012).

The benefits of organizational performance include; Goal setting and revising in order to achieve
the goals, the employees needs to understand the clear expectation of their work. Management
and coaching; in achieving the organization goal the employees needs to adjust and get properly
trained. Development planning; it is implemented when the organization want to achieve good
performance, the employee goes to the staff and check on the performance of the staff and details
on how they can improve. Rewards recognition; it helps the organization receive a balance to
both positive and negative feedback. It also improves workers and helps the employees to be a
good ambassador of their organization (Jenna, 2019).

Organizational performance comprises three main areas: Financial performance it involves

measuring the organization in monetary term to know whether the company is solvent or
insolvent. The second one is Market performance it involves measuring the business whether it
perform well in the market, if the product needs upgrading or re-branding etc., the last one is
Shareholder value it looks at how much the company shareholder have to offer the company
(Market business news, 2019).

There are three principle of corporate social responsibility (CSR) which includes; sustainability,
accountability and transparency. Accountability is concerned that the activity of the organization
affects external environment instead of assuming their responsibilities to the external public.
Transparency is concerned of the external impacts of their action can be gotten from ascertained
from the organization report instead camouflaging with the report of the company. Sustainability
is concerned actions taken in the present days which will later affect the company in the future.
(David et al 2008).

According to Geethamani (2017), he pointed out the importance and advantages of CSR on
organization, he said for organization to be committed to CSR, that means the organization have
a very good all-round reputation. He pointed the advantages as, it brings about good reputation
of the company, it avoids bribery and corruption from the company to the community, it
improves the organization profitability and growth and also it brings about development in the
environment where the organization is suited.

Another thing is that CSR action today does not only helps the organization to relate well with
the public but also help the employees in performing well in their jobs and also brings about the
company goodwill. CSR also brings about comparative advantage with other organization
rendering the same services around them (Emily, Chitiavi et al 2014).
This study will therefore focus on the effect of corporate social responsibility on organizational
performance in Bowen University.

1.2 Statement of the problem

As said earlier corporate social responsibility helps the organization to be responsible for all
action. It is important check the effect of the organization towards the welfare of the society.
(Shasta & Sara, 2014). Corporate social responsibility helps the organization in building their
reputation in the society.

Despite the wide spread of corporate social responsibly among organization and the benefits
derived in the implementation of corporate social responsibly like better brand recognition, good
reputation etc. It has been shown that there are still some challenges faced in the implementation
of corporate social responsibility on organizational performance which will hinder the
organization from enjoying the benefit, such challenges will be considered during the course of
the study. The first challenges will be looking at is the philanthropic activities, during the study,
we want to know how charitable as the organization been to both the insider and the Iwo
community, considering the fact if there are scholarship for people coming from Iwo and any
other benefit for Iwo citizens. Another thing I will be considering is the effect of corporate
social responsibility on the financial performance of the organization, we will want to know
whether corporate social responsibilities is affecting the organization positively or negatively.
The last one we will be considering is the hinder to implementing corporate social responsibility.

1.3 Research Question

During the cause of this study, the following questions will be attempted and solution will be
provided.
i. What effect does the philanthropic activities of corporate social responsibility has on
organizational performance in Bowen University?
ii. What effect does the financial obligation of corporate social responsibility has on the
organizational performance in Bowen University?
iii. What effect does the ethnic belief of corporate social responsibility has on the
organizational performance in Bowen University

1.4 Objectives to the study

This study will be assessing the effect of corporate social responsibility on organizational
performance in Bowen University. The study will assess the following specific objective;

i. To investigate philanthropic activities of corporate social responsibility on the

organizational performance in Bowen university.
ii. To investigate the financial effect of corporate social responsibility on the
organizational performance in Bowen university
iii. To investigate the effect ethnic belief of corporate social responsibility has on the
organizational performance in Bowen university
1.5 Hypothesis of the study
In this research, the following hypotheses form the basis of carrying out this study

Hypothesis I

H0: philanthropic activities of corporate social responsibility has no significant influence on

organizational performance in Bowen University.

H1: philanthropic activities of corporate social responsibility has significant influence on

organizational performance in Bowen University.

Hypothesis II

H0: financial performance has no significant effect on corporate social responsibility in Bowen
University.

H01: Financial performance has significant effect on corporate social responsibility in Bowen
University.

Hypothesis III

H0: Ethnical belief has no significant effect on corporate social responsibility in Bowen
University.

H01: Ethnical belief has significant effect on corporate social responsibility in Bowen University.

1.6 Significance of the study

So many researches have been carried out relating to this study as Emily, Mwalti, Robert,
Musiega & Maniagi (2014) examined the effect of corporate social responsibility on
organizational performance; banking industry Kenya, Kakamega county, were he researched on
the environment, government policy and ethnical factor affecting corporate social responsibility.
From the research above it has been observed that there is little attention placed on corporate
social responsibility on educational organization, it has basically been banks, oil sector and so
on, but this study will be narrowed down to peculiar/ public interest entities of an organization,
in particular a university. This is the gap I will be adding to the body of knowledge.

1.7 Scope of the study

This research will focus its finding on the effect of corporate social responsibility on
organizational performance in Bowen University as case study. The study will touch the effect
on CSR to the environment and to the company (Bowen University) employees, during the cause
of this study, we shall know more about corporate social responsibility and organizational
performance. We will learn about the advantage, disadvantage and all other things related to
corporate social responsibility relating to organization performance.

1.8 Definition of terms and acronyms

Corporate social responsibility (CSR): it is a management concept whereby companies integrate
social and environmental concerns in their operations and interactions with their shareholders.
(UNIDO, 2019)
Organizational performance: it is involving the analyzing a company’s performance against its
objectives and goals (Market business news, 2019).

Corporate citizenship: it refers to a type of company that intends to put the interest of society (in
the broad sense) at the same level as its own interest (wiki, 2019).

Organizational goals: organizational goals are strategic objectives that a company’s management
establishes to outline expected outcomes and guide employee’ efforts. (Margaret, 2019).

Organizational objectives: organizational objectives are short-term and medium-term goals that
an organization seeks to accomplish (Shawn, 2015).
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter consists of definition of corporate social responsibility, organizational performance,
how corporate social responsibility affects organizational performance, how corporate social
responsibility can be implemented in our organization and so on. It also consists of conceptual
review, empirical review and theoretical framework.

2.1 Conceptual review

The conceptual review consists of definitions of some terms like corporate social responsibility,
organizational performance, it talks on the history, origin, how corporate social responsibility as
affected organizational performance, the advantage and disadvantage of corporate social
responsibility and organizational performance.

2.1.1 Brief Introduction to corporate social responsibility (CSR)

Corporate Social Responsibility is known by many other names. These include corporate
responsibility, corporate ethics, corporate accountability and corporate citizenship just to name a
few. A key point to note is that Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR has no universal
definition; however, it generally refers to clear business practices with respect to ethical values,
compliance with legal requirements and respect for economic values. CSR goes beyond making
profits, companies and stakeholders are responsible for their impact on people and planet.
Increasingly, stakeholders should expect that companies should be more responsible both
socially and environmentally in their conduct of their business. CSR has been described as the
business contribution to sustainable development. (Uk, 2018).
Corporate social responsibility (CSR for short) is the internationally regarded concept
for responsible corporate behavior although it is not clearly defined. In a nutshell, CSR refers to
the moral and ethical obligations of a company with regards to their employees, the environment,
their competitors, the economy and a number of other areas of life that its business affects
(IONOS, 2019).
2.1.2 Social Responsibility (SR)
There are different definition of social responsibility; some of the definition will be highlighted
below;
Akhilesh (2019), defines social responsibility as that businesses, in addition to maximizing
shareholders value, must act in a manner that benefits society.

Business dictionary (2008) explains social responsibility as the obligation of an organization’s

management towards the welfare and the interest of the society in which it operates.

Social responsibility refers the business ethnics concepts of being accountable for impacting
society and culture (Accounting dictionary, 2020)

Business management ideas (2020) defines the concept of social responsibility in the relation to
business means that the firm functions to accomplish its financial objectives and serves the
society as well.

2.1.3 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

There are different definitions of corporate social responsibility; some of the definition will be
highlighted below;

According to Business Dictionary (2008) defines CSR as a company’s sense of responsibility

towards the community and environment (both ecological and social) in which it operates.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is how companies manage their overall positive impact on
the society, to process to produce. It covers sustainability, social impact and ethnics and done
correctly. (Mallen, 2004).

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to the self- imposed responsibility of companies to
society in areas such as the environment, the economy, employee well-being, and competition
ethnics. Many companies use internal CSR regulation as a form of moral compass to positively
influence the ethnical development of their business. Positive corporate social responsibility can
also offer economic benefits. (Ionos, 2019)
According to You matter (2019), CSR encompasses all the practices put in place by companies
in order to uphold the principles of sustainable development. Sustainable development means
that a company need to be economically viable, have a positive impact on society, and respect
and preserve the environment.

European commission defines CSR as a concept whereby companies integrate social and
environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their
stakeholders on a voluntary basis.

According to McWilliams and Siegel (2001) CSR is the action that appear to further some social
good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law. CSR means going
before the law.

Timothy and Sherry (2011) defines CSR as the voluntary action that a corporation implements as
it pursues its mission and fulfills its perceived obligation to stakeholders, including employees,
communities, the environment, and society as a whole. CSR is the responsibility of an
organization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the environment
through transparent and ethical behavior that is consistent with sustainable development and the
welfare of society; takes into account the expectations of stakeholders; is in compliance with
applicable law and consistent with international norms of behavior; and is integrated throughout
the organization. (Paul, 2007).

Zu and Song (2008) explains CSR as a large number of companies appear increasingly engaged
in a serious effort to define and integrate CSR into all aspects of their business.

According to Carroll (1991), social responsibility refers to businesses decision and actions taken
for reasons at least partially beyond the firm’s direct economic or technical interest. He also said
they are four pyramids for CSR to be achieved which are; economic, legal, ethnic and
philanthropic.

Walton (1961) argued that CSR refers to the problems that arise when corporate enterprise casts
its shadow on the social scene, and the legitimate, had to address the entire spectrum of
obligations to society, including the most fundamental economic.
According to Upenn (2019), CSR is the social responsibility of business corporation to ensure
that business corporations to ensure that their business does not harm but benefit the society and
the surrounding environment.

2.1.3 Differences between corporate social responsibility and social responsibility

 Definition: Social responsibility refers to the duty of individual and social entities such as
societies, organizations and companies to act in such a way to benefit their environments
and society as a whole while corporate social responsibility refers to the social
responsibility of business corporations to ensure that their business processes do not
harm, but benefit the society and the surrounding environment. (upenn, 2019)
 People involved: In social responsibility, the people involved include an individual or
social entity while in corporate social responsibility, the people involved are business.
(Upenn, 2019)
 Social responsibility involved a citizen responsibility to the society as an individual while
CSR involved the harm or the benefit an organization as to offer the society, employee
and the individual. (Hall, 2018)
 Social responsibility covers a very broad range of human interactions while the corporate
social responsibility is the responsibility that would be limited by what is profitable for
the corporation or at least what would not limit their financial interest. (Ransom, 1996)

2.1.4 History of Corporate Social Responsibility

Through the roots of the concept that we know today as corporate social responsibility have a
long and wide‐ranging history, it is mostly a product of the twentieth century, especially from the
early 1950s up to the present time. In spite of its recent growth and popularity, one can trace for
centuries evidence of the business community's concern for society. To help appreciate the
context in which Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) grew and flourished, I will consider the
late 1800s, or the Industrial Revolution, as a reasonable beginning point for purposes of
discussion.

In addition to considering how the concept has changed and grown in terms of its meaning, we
will consider its practice as well. That is, we will consider how the concept has, in practice,
expanded from its focus on a few stakeholders, close at hand, to be more far reaching and
inclusive, eventually becoming global in scope. In addition, we will briefly consider what
organizational activities and changes have taken place to accommodate these new initiatives, to
the point at which it has become fully institutionalized today. It will become apparent that today,
well into the first decade of the 2000s, CSR in many firms is moving towards full integration
with strategic management and corporate governance. This has included firms developing
management and organizational mechanisms for reporting and control on business's socially
conscious policies and practices. It will also become apparent that the range of stakeholders and
issues defining CSR has broadened, especially in the past several decades. Formal writings on
social responsibility are largely a product of the twentieth century, especially the past 50 years or
so. Though it is possible to see evidence of CSR throughout the world, mostly in the developed
countries, most early writings have been most obvious in the United States where a sizable body
of literature has accumulated (Cavrou, 1999, Crane, Matten, McWilliam, Moon& Siegel, 2009).

In the past decade, however, Europe has become captivated with CSR and there is considerable
evidence that scholars and practitioners in Europe are taking seriously this social concern, often
manifested in the form of formal writings, research, conferences, and consultancies. More
recently, countries in Asia have begun increasing their attention to CSR policies and practices.
At the same time, it must be acknowledged that CSR and related notions have been developed in
practice and thought in a number of other countries and at different times. With this background
in mind, this review of CSR's history will focus primarily on developments in the United States
and Europe Although responsible companies had already existed for more than a century before,
the term Corporate Social Responsibility was officially coined in 1953 by American economist
Howard Bowen in his publication Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. As such, Bowen is
often referred to as the father of CSR. However, it was not until the 1970s that CSR truly began
to take flight in the United States. In 1971, the concept of the ‘Social Contract’ between
businesses and society was introduced by the Committee for Economic Development. This
contract brought forward the idea that companies function and exist because of public consent
and, therefore, there is an obligation to contribute to the needs of society.

By the 1980s, early CSR continued to evolve as more organizations began incorporating social
interests in their business practices while becoming more responsive to stakeholders.
The “corporate paternalists” of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries used some of
their wealth to support philanthropic ventures. By the 1920s discussions about the social
responsibilities of business had evolved into what we can recognize as the beginnings of the
“modern” CSR movement. “The phrase Corporate Social Responsibility was coined in 1953 with
the publication of Bowen’s Social Responsibility of Businessmen” (Corporate Watch Report,
2006). The evolution of CSR is as old as trade and business for any of corporation.
Industrialization and impact of businesses on the society led to a completely new vision. By 80’s
and 90’s CSR was taken into discussion, the first company to implement CSR was Shell in 1998.
(Corporate Watch Report, 2006) With well informed and educated general people it has become
a threat to the corporate and CSR is the solution to it. In 1990 CSR was standard in the industry
with companies like Price Waterhouse Copper and KPMG. CSR evolved beyond code of
conduct and reporting, eventually it started taking initiative in NGO’s, multi stake holder, ethical
trading. (Corporate watch report, 2006, Uk, 2018).

2.1.5 Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate social responsibility is its duties towards its society and the outsiders. According to
Gatewood & Carroll (1981) the strength of an organizations’ commitment to social responsibility
ranges from obstructionist managers choose nor to behave in a social responsible way rather they
behave in unethical and illegal way and do all they can to prevent knowledge of their behavior
from meeting other organizational stakeholder and society at large; defensive approach which
sees the manager to at least show a commitment to ethnical behavior, the manager in this
scenario observed the law as regards social responsibility and does not go beyond the provisions
of the law as regard it; accommodative approach by managers who agree that organizational
members, ought to behave legally and ethnically and balance the interest of stakeholders and
proactive approach which embrace the need to behave in a socially responsible ways.
(Adewoye&Olaoye, 2018)

Other approach includes;

 Classical
 Social contract
 Instrumental
 Legitimacy
  Stakeholder

The “classical” view is best expressed in terms of the work of the economist Milton Friedman
who believed it was wrong for corporate officials to extend their social responsibilities beyond
serving the interests of their shareholders. Friedman said:
“There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and to engage in
activities designed to increase its profit so long as it stays within the rule of the game, which is to say,
engages in open and free competition without deception and fraud.” The “social contract” paradigm
would argue that CSR policies are a necessary part of the process whereby a business relates to
society. This paradigm would say that CSR policies are necessary because society expects
businesses to do it. The “instrumental” approach would say that CSR is a tool in the process
whereby the interests of its prime stakeholders are preserved. The “legitimacy” approach regards
CSR as part of the process whereby a firm gains legitimacy in the eyes of the public, and thereby
a Social License to Operate. Finally, “stakeholder” theory regards CSR as no more than the
process whereby a business fulfils its responsibilities to its stakeholders (Jenkis, 2015).
 2.1.6 Types of Corporate Social Responsibility
The types of Corporate Social Responsibility are philanthropy efforts, environment conservation,
ethnical responsibility, economic responsibility and ethical CSR.

 Philanthropic Efforts:
The largest companies in the world are aligned with philanthropic efforts. Microsoft works
closely with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to bring technology to communities around
the world. The company understands that its success requires not just continued innovation, but
building a next generation capable of understanding, using and improving technology.

Even small companies benefit from aligning with philanthropic causes. A local car wash might
offer schools a platform to host fundraisers for sports teams. Restaurants have fundraising nights
when proceeds benefit a local school or charity. Supporting these courses happens to also be
good marketing, because the community is invited into the business, has a good experience and
sees the company in a positive light. (lenerad, 2019)

 Ethnical responsibility:
Ethical responsibility is about looking after the welfare of the employees by ensuring fair labor
practices for the employees and also the employees of their suppliers. Ethical labor practices for
suppliers mean that the companies will ensure the use of products that have been certified as
meeting fair trade standards.  Ensuring fair labor practices for employees mean that there will be
no gender, race or religious discrimination among the employees and each employee will be
given equal pay for equal work and better living wage compensation. (Nafi, 2018)
 Economic Responsibility:
Economic responsibility is an interconnected field which focuses to strike a balance between
business, environmental and philanthropic practices. Economic responsibility abides by, the set
standards of ethical and moral regulations. In this context, companies try to find out a solution
which can facilitate their business growth and generate profits by benefitting the community and
our society.
Here economic decisions are made by considering their overall effects on society and businesses
at the same time. Hence, economic responsibility can improve business operations while
engaging in sustainable practices. (Nafi, 2018)
 Ethical Corporate Social Responsibility:
Ethical corporate social responsibility programs focus on ensuring that all stakeholders in a
business receive fair treatment, from employees to customers. Ethical responsibilities are self-
enforced initiatives that a company puts in place because they believe it is the morally correct
thing to do rather than out of any obligation. Businesses consider how stakeholders will be
affected by their activity and work to have the most positive impact. Whilst economic and legal
responsibilities are the primary concerns of a company, after addressing these fundamental
requirements businesses can then begin to focus on their ethical responsibilities. Ethical CSR
initiatives are intended to enforce fairer treatment for all employees, with common examples
including paying higher wages, offering jobs to those who might otherwise struggle to find work,
ensuring that decent standards are maintained in factories and refusing to partner in business with
unscrupulous businesses or oppressive countries. (The giving machine 2006)
2.1.7 Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance
Companies expect CSR activities will result in better financial performance. However, studies
regarding the relationship between CSR, as measured by corporate social performance (CSP),
and financial performance show mixed results. The relationship can be positive, negative, or
neutral. Probably this is because there is still no agreement regarding standards and
measurements in social activities. There are differences regarding concepts, operations, and
methodology in defining CSP. Differences could also be found in measuring the financial
performance. Researchers use different financial indicators, such as Net profit, earning per Share
(EPS), Return on Equity (ROE), or Return on Assets (ROA). Each indicator used in measuring
financial performance also has its limitation. Accounting measures, for instance, capture only
historical aspects of firm performance (McGuire, Sondgren, and Schneeweis, 1988). Moreover,
they are subject to managerial manipulation and differences in accounting procedures. While the
movements of stock prices often do not reflect a company’s real condition. (Susanto, 2012)

2.1.8 Benefits of corporate social responsibility

Corporate social responsibility as some many benefits, it as its benefit to the employees,
society, companies.
2.1.8.1 Benefit of corporate social responsibility to companies
Wining with the integrity, the 2000 report of the business impact task force of business in the
community (United Kingdom) identified the benefits to the companies of engaging in CSR as
being;

 Reputation; affected by the cost and benefits of a company’s goods and services, how it
treats it employees and the environment, its records on human rights, its investment in
local government and even its prompt of bills;
 Competitiveness: the advantages of good supplier and customer relationships, workforce
diversity and work or life balance, as well as efficient management of environmental
issues;
 Risk management: better control of risk- financial, regulatory, environmental, or from
consumers’ attitude.

An emphasis on social responsibility can attract customers. A poll conducted by opinion

research corporation shows that 89% of purchase by adult are influenced by a company’s
reputation. CSR also benefits companies by enabling them to recruit a high- quality labour
force. The reputation of the firm and goodwill associated with socially responsible actions
attract talented prospective employees, people seeking an employer for which they would be
proud to work. (Nana & Doris, 2016)
2.1.9.2 Benefit of Corporate Social Responsibility to the society
CSR is the way to show the human face of your business. Businesses deal with humans so you
can only connect with them through human language by showing some humanity. For most
businesses, it makes sense to get involved in progression of the community solely, depending on
CSR initiatives related to your product or service.
CSR initiatives can be the best way to contribute to the society and its people. Through local or
national charitable contributions businesses can help the society. Businesses can get involved in
the society and help it to progress by taking social initiatives on behalf of the company such as
investing in education programs for the poor and street children and homeless care activities for
homeless people or refugees. They can support a local charity making financial contributions in
effective charitable projects. If you are a restaurant owner you may provide food to local
homeless groups or to orphanages free of cost.

Businesses can pay attention to material recyclability, develop better product durability and
functionality and use more renewable resources at lesser costs to keep the environment as clean
as possible and contribute to the ecology of the country. (Nafi, 2018)

2.1.9.3 Benefit of Corporate Social Responsibility to the employees

 Increased Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Improved Employee Relationships
If employees think their employer is “doing the right thing,” it seems they are more likely to “do
the right thing” themselves. When organizations implement best practices in CSR, employees
are more likely to engage in cooperative behaviors towards their coworkers and the organization,
like going out of their way to help their teammate. Similarly, CSR promotes higher-quality and
closer relationships between employees.(Griek, 2017).
 Enhanced Employee Identification with the Organization
When employees feel that their organization is socially responsible, they experience a
greater sense of identity with the business they work for. In fact, social responsibility can
be more important than financial success in determining how much employees identify with their
workplace. (Griek, 2017)
 Improved Retention and Organizational Commitment
Feeling positively about their organization’s CSR initiative has been shown to increase
employee’s intentions to stay with their current employer, and their overall commitment to the
organization. Commitment includes a huge range of positive attitudes, including how much
employees like their organization, make personal sacrifices for the organization, and see their
own future and success tied to the organization’s success. (Griek, 2017)
 More Attractive Company Culture to Prospective Employees
Along with increasing current employees’ commitment, CSR can also make organizations
look more attractive to applicants and prospective employees. In the age when millennial look to
work for “high impact” organizations, engaging in CSR may help companies to attract top talent
over other organizations. For example, a survey by the non-profit Net Impact found that 72
percent of students about to enter the workforce stated that a job where they can “make an
impact” was important for their happiness. (Griek, 2017)
 Better Employee Engagement and Performance
Employees have also been shown to be more engaged and to perform better when they feel good
about their company’s CSR involvement. By making employees aware of the company’s efforts
to give back and celebrating these efforts, you can help employees become more actively
engaged with their work, and do better work overall. (Griek, 2017)
 Increased Creativity
Finally, CSR can increase employees’ creative involvement, including generating new but
practical ideas, originality, and creative problem-solving. When organizations express their
values and passions through CSR, employees may be inspired to develop new and better ways to
do their work (Griek, 2017).
2.1.10 Disadvantages of corporate social responsibility
 Shift in the profit-making objective:
Economist Milton Friedman often criticized CSR by saying that it shifts the company’s focus of
the profit-making objective. For any financial entity, profit-making is the utmost priority.
However, when you get involved in CSR activities, you need to cut on the profit margin, which
can make your shareholders unhappy. (Mark, 2014)
 Hamper the reputation of your company:
CSR policies mandate the companies to reveal the shortcomings of their own products in case
they are found to violate the CSR program. If your existing customers find out the flaws of your
products, they are most likely to lose faith in your company. So, it can reflect negatively on your
sales figures as well. (Mark, 2014)

 Customers can get impatient:

Everyone will appreciate you for adopting CSR program for the company at the beginning. In
fact, it can gain your company a significant amount of popularity in the market for being
associated with a good cause. However, if the program does not offer instant results, people may
think this is nothing but a PR stunt. That won’t be good for your company’s reputation. (Mark,
2014)
2.1.11 Improving corporate social responsibility
 Board Committees must take CSR seriously
CSR is a lot of money. The keen challenge is to move beyond issuing cheques or creating
physical assets. The need of the hour is some innovative, new, replicate and scalable initiatives.
(Marya, 2016)
 View Different Problems with different Lens
There lies a huge challenge in handling hardware and software behind a livelihood or agricultural
practice put in place for CSR. For example, building toilets is easy but getting people to use it is
difficult. People solving two problems with same lens. Getting the right mechanism to define
outcome and what milestone one is putting now to 5 years hence is important. CSR initiatives
whether product or service is not worth it if it is not big enough or focused and not making
asmall dent. (Marya, 2016)
 Get Employees Involved
To achieve a fully realized strategy, you will have to get your employees on board. Start by
encouraging them to draw stronger lines between work/life. Encouraging a healthy work/life
balance is a great way to kick-start your CSR policy. Beyond that, encourage and perhaps
incentives them to do something for charity. It maybe they are already doing something that they
could form into a charity event. (Reyland, 2017)
 Start Small:
You don’t have to spend thousands to do well. Start small in your local community. Purchase
from local suppliers, sponsor local events, donates to local charities. It can be as little as
purchasing organic milk from a local supplier rather than from Tesco. However, you choose to
support your local community, don’t be afraid to shout about it (Reyland, 2017).

2.1.12 Factor influencing the implementation of CSR

 Lack of Community Participation in CSR Activities
Majorly, communities who are intended beneficiaries of a CSR program show less interest which
will affect their participation and contribution. Also, very little efforts are being made to spread
CSR within local communities and instill confidence in the people. The situation is further
aggravated by inadequate communication between the organization and the community at the
grassroots level. (Fiinovation, 2018).
 Issues of transparency
Lack of transparency is one of the key issues. There is a perception that partner NGOs or local
implementation agencies do not share adequate information and make efforts to disclose
information on their programs, address concerns, assess impacts and utilize funds. This
perceived lack of transparency has a negative impact on the process of trust building between
companies and local communities, which is key to the success of any CSR initiative.
(Finovation, 2018)
 Social Impact Management
This addresses the issue of inclusive growth is more than mere poverty alleviation. It seeks to
address the problem of equity through the enhancement of opportunities for everybody.
(Fiinovation, 2018)

2.1.13 Concept of organizational performance

Organizational performance involves analyzing a company’s performance against its objectives

and goals. In other words, organizational performance comprises real results or outputs
compared with intended outputs.

Looking at organizational performance, it can be divided into two world, organization and
performance.  ‘Organizational ‘is the adjective of ‘organization.’ An organization is an organized
group of individuals with a specific purpose. ‘Performance ‘is the process or action of
performing a function or task. (Market business news 2019)
Organizational performance means the actual output or results of an organization as measured
against its intended outputs (or goals and objectives).

Performance, therefore, can be defined as the evaluation of the constituents that try to assess the
capability and ability of a company in achieving the constituents’ aspiration levels using
efficiency, effectiveness, or social referent criteria, which are briefly explained below. (Hashem,
2015)
According to Richard, the organizational performance includes three specific areas of firm
outcomes:
 Financial performance (profits, return on assets, return on investment, etc.);
 Product market performance (sales, market share, etc.); and
 Shareholder return (total shareholder return, economic value added, etc.).
Specialists in many fields are concerned with organizational performance including strategic
planners, operations managers, finance directors, legal advisors, entrepreneurs (owner of the
organization).

2.1.13.1 Definition of Organizational Goal

Organizational goals are strategic objectives that a company's management establishes to outline
expected outcomes and guide employees' efforts. (Rouse, 2019)

Generally speaking, goals are the objectives, aims or purposes which are to be achieved by an
organization over varying periods of time. Goals are the result of planning which is related to
future as described by Vroom and Etzioni. Planning is required both for choosing the goals and
attaining the goals. (Kasyap, 2019)

There are many advantages to establishing organizational goals: They guide employee efforts,
justify a company's activities and existence, define performance standards, provide constraints
for pursuing unnecessary goals and function as behavioral incentives. (Rouse, 2019)

2.1.13.2 Definition is Performance Management

Performance management is an ongoing process of communication between a supervisor and an
employee that occurs throughout the year, in support of accomplishing the strategic objectives of
the organization. The communication process includes clarifying expectations, setting objectives,
identifying goals, providing feedback, and reviewing results. (Berkely, 2019)

2.1.13.3 Benefit of Performance Management

 Goal setting and revising:  Every employee needs a clear understanding of
expectations for their work. They also need context, which includes an understanding of
where they fit into the company and how they contribute to the overall success of the
organization. This starts with company and executive goal setting, which cascades into
manager, team, and individual goal setting. (Puckett, 2019)
 Management and coaching: Though some goals may need adjusting, other times
employees just may not have the skills to reach them yet. Performance appraisals were
intended to identify gaps in employee skillsets. (Puckett, 2019)
 Development planning: Employees need regular, quality feedback on their performance
and specific details on how they can improve. Once skill gaps are identified, employees
have clear insight into the skills they need to develop if they wish to progress in their
career. Be sure that your workforce knows the purpose of performance management is to
aid in their development and give them control over their career progression .(Puckett,
2019)
 Rewards and recognition:  Recognition helps employees receive a balance of positive to
negative feedback. A little unexpected appreciation can go a long way. It satisfies our
fundamental need for praise, reinforces the right behaviors and culture, and leverages
social engagement. Rewards and recognition can improve employee retention and
engagement, which creates ambassadors of your organization and its culture. (Puckett,
2019)
2.1.14 Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Performance
It is recognized that sustainable development and reduction of poverty are the key issues that
need to be addressed by the governments, mostly in the developing world. However, the
government cannot meet this alone without the help of the private sector. Policy makers are
paying much attention to the potential contribution of the private sector to such policy objectives.
As the issue of sustainable development becomes more important, CSR becomes an element that
addresses these issues and therefore it becomes more vital in the daily operations. According to
Pranjali (2011) The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) describes
CSR as a contribution to sustainable economic development; It is said that there is no way to
avoid paying serious attention to corporate social responsibility: the costs of failing are simply
too high. There are countless win opportunities waiting to be discovered: every activity in a
firm’s value chain overlaps in some way with social factors, everything from how you buy or
procure to how you do your research, yet very few companies have thought about this. The goal
is to leverage your company’s unique capabilities in supporting social causes, and improve your
competitive context at the same time. The job of today’s leaders is to stop being defensive and
start thinking systematically about corporate responsibility according to Michael Porter (2005)
who says successful executive or leaders know that CSR is inevitable and their long-term success
is based on continued good relationship with the society.

Corporate social responsibility is applicable to almost all organization but the banks are keener to
these programs as they have to do extra in order to satisfy their multiplicity of stakeholders.
According to Nwankwo (1991) he points the advantages of CSR as, maximizing profit to
shareholders who are the real owners of the business, maintaining optimal liquidity for
depositors, Complying with regulators demand, Satisfying the deficit sector demand for credits,
contributing to the development of the economy and Satisfying the needs of the immediate
community in which they operate. (Emily, Mwalti, Robert, Musiega&Maniagi 2014)

2.2 Theoretical Review

A theory is a formal statement of rules on which a statement of study is based or ideas that are
suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation. (Cambridge,
2019). The theories include,

a. Fiduciary capitalism theory

b. Stakeholders theory
c. Agency theory
2.2.1 Fiduciary Capitalism Theory
Fiduciary Capitalism Theory of CSR, which leads to shareholder value-oriented management,
holds that the only social responsibility of businesses is to make a profit and, in the supreme
goal, to increase the company’s economic value for its shareholders. This is the theory that
underlies traditional neoclassical economic theory, primarily concerned with shareholder utility
maximization. The Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, with his wife Rose Friedman said that In
such an economy, there is one and only one social responsibility of business; to use resources
and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the
game, which is to say, engages in open and free competitions, without deception or fraud
according to Friedman and Friedman (1962). Generally, shareholder value-oriented goes along
with the Agency Theory according to Ross (1973), Jensen and Meckling( 1976), which has been
dominant in many business schools in the last decades. In this theory, owners are the principal
and managers are the agent. These later bear fiduciary duties towards the formers, and are
generally subject to strong incentives in order to alienate their economic interests with those of
the owners, and with the maximization of shareholder value. (Emilly, Mwalati& et al)

2.2.2 Stakeholder’stheory
To fully incorporate CSR into a business strategy, the individual business firm and its
management must understand the firm’s relationship with the stakeholder. The evolution of a
business firm’s growing responsibility to society, beyond that of merely maximizing profit for
shareholder, has led to the institution of stakeholder theory. The paradigm has shifted from a
business strategy solely focused on profit as the community now believes that business firms
have a more profound responsibility to its stakeholders, even if some profits are sacrificed in the
process (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Maon, Lindgreen, Swean, (2009) proposes that a balance
must be struck between returning profits to shareholders and managing the complex interests of
stakeholder groups. The stakeholder idea is a central dogma in regards to CSR (Maon et al.).
Stakeholders represent a nearly endless group of people, depending on the industry and locale in
which the firm operates (Maon et al., 2009). Stakeholders range from the employees of a
business firm to the residents of a town in which a business operates. The stakeholders are the
connection between the goals of the business firm and the societal expectations for it (Maon et
al.; Dobers, 2009; Smith, 2011). Being able to distinguish the goals and expectations of those
with established interests (stakeholders) in a firm and those with none will help an organization
avoid the misappropriation of valuable resources (Maon et al.). Management is tasked with
solving the problem of how to prioritize and address stakeholder interests, while simultaneously
maintaining profitability. In order to perform their jobs adequately, managers must distinguish
which stakeholder groups warrant expedited managerial responses and which will be addressed
in the near future (Dobers, 2009; Maon et al., 2009). It is important to note that no stakeholder
group’s concerns should go unattended. The large number of stakeholders and stakeholder
groups make it necessary for managers to partition stakeholders by relevance to company
operations (Dobers; Maon et al.; Smith, 2011). Maon et al. suggest that dividing stakeholders
into primary and secondary classifications will allow managers to more effectively address
stakeholders by importance. Perhaps the most important aspect of stakeholder relations, in
regard to CSR, is transparency and adequate reporting of CSR cumulative results (Gupta, 2012;
Maon et al., 2009; Smith, 2011). Transparency promotes stakeholder trust and builds positive
relationships between the firm and stakeholder groups (Maon et al.). CSR initiatives must be
periodically evaluated to ensure they conform to company strategies and do not jeopardize
financial sustainability and profits (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). In addition to periodic evaluation,
annual reports containing fully disclosed financial and social cost/benefit analysis of CSR
activities will help maintain an environment of transparency and trust between a firm and its
stakeholders (Gupta; Maon et al.). Gupta suggests that just as increasing focus on marketing
within a firm does not guarantee increased profits; there is also no reason to think the CSR firms
will always outperform non-CSR firms (brown, 2013).
2.2.3 Agency theory
According to Ross, agency theory proposes that during a transaction, one transaction (the
principal) designates another person (the agent) to act on his or her behalf. This requires the
principal to trust the agent under imperfect information and uncertain outcomes (Ross, 1973).
Friedman (1970) draws on agency theory in his criticism of CSR, explaining that managers, as
agents for the owners of the firm, have a responsibility to maximize the corporation’s profits; to
spend money doing anything else is an abuse of the relationship. However, Carroll (1979) points
out that the economic and societal interests of the firm are often intertwined; for example,
product safety is of concern both at the economic and societal levels. Therefore, practicing CSR
may be in the best economic interests of the firm. (Foote, Gaffeny & Evans, 2010).
2.3 Empirical Review
Emillyet al (2014) examined effect of corporate social responsibility on organizational
performance; banking industry Kenya, kakamega county. The research was carried out on
selected commercial banks in Kakamega County and cooperative bank. The sample size of 50,
was picked, were he researched on the philanthropic, ethnical, government policy and
environment focused on corporate social responsibility on organization performance where they
came on the conclusion that, the philanthropic responsibility of a bank has an impact on bank
performance based on customer retention, the government policy as affect their interaction with
their customers which made them more responsible to their, the environment focused was not
really focused on during the cause of the study.

Amole, Adebiyi & Awolaja (2012) examined corporate social responsibility and profitability of
Nigeria bank- a causal relationship. This study examined the relationship between corporate
social responsibility and profitability where first bank was used as their case study the profit after
tax was used for the study as the secondary data, from 2001-2010, the hypothesis was tested, the
hypothesis tested is; is there any significant relationship between CSR expenditure bank
profitability, the theory used for this study was stakeholder’s theory, SPSS was used in analyzing
the company’s data. They came to the conclusion that there is positive relationship between CSR
and bank profitability and government needs to adopt a measure that monitors organization fairly
investment in social responsibility in order to avoid high costs on paper for CSR to reduce tax
burden and without given anything back to the society.

Mubeen and Arooj (2014) examined impact of corporate social responsibility on firm’s financial
performance and shareholders wealth. In this study, three variables were selected consisting the
independent variable (corporate social responsibility), and the dependent variable (firms’
financial performance and shareholders wealth) to conduct the research. They selected 10
companies that are highly rated as corporate social responsibility firms and 10 non corporate
social responsibility firms and evaluate their financial performance measures in accounting term
like the ROA and ROE and for shareholders wealth, EPS and stock price to check whether there
is any difference between the non-CSR firm and the CSR firm. They came to the conclusion that
CSR is very important in attaining financial performance in today competitive environment.

Shaista and sara (2014) examined impact of CSR on organizational performance. The aim of the
study was focused on proving importance of CSR for the enhancement of the performance of the
organization. The research was conducted on six companies that are listed in Pakistani India.
Two variables were also consisted during the research which is CSR (the independent variable)
and the organizational performance (the dependent variable). They came to the conclusion that
every organization should focus on CSR activities as these will not only help to improve firm’s
image but also add advantage to the society.

Nana and Doris (2006) examined the impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational
performance: A case study of Vodafone Ghana limited. The aim of the study is to assessing the
impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational performance. The study administered
questionnaire to the management and staff of Vodafone Ghana ltd. 20 respondents were
randomly selected among the management and staff through random sampling technique. One of
the questions is does CSR enhance the performance of the business? They came to the
conclusion that one of the best ways to achieve CSR and get additional reward, is by taking up
CSR that satisfy stakeholders needs.

2.4 Conceptual Framework

Source: Emily, Mwalti, Robert et al, 2014

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Research methodology is the specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process
and analyze information about a study. It is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods
applied to a field of study.

This chapter contains the area of study, research design, sample size, source of data, research
instrument, validity and reliability of the research, data analysis.

3.1 Research design

The research design is to sheds more light on the topic effect of corporate social responsibility on
organizational performance in Bowen University.

Research design is the framework of research methods and techniques chosen by a researcher
(Adi, 2020). The research design adopted is qualitative research design which deals with
relationship between collected data and observation based on mathematical calculations.

3.2 Area of the study

The area of the study for the research is Bowen University, Iwo Osun state.

3.3 Population of the study

The population of the study is the entire staff of the directorate of corporate affairs unit and staff
of the administrative staff. This study will be considering (12) department of the administrative
of Bowen university. The population of the study is thus one hundred and twenty two (122).

3.4 Sample size and Sampling techniques

Sample size measures the number of individual samples measured or observations used in a
survey or experiment (Jon, 2018). The sampling technique that will be adopted is random
sampling where it gives room for everyone in the population of being selected. The sample size
that will be adopted is Taro Yamane formula (1967)

N
n= 2
1+ N (e)

Where:

N = population size

n = sample size required

e = allowable error (10%)

Based on the formula above,

122
n= 2
1+ {122 ( 0.1 )

n¿55
Based on the Yamane’s formulae, 55 respondents will be randomly selected and questionnaire
will be administered. One (1) copy of questionnaire will be administered to each respondents in
the administrative building and directorate of corporate affair unit rounding up a total of 55
copies of questionnaire.

3.5 Source & methods of data collection

For the purpose of this study, primary and secondary data will be utilized to collate information.
Primary data refers to sourcing for data for the first time such as interviews, observation,
questionnaires etc. while secondary data are already processed data that is collected from
literatures etc.

3.6 Research instrument

Questionnaire will be used to collect data for this study. The questionnaire will be well arranged
to achieve the objective of the study. the questionnaire will be divided into two-part section A
and section B. section A will contain the bio data of the respondent while section B will address
the objective of the study containing questions and statement in Likert format scale ranging from
Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Undecided (U), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD), the
response will serve as answers to the questions.

3.7 Validity &Reliability of Research Instrument

In order to ensure that we have the right instrument used for the research it is necessary to follow
two criteria which is validity and reliability. Validity is a quality of measurement indicating the
degree to which the measure reflects the underlying construct while reliability is the ability to
measure the same thing consistently indicating the degree to which the measure is consistent. In
order to ensure validity and reliability, the questionnaire must be in line with the objective of the
study, also with the help of my supervisor, the questionnaire will be subjected to expert review in
order to ensure the reliability, validity and correctness.

3.8 Method of data analysis

Data collected from the study will be sorted, edited and coded to have the required quality and
accuracy. Linear regression test will be used to test the hypotheses and analyze the opinion of
respondents as regards the research subject and reach meaningful conclusions as to whether
Corporate Social Responsibility has effect on the organizational performance

Simple linear regression model will be used to test hypothesis 1,2 and 3 which is a linear
regression model with a single explanatory variable i.e. it concerns two-dimensional sample
points with one independent variable and one dependent variable,

Simple Regression Model:

The formula is given as:

y = α0 +βx + ε
Where:
y = dependent variable
α0 = constant
β = coefficient
x = independent variable
ε = error term

CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.0 Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of corporate social responsibility on
organizational performance in Bowen University. The specific objectives that guided the design
of the study include:

a. To investigate philanthropic activities on corporate social responsibility on organizational

performance.
 b. To investigate the effect of financial performance on corporate social responsibility.

c. To investigate the effect of ethnical belief on corporate social responsibility

This part of the research work thus focused on the report of the findings and analysis of data
obtained from the field. The result presented here considered prominent variables related to
corporate social responsibility as conceptualized in the conceptual framework for the study. This
chapter is divided into two parts; frequencies for demographic information of respondents and
evaluations of claims of significant difference and significant relationship between variables. All
statistical tests were set at p=0.05 level of significance. The decision rule applied indicated that
the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the research hypothesis if the computed p value is
lesser or equal to 0.05.

4.1 Data Presentation

Demographic Information of the Respondents

Table 1: Gender of the respondents

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Male 29 52.7 52.7 52.7

Female 26 47.3 47.3 100.0

Total 55 100.0 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2020

Table 1 above shows the gender distribution of the respondents. It is revealed that twenty-nine
(29) respondents were male, which constitute 52.7%, while twenty-six (26) were female which
constitute 47.3%. This implies that, male staff are more than female staff at Bowen University.

Table 2: Age of the respondents

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
 Valid 20 30yrs 6 10.9 10.9 10.9

31-40yrs 13 23.6 23.6 34.5

41-50yrs 21 38.3 38.3 72.7

51-60yrs 11 20.0 20.0 92.7

61 yrs and above 4 7.3 7.3 100.0

Total 55 100.0 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2020

Table 2 above shows the age distribution of the respondents. It is revealed that six (6)
respondents were of age range between 20 to 30 years representing 10.9%, thirteen (13) were
between 31-40 years representing 23.6%, twenty-one (21) respondents were of age range
between 41-50 representing 38.3%, eleven (11) respondents were of age range between 51-60
representing 20% while four (4) respondents representing 7.3% were between 61 and above.
This implies that, Bowen University staff are of the middle age ranging between 31-50 years
more than other age bracket.

Table 3: Marital status of respondent

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Single 13 23.6 23.6 23.6

Married 35 63.6 63.6 87.3

Divorced 3 5.5 5.5 92.7

 Widower 4 7.3 7.3 100.0

Total 55 100.0 100.0

Field Survey, 2020

Table 3 above shows the marital status of the respondents. It is revealed that thiteen (3)
respondents representing 23.6% were single, thirty-five (35) representing 63.6% were married, 3
(three) representing 5.5% were divorced and four (4) representing 7.3% were widower. This
implies that, Bowen University staff mostly were married people.
Table 4: Highest Educational Qualification of the respondents

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid SSCE 5 9.1 9.1 9.1

OND/NCE 12 21.8 21.8 30.9

BSC/HND 10 18.2 18.2 49.1

MSC 19 34.5 34.5 83.6

Ph.D 9 16.4 16.4 100.0

Total 55 100.0 100.0

Field Survey, 2020

Table 4 above shows the educational qualifications of the respondents. It is revealed that five (5)
respondents representing 9.1% were SSCE holder, twelve (2) were OND/NCE holder
representing 21.8%, ten (10) respondents were BSC/HND holders representing 18.2%, nineteen
(19) respondents were MSC holders representing 34.5%, while 9 (9) respondents representing
16.4% were Ph.D holder. This implies that, Bowen University tends to employ graduates with
MSC. than other degree holders.
Table 5: Working experience of the respondents
 Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid less than 5years 5 9.1 9.1 9.1

6-10 years 13 23.6 23.6 32.7

11-15 years 12 21.8 21.8 54.5

16-20 years 10 18.2 18.2 72.7

21-25 years 7 12.7 12.7 85.5

26-30 years 2 3.6 3.6 89.1

31 years above 6 10.9 10.9 100.0

Total 55 100.0 100.0

Field Survey, 2020

Table 5 above shows the working experiences of the respondents. It is revealed that 5 (5)
respondents representing 9.1% working experience were below 5 years, thirteen (13) working
experience were within 6 to 10 years representing 23.6%, twelve (12) respondents working
experience were within 11 to 15 years representing 21.8%, ten (10) respondents working
experience were within 16 to 20 years representing 18.2%,, seven (7) respondents working
experience were within 21 to 25 years representing 12.7%, two (2) respondents working
experience were within 26 to 30 years representing 3.6%, while six (6) respondents working
experience were 31 years and above representing 10.9%. This implies that, Bowen University
has a very good staff strength and high retention rate with most of their staff with above 10 years
working experience.

4.2 Test of Hypotheses

Ho1: philanthropic activities as a corporate social responsibility have no significant effect on
organizational performance in Bowen University.
Table 4.2.11: Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Square Estimate
1 .403a .162 .130 1.64016
a. Predictors: (Constant), incentives, charity
Source: SPSS Printout (2020)
The table 1above depicts the model summary which reveals an R value of 0.403 (40.3%). This
signifies that there is significant relationship between philanthropic activities as a corporate
social responsibility (proxied by incentives and charity) and organizational performance. The R2
value of 0.162 obtained implies that the combined effect of the sub-variables of philanthropic
activities 16.2% of variations in organizational performance. Also, a very close Adjusted R
Square value of 13% signifies a goodness of fit of the regression model and that the model
proved to be useful for making inference about the influence of philanthropic activities as a
corporate social responsibility on organizational performance.
Table 4.2. 2: ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 27.096 2 13.548 5.036 .042b
1 Residual 139.886 52 2.690
Total 166.962 54
a. Dependent Variable: Organizational Performance
b. Predictors: (Constant), incentives, charity
Source: SPSS Printout (2020)
The analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table presented above revealed a P-value of 0.042 which is
less than the critical value of 0.05 at 95% confidence level. Therefore, the null hypothesis which
stated that “philanthropic activities as a corporate social responsibility have no significant effect
on organizational performance in Bowen University” is rejected while the alternative hypothesis
is accepted. Hence, is can be concluded that performance of an organization is a function of
philanthropic activities which is a corporate social responsibility.
Table 3: Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) .632 .433 3.787 .003

1 Incentives .087 .161 .069 .543 .009

Charity .356 .114 .396 2.116 .003

a. Dependent Variable: Organizational Performance
Source: SPSS Printout (2020)
The table presented above provides more information about the influence of the sub-variables of
the independent variable (philanthropic activities) on the dependent variable (organizational
performance). Based on the standardized Beta () obtained in the table, it can be inferred that
organizational performance of the organization would increase by 63.2% when all other sub-
variable of philanthropic activities is held constant. Organizational performance of the
organization would increase by 8.7% and 35.6% when there is an increase in incentives and
charity. Furthermore, the P-value obtained for each of the variables is less than the critical value
of 0.05 (5%) at 95% confidence level. Hence, charity and incentives of an organization to both
external and internal environment have significant influence on organizational performance.
Ho2: financial performance as a corporate social responsibility has no significant effect on
organization performance
Table 4.2.3: Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Square Estimate
1 .462a .214 .184 1.12006
a. Predictors: (Constant), cost implication, market value
Source: SPSS Printout (2020)
The table 1above depicts the model summary which reveals an R value of 0.462 (46.2%). This
signifies that there is significant relationship between financial performance as a corporate social
responsibility (proxied by cost implication and market value) and organizational performance.
The R2 value of 0.214 obtained implies that the combined effect of the sub-variables of financial
performance 21.4% of variations in organizational performance. Also, a very close Adjusted R
Square value of 18.4% signifies a goodness of fit of the regression model and that the model
proved to be useful for making inference about the influence of financial performance on
organizational performance.
Table 2: ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 67.958 2 8.873 7.073 .002b
1 Residual 97.223 52 1.255
Total 165.181 54
a. Dependent Variable: Organizational Performance
b. Predictors: (Constant), cost implication, market value
Source: SPSS Printout (2020)
The analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table presented above revealed a P-value of 0.002 which is
less than the critical value of 0.05 at 95% confidence level. Therefore, the null hypothesis which
stated that “financial performance as a corporate social responsibility has no significant effect on
organization performance” is rejected while the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Hence, it can
be concluded that corporate social responsibility of an organization is a function of its financial
performance.

Table 3: Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) .457 .756 6.838 .000

Cost implication .084 .161 .066 .522 .004
 Market value .427 .114 .472 3.749 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Organizational Performance
Source: SPSS Printout (2020)
The table presented above provides more information about the influence of the sub-variables of
the independent variable (financial performance) on the dependent variable (organizational
performance). Based on the standardized Beta () obtained in the table, it can be inferred that
organizational performance of the organization would increase by 45.7% when all other sub-
variable of financial performance are held constant. Organizational performance of the
organization would increase by 8.4% and 42.7% when there is an increase in cost implication
and market value. Furthermore, the P-value obtained for each of the variables is less than the
critical value of 0.05 (5%) at 95% confidence level. Hence, cost implication and market value
have significant influence on organizational performance.
Ho3: ethnical belief has no significant effect on organization performance
Table 1: Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Square Estimate
1 .373a .139 .106 .74637
a. Predictors: (Constant), Culture, Moral
Source: SPSS Printout (2020)
The table 1 above depicts the model summary which reveals an R value of 0.704 (70.4%). This
signifies that there is significant relationship between ethnical belief of corporate social
responsibility (proxied by Culture and Moral) and organizational performance. The R2 value of
0.497 obtained implies that the combined effect of the sub-variables of ethical belief of corporate
social responsibility is 49.7% of variations in organizational performance. Also, a very close
Adjusted R Square value of 48.5% signifies a goodness of fit of the regression model and that the
model proved to be useful for making inference about the influence of ethical belief of corporate
social responsibility on organizational performance.
Table 2: ANOVAa
Model Sum of Df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
 Regression 4.669 2 2.334 4.191 .021b
1 Residual 28.967 52 .557
Total 33.636 54
a. Dependent Variable: Organizational Performance
b. Predictors: (Constant), Culture, moral
Source: SPSS Printout (2020)
The analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table presented above revealed a P-value of 0.021 which is
less than the critical value of 0.05 at 95% confidence level. Therefore, the null hypothesis which
stated that “there are no ethical belief of corporate social responsibility effect on organization
performance” is rejected while the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Hence, is can be concluded
that performance of an organization is a function of ethical belief of corporate social
responsibility.
Table 3: Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized T Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) .482 .617 6.750 .000

1 Culture .235 .135 .224 1.738 .008

Morale .191 .080 .308 2.392 .020

a. Dependent Variable: Organizational Performance
Source: SPSS Printout (2020)
The table presented above provides more information about the influence of the sub-variables of
the independent variable (ethical belief of corporate social responsibility) on the dependent
variable (organizational performance). Based on the standardized Beta () obtained in the table,
it can be inferred that organizational performance of the organization would increase by 48.2%
when all other sub-variable of hindrance of corporate social responsibility are held constant.
Organizational performance of the organization would increase by 23.5% and 19.1% when there
is an increase in culture and moral. Furthermore, the P-value obtained for each of the variables is
less than the critical value of 0.05 (5%) at 95% confidence level. Hence, enable culture and
moral practice in the area have significant influence on organizational performance.
4.3 Discussion of Findings
The study examined the effects of corporate social responsibility on organizational performance
in Bowen University. Findings from the study revealed that there is significant effect of
philanthropic activities as a corporate social responsibility on organization performance. The
result is in line with the assertions of Lenerad, (2019) who pointed out that charity and incentive
to other stakeholders is as means of inviting the public and society to participate in the running
of the organization which in turn improve their organization especially in education sectors,
Supporting these courses happens to also be good marketing, because the community is invited
into the business, has a good experience and sees the company in a positive light.
Also, the study revealed that there is significant effect of financial performance as a corporate
social responsibility on organization performance, the result is in line with Marya, (2016)
revealed that the cost of social responsibility should be effective, i.e. the benefit will be more
than cost before it can be implemented in other to improve the profitability of the organization

Finally, the study further revealed that ethical belief of corporate social responsibility has no
significant effect on the organization performance. This is consistent with the findings of
Reyland, (2017) that corporate social responsibility is a way to give back to the environment,
some environment does not enable it to happen while culture or religion also affect it , however
if the organization doesn’t give back to the society, there is a threat to its profitability by other
competitor.

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter shows the summary of this research work, draws some conclusions and provides
relevant and appropriate recommendations.
5.1 Summary
The main objective of this research work is to examine influence of corporate social
responsibility on organizational performance in Bowen University. To achieve the main
objective, this study has three specific objectives and three hypotheses. For the purpose of this
study, three distinct model for each hypothesis was used. The total population of the study
consisted of one hundred and twenty two (122) staffs of the administrative department of Bowen
University. The study adopted a linear regression as an inferential statistic to analysis the effect
of philanthropic activities, financial performance and ethical belief of corporate social
responsibility on overall organization performance while frequency count and percentile were
adopted as descriptive statistics to project the most occurrence for the demographic data. The
data was extracted using primary source of data with the use of self-structured questionnaire and
was collected by the research.
5.2 Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study and coupled with submissions from various literatures, it can
be affirmed that organization performance can be influenced by corporate social responsibility,
and also if this corporate social responsibility was hindered it will significantly affect its
financial and non-financial performance in educational sectors in Nigeria. The findings of this
study will contribute to existing research on this topic.
5.3 Recommendations
The study makes the following recommendations based on the result of this research that various
stakeholders should be very aware of the effect of corporate social responsibility which might
not be considered before to be a factor contributing to organizational performance has having a
very significant contribution to it henceforth,
Also,
i. Companies should expand their activities by going into other areas like health, education,
charity giving, instead of focusing on only infrastructure, sport and entertainment.
ii. Government should partner with companies to ensure that company’s management
observes key principles of Corporate Social Responsibility in order to ensure effectiveness
in its running.
 iii. The society should ensure regular and effective monitoring and supervision of
company’s activities as well be educated and become more acquainted with the concept of
Corporate Social Responsibility.
5.4 Suggestion for Further Studies
The study focused on the effects of corporate social responsibility on organizational performance
using few proxies within a single sectors (Education) in the economy. Other studies should try to
encompass more proxies to determine the existences of relationship between corporate social
responsibility and performance of organization.
5.5 Limitations of the study
The accuracy of the results in this study was limited to the reliability of the information provided
by the respondents based on the content of the research instruments where all the data were
extracted. Also, limitation of this study is the inability to generalize the findings from this study
to the whole nation because only Bowen University staff was covered.