Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804
Available online atScience
Procedia Computer www.sciencedirect.com
120 (2017) 797–804 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804

9th International Conference on Theory and Application of Soft Computing, Computing with Words and Perception, ICSCCW 2017, 24-25
9th
August
9th International
2017, Budapest,
International Conference
Hungary
Conference on Theory
on Theory and Application of Softand Application
Computing, Computing of
withSoft
WordsComputing, Computing
and Perception, ICSCCW with
2017, 24-25
August 2017,Words
Budapest, and Perception, ICSCCW 2017, 24-25 August 2017, Budapest, Hungary
Hungary

The Impact of Environmental, Social and Governance

The Impact of Environmental, Social and Governance
Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility on Economic
Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility on Economic
Performance: Australian Evidence
Performance: Australian Evidence

Ismail Sila*a
*a
, Kemal Cekaa
Ismail Sila , Kemal Cek
a
Near East University, P.O. BOX: 99138, Nicosia, North Cyprus, Mersin 10 Turkey
a
Near East University, P.O. BOX: 99138, Nicosia, North Cyprus, Mersin 10 Turkey

Abstract
Abstract
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a concept with constantly increasing importance for businesses and their
Corporate social
stakeholders. Theresponsibility
environmental, (CSR)
socialisanda concept with (ESG)
governance constantly increasing
dimensions importance
of CSR for businesses
performance and their
may contribute to
stakeholders. The environmental, social and governance (ESG) dimensions of CSR performance
organizations’ economic performance. Using stakeholder theory as a framework, this research aims to find the may contribute to
organizations’
impact of CSR economic
performanceperformance.
on the economicUsing performance
stakeholder theory as a framework,
of organizations. this research
In this research, aims annual
we used to findESG
the
impact
data on of CSR performance
Australian on thetheeconomic
firms, covering period fromperformance of organizations.
2010 to 2016. All independentIn this research,
variables werewelagged
used byannual ESG
one year.
data on Australian
Regression analysisfirms, covering
was used thethe
to test period from
impact of 2010
CSR to 2016. All independent
performance on economicvariables were lagged
performance. by one show
The findings year.
Regression
that analysis was consistently
social performance used to test theleadimpact of CSR economic
to improved performance on economic
performance. Toperformance. The environmental
a lesser extent, findings show
that social performance
performance consistently
also had a positive effectlead to improved
on economic economic but
performance, performance. To awas
the effect size lesser extent,
much environmental
smaller than that of
performance
social also hadHowever,
performance. a positivethere
effectis on economic
very performance,
weak evidence for a but the effect
significant size was much
relationship smaller
between than thatand
governance of
social performance. However, there is very weak evidence for a significant relationship between
economic performance, with only a single significant effect in 2015. This study contributes to the literature by governance and
economic on
focusing performance,
economic with only a single
performance rathersignificant effect infinancial
than traditional 2015. This study contributes
performance to the
measures. Theliterature
study alsoby
focusing onto economic
contributes performance
the managerial understandingratherof than traditionaloffinancial
the importance each ESGperformance
dimension onmeasures. The study also
economic performance.
contributes to the managerial understanding of the importance of each ESG dimension on economic performance.
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2018 The under
Peer-review Authors. Published by
responsibility of Elsevier B.V. committee of the 9th International Conference on Theory and application of
the scientific
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 9th International Conference on Theory and application of
Peer-review
Soft under
Computing, responsibility
Computing with of the
Words scientific
and committee of the 9th International Conference on Theory and application of
Perception.
Soft Computing, Computing with Words and Perception
Soft Computing, Computing with Words and Perception.
Keywords:Corporate social responsibility; Environmental performance; Social performance; Governance performance; Economic performance.
Keywords:Corporate social responsibility; Environmental performance; Social performance; Governance performance; Economic performance.

* Corresponding author.
* E-mail address:author.
Corresponding ismail.sila@neu.edu.tr
E-mail address: ismail.sila@neu.edu.tr

1877-0509© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under
1877-0509© 2018 responsibility
The of thebyscientific
Authors. Published committee of the 9th International Conference on Theory and application of
Elsevier B.V.
Soft Computing,
Peer-review underComputing withofWords
responsibility and Perception.
the scientific committee of the 9th International Conference on Theory and application of
Soft Computing, Computing with Words and Perception.

1877-0509 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 9th International Conference on Theory and application of Soft
Computing, Computing with Words and Perception.
10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.310
804 Ismail Sila et al. / Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804

798 Ismail Sila et al. / Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804

1. Introduction

The global financial crisis has caused severe disruptions in the USA, Europe and the Pacific region in 2008
(Aizenmanet al. 2010), raising social concerns among all affected communities (Nicholson et al. 2011). According
to Galbreath (2013), the financial crisis has increased concerns over companies’ ethical, social, environmental and
accountability performances. These changes are forcing companies to engage in a diverse range of activities to
remain competitive. Many companies now realize that the intangible aspects are as important as the tangible aspects
of conducting business. Moreover, all stakeholders are placing significantly more emphasis on socially responsible
practices. Consumers, investors, businesses, and governments are the main stakeholders, which are stimulating this
change with their changing expectations from businesses (Carroll and Schwartz 2003). As a result, the concept of
CSR is growing in importance and attracting the attention of scholars.

A widely recognized interpretation of CSR suggests that CSR includes economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic
components (Carroll 1991). There has been an interest in CSR and its effects on organizations in the last couple of
decades. Many studies have been conducted to analyse the effects of CSR on different organizational aspects. The
findings of many studies that focused on the relationship between CSR and firm performance are mixed (Mishra and
Suar 2010). Some of these studies (e.g., Orlitzky et al. 2003; van Beurden and Gössling 2008) found a positive
relationship, while others (e.g. Crisóstomo et al. 2011; Malcolm et al. 2007) reported a negative relationship. In
addition, there are differences across the findings of CSR studies conducted in different countries, which makes it
difficult to arrive at universal conclusions (Forte 2013; Lambooy 2010). Most of the previous studies in this area
focused on financial performance as a measure of firm performance. However, the economic performance of the
firm has received less attention, despite the fact that environmental, social and governance
(ESG) dimensions are critical elements of the CSR concept (Sacconi 2006).

This research aims to contribute to the sustainability management, CSR, and environmental management literatures
by analysing the impact of CSR on the economic performance of firms in Australia using instrumental stakeholder
theory as a framework. We use 7 years (2010-2016) of longitudinal data from the Thomson Reuters ESG database.
Unlike many previous studies in this area, we use corporate governance in our model, since the environmental,
social, and governance dimensions of CSR are interconnected and should be analysed within an integrated
framework (Galbreath 2013; Brandão 2009; King 2011).

2. Literature review

In the fields of business ethics, sustainability and CSR, many authors (e.g; Jamali 2008; Turker 2009) have argued
that there is no universally accepted definition of CSR. In addition, Frankental (2001) argued that CSR does not
have a universally accepted definition, which can result in different interpretations by different people. However,
most of the definitions of CSR include social, environmental and stakeholder aspects. According to Epstein and
Schnietz (2002) CSR consists of aspects such as ethics, governance, transparency, business relationships, financial
return, community involvement, product value, employment practices and environmental protection. Therefore, the
contemporary definition of CSR should include dimensions involving social, environmental and governance issues.
In this study, the CSR is defined as organizations` actions towards their internal and external stakeholders in terms
of social, environmental, and governance practices (Aguinis 2011; Rupp 2011). Profit maximization should not be
the sole objective of commercial organizations. These organizations need to acknowledge the requirements of their
internal and external stakeholders and should implement their business strategies in an ethically acceptable and
socially responsible manner (Buchholz 1991).

On the other hand, Baron (2001) considers CSR as a strategic tool that involves profit-making business activities.
Siegel and Vitaliano (2007) investigated strategic CSR and its elements and found that strategic CSR produces
economic benefits. The notion of strategic CSR is in line with the assumptions of instrumental stakeholder theory.
The underlying assumption of both concepts is that companies strategically engage in CSR practices to achieve
economic benefits. According to Porter and Kramer (2006), organizations should adopt a strategic perspective to
 Ismail Sila et al. / Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804 799
Ismail Sila et al. / Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804

CSR, which involves identifying the most beneficial strategies for the organizations. As well, since companies
cannot solve all the problems of the society, they should focus on the specific social issues which they can
successfully handle and leave the remaining to other organizations which are capable of solving them (Porter and
Kramer 2006).

Environmental, social, and governance issues are important for stakeholders. According to Carroll (1991) and
Wood’s (1991), any party, including employees, customers, shareholders, the environment, the society, and
investors, who might be affected by the business activities of organizations, should be considered as a stakeholder of
an organization. According to stakeholder theory, stakeholders can be briefly defined as parties having an impact on
or being affected by an organization (Freeman 1984). It is important that the interests of all stakeholders be taken
into account and not only a select few (Hawkings 2006). Businesses use CSR as a strategic tool to create favourable
stakeholder perceptions. In other words, CSR can ensure that stakeholders’ perceptions are not influenced negatively
by activities which they might deem unsustainable (Palazzo and Richter 2005; Yoon et al. 2006).

Given this stakeholder perspective to CSR, it is expected that considering the interests of stakeholders is associated
with positive financial and economic performance (Tarmuji et al. 2016; Branco and Rodrigues 2007). Although
various studies analysed the relationship between CSR and corporate financial performance, the findings are
inconclusive (van Beurden and Gössling 2008; Revelli and Viviani 2015). In this study, CSR performance is
measured by the ESG performance scores of Thomson Reuters Inc. These measures are useful because investors
demand ESG information when they make investment decisions (Richardon 2009). Other stakeholders are also
demanding more and more CSR information (O’Dwyer et al. 2005). Therefore, there is an increasing interest in
studies that utilize ESG data (Cuesta and Valor 2013).

3. Hypotheses

The success of businesses depends on their ability to consider all types of stakeholders’ concerns (Donaldson and
Preston 1995). Stakeholders and their perceptions act as a bridge between the CSR performances of businesses and
their economic and financial performances (Barnett 2007). Stakeholder theory suggests that all businesses have
stakeholders (Friedman 1984) and that they have to fulfil their various obligations towards these stakeholders
(Wood 1991). Fisman et al. (2006) argued that managers use CSR as a tool to gain competitive advantage and
increase market value. Economic performance depends on businesses` ability to take into account all stakeholders’
interests in a reasonable way; failing to do so would have a negative impact on the economic success of businesses
(Clarkson 1995). Berman et al. (1999) stated that there is a relationship between involvement of businesses with
stakeholders and economic performance. As well, Hillman and Keim (2001) contended that managing stakeholders
effectively can result in increased benefits to shareholders. Stakeholder theory supports the following hypotheses by
taking the position that the satisfaction of stakeholders` demands for socially responsible activities produces positive
economic returns to companies (Richardson 2009). Thus:

Hypothesis 1: CSR performance has a positive impact on economic performance.

The environmental dimension of CSR is a highly researched subject. However, the relationship between
environmental performance and economic performance remains understudied. Companies that implement
environmentally responsible practices are more likely to create positive stakeholder perceptions (Turcotte et al.
2007), resulting in improved economic performance. Although some studies (e.g., Schnietz and Epstien 2005)
reported a positive relationship between these two variables, others (e.g., Wagner et al. 2002) found a negative
relationship. In this study, we posit that environmental performance is positively related to economic performance.

Hypothesis 1a: Environmental performance has a positive impact on economic performance.

According to Rhouma et al. (2012), stakeholders place a great value on the implementation of various social
practices, such as those related to employee rights, training and customer-related issues. There are various
advantages of investing in such social practices, in that firms that respond to the needs of these stakeholders can
enjoy economic advantages (Gao and Bansal 2013). For example, investing in human resource management
800 Ismail Sila et al. / Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804
804 Ismail Sila et al. / Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804

practices can help a business to reap employee-related benefits (Greening and Turban 1996). Another economic
effect is that social practices can serve as a marketing tool for companies to increase demand for their products and
services (Fombrun 2005). Furthermore, the implementation of such practices can improve corporate reputation and
shareholder satisfaction (Dhaliwal et al. 2011). Thus:

Hypothesis 1b: Social performance has a positive impact on economic performance.

According to Gill (2008), a company’s governance practices can shape its stakeholders’ perceptions of and
behaviours towards the company, which may, in turn, influence its economic performance. There is evidence that
managers are willing to invest in CSR activities to increase and maintain their companies’ reputation (Barnea and
Rubin 2010). Cespa and Cestone (2007) stated that CEOs invest in CSR to increase stakeholder sympathy towards
the company, strengthen their positions within the company and boost economic performance. According to Klettner
et al. (2014), corporate governance affects both financial and non-financial outcomes. Therefore:

Hypothesis 1c: Corporate governance performance has a positive impact on economic performance.

Our conceptual model based on these hypotheses is shown in Figure 1.

Corporate Social Responsibility Performance

Environmental
H1a

Social H1b Economic

H1 Performance

H1c
Governance

1. Data Analysis

Figure 1. The conceptual model.

4. Methodology

Previous studies suggest that different cultural and sociohistorical backgrounds produce differences across countries
in terms of their CSR practices and the effects of these practices on performance (Ortas et al. 2015). In this research,
we used secondary data from Thomson Reuters Inc.’s Asset4® dataset on Australian firms. The Asset4® ESG
dataset provides credible and objective data evaluated by experts (Galbreath 2013). Organizations have been
assigned an ESG and economic performance score ranging from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest). Our dataset for
Australia included ESG and economic scores for the years 2010-2016, which is the most up-to-date data available in
the Asset4® dataset. The factors that were considered by Thomson Reuters in assigning these scores are as follows:
Environmental performance: emission reduction, product innovation, and resource consumption reduction.
Social performance: product responsibility, community, human rights, diversity and opportunity, employment
quality, health and safety, and training and development.
Governance performance: board functions, board structure, compensation policy, and vision and strategy.
Economic performance: client loyalty, performance measures (profit measures, employee satisfaction, financial
measures), and shareholders loyalty.
 Ismail Sila et al. / Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804 801
Ismail Sila et al. / Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804

5. Analyses

We carried out the analyses using SPSS v21 and tested our hypotheses by utilizing regression analysis. We lagged
all independent variables by one year to capture the causal effects proposed in our research model. Consequently,
six regression models were run.

Table 1 displays the regression results for each of the six yearly data. The F-statistic has a significant p-value
(p<0.001) for all the regression models. The regression results for 2011 show that only social performance has a
significant relationship with economic performance. Environmental and governance performance do not have a
significant relationship with this performance measure. The adjusted-R squared (R2) statistic suggests that 45% of
the variance in economic performance is explained by the ESG measures. The results for 2012 show that both social
and environmental performance have positive and significant relationships with economic performance. The
adjusted-R2 (58%) has a 13% increase over the previous year. However, environmental performance has a lower
effect size than social performance. In 2013, the results are similar to those obtained in the previous year. In 2014,
the adjusted-R2 dropped to 32% from its 2013 value of 51%. Although social performance is significant in 2014,
governance and environmental performance are not. The year 2015 is the only year in which all three ESG measures
display significant relationships with economic performance. The adjusted-R2 has increased by 11% over its 2014
value. In 2016, once again, only social performance has a significant effect on economic performance (adjusted-R2
=14%). Overall, ‘social practices’ is the only variable that consistently contributes to economic performance in all
the years analysed in this study. To a lesser extent (in three of the six years), environmental performance also has a
positive effect on economic performance. However, there is very weak evidence for a significant relationship
between governance performance and economic performance, where the only significant effect was found in 2015.
Thus, the results fully support H1a, whereas there is partial support for H1b. However, H1c is rejected.

Table 1.Regression results.

ECN 2011 ECN 2012 ECN 2013 ECN 2014 ECN 2015 ECN 2016

GOV coefficient -0.13 0.12 0.02 0.008 0.23** 0.066

ENV coefficient 0.10 0.16*** 0.3** 0.17 0.21**** 0.11
SOC coefficient 0.65** 0.58** 0.45** 0.45** 0.34** 0.18***
p-value GOV 0.14 0.08 0.70 0.90 5.3E-05 0.30
p-value ENV 0.30 0.02 4.04E-05 0.304 0.004 0.10
p-value SOC 1.11E-10 3.68E-14 2.05E-09 2.77E-07 7.59E-06 0.018
F statistic 58.48 110.69 90.90 48.01 83.56 15.30
Significance F 2.16E-27** 1.9E-44** 6.14E-40** 2.2E-25** 2.87E-40** 3.51E-09**
(p-value)
N 210 235 257 305 335 258
R2 0.46 0.59 0.52 0.32 0.43 0.15
Adjusted- R2 0.45 0.58 0.51 0.32 0.43 0.14
**p<0.001; ***p<0.05; ****p<0.01

6. Discussion

Our findings show that social performance had a more significant and positive impact on economic performance
than environmental and governance performance. These findings conflict with those of Tarmuji et al. (2016), who
found that only the governance dimension had a significant positive relationship with economic performance in
Malaysia and Singapore. This suggests that country or cultural factors may play a key role in shaping companies’
performance in these areas and their subsequent effect on economic performance. Therefore, comparative studies are
needed in this area to shed light more on this issue. Ferrero-Ferrero et al. (2016) also tested the effect of ESG on
economic performance and reported a positive effect. However, while Tarmuji et al. (2016) used cross-sectional
data, Ferrero-Ferrero et al. (2016) used lagged data. Therefore, such differences in methodological approaches
802 Ismail Sila et al. / Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804
804 Ismail Sila et al. / Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804

across studies may also explain these different results. More studies that utilize lagged and longitudinal data are
needed to identify causal effects.

The findings have important implications for managers. The results suggest that managers should focus on
environmental practices and particularly social practices to improve economic performance. Such strategic use of
CSR could create competitive advantages. Specifically, this research provides a clear understanding of the ESG
issues and their effects on economic performance within an Australian perspective. According to Ortas et al. (2015),
companies in developed countries have similar levels of CSR activities. Therefore, our findings would be useful to
practitioners in developed countries in selecting the right practices to achieve the desired results. These findings
could also be used to guide future studies on other developed countries.

7. Conclusion

The relationship between ESG and performance has been investigated by previous studies in different countries.
However, the majority of these studies either operationalized performance with financial measures or used limited
economic measures. In this study, we employed ESG and economic performance data from the Asset4 ® dataset to
test the effects of social, environmental and governance performance on economic performance. Our findings show
that the social dimension is the biggest contributor to economic performance. There is also partial support for a
positive relationship between environmental performance and economic performance. However, governance
performance did not appear to have a significant effect on economic performance.

Our study contributes to the limited empirical literature on the impact of ESG measures on economic performance.
As well, most of the previous studies in this area have not used lagged data to be able to identify causal effects.
Another contribution is our use of Australian firms as the target population, in that most of the previous studies
focused on European and US firms.

Our study also has some limitations. Our dataset relies on the information disclosed in the CSR reports of firms.
This information may sometimes be biased, called “greenwashing” (Lyndenberg 2002; Galbreath 2013), where
companies exaggerate the level of their CSR practices to create a more positive corporate image to their
stakeholders. Such biased disclosures may have affected our results negatively. Another limitation is that since this
study only focused on Australian firms, our findings can only be generalized to firms located in this country.
Therefore, future studies should test our proposed model using data from several different countries.

References
Aguinis, H., 2011. Organizational responsibility: Doing Good and Doing Well. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
3, 855–879.
Aizenman J., Chinna, M. D., Ito, H., 2010. The Financial Crisis, Rethinking of the Global Financial Architecture
and the Trilemma. ADBI Working Paper Series.
Barnea, A., Rubin, A., 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility as a Conflict between Shareholders. Journal of
Business Ethics, 97, 71–86.
Barnett, M. L., 2007. Stakeholder Influence Capacity and the Variability of Financial Returns to Corporate
Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32 (3), 794–816.
Baron, D. P., 2001. Private Politics, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Integrated Strategy. Journal of Economics
and Management Strategy, 10, 7–45.
Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., Jones, T. M., 1999. Does Stakeholder Orientation Matter? The Relationship
between Stakeholder Management Models and Firm Financial Performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 42 (5), 488–506.
Branco, M. C., Rodrigues, L. L., 2007. Positioning Stakeholder Theory within the Debate on Corporate Social
Responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 12 (1), 5–15.
Brandão, C. E. L., 2009. Corporate Governance, Strategy and Sustainability. Presentation to 4th sustainability
summit.
 Ismail Sila et al. / Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804 803
Ismail Sila et al. / Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804

Buchholz, R. A., 1991. Corporate Responsibility and The Good Society: From Economics to Ecology. Business
Horizons, 34 (4), 19–31.
Carroll, A., 1991. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of
Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39–48.
Cespa, G., Cestone, G., 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility and Managerial Entrenchment. Journal of Economics
and Management Strategy, 16, 741–771.
Clarkson, M., 1995. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance.
Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), 92–117.
Crisóstomo, V. L., Freire, F. de Souza, Vasconcellos, F. C., 2011. Corporate Social Responsibility, Firm Value and
Financial Performance in Brazil. Social Responsibility Journal, 7 (2), 295–309.
Cuesta, M. D. L., Valor, C., 2013. Evaluation of the Environmental, Social and Governance Information
Disclosed by Spanish Listed Companies. Social Responsibility Journal, 9 (2), 220–240.
Dhaliwal, D., Li, O., Tsang, A., Yang, Y., 2011. Voluntary Nonfinancial Disclosure and the Cost of Equity
Capital: The Initiation of Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting. The Accounting Review 86 (1), 59–100.
Donaldson, T., Preston, L .E., 1995.The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and
Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.
Epstein, M.,Schnietz, K., 2002. Measuring the Cost of Environmental and Labour Protests to Globalization: An
Event Study of the Failed 1999 Seattle WTO Talks. The International Trade Journal, 16 (2), 129–160.
Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Fernandez-Izquierdo, M. A., Munoz-Torres, M. J., 2016. The Effect of Environmental, Social
and Governance Consistency on Economic Results. Sustainability, MDPI, 8, 1–16.
Fisman, R., Heal, G., Nair, V. B., 2006. A Model of Corporate Philanthropy. Working Paper, Wharton School,
University of Pennsylvania.
Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., Sever, J. M., 2000. The Reputation Quotient: A Multi-Stakeholder Measure of
Corporate Reputation. Journal of Brand Management, 7 (4), 241–255.
Forte, A., 2013. Corporate Social Responsibility in the United States and Europe: How Important is it? The Future
of Corporate Responsibility. International Business and Economics Journal, 12 (7), 815–824.
Frankental, P., 2001. Corporate Social Responsibility – a PR Invention?. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, 6 (1), 18–23.
Freeman, R. E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
Galbreath, J., 2013. ESG in Focus: The Australian Evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 118 (3), 529–541.
Gao, J., Bansal, P., 2013. Instrumental and Integrative Logics in Business Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics,
112 (2), 241–255.
Gill, A., 2008. Corporate Governance as Social Responsibility: A Research Agenda. Berkeley Journal of
International Law, 26 (2), 452–478.
Hawkins, D., 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility: Balancing Tomorrow’s Sustainability and Today’s
Profitability. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., 2001. Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What's the
Bottom Line?. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125–139.
Jamali, D., Safieddine, A. M., Rabbath, M., 2008. Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility
Synergies and Interrelationships. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16, 443–459.
King, M. E., 2011. Governance, Strategy and Sustainability are Inseparable. Presentation to the Institute of Internal
Auditors.
Klettner, A., Clarke, T., Boersma, M., 2014. The Governance of Corporate Sustainability: Empirical Insights into
the Development, Leadership, and Implementation of the Responsible Business Strategy, Journal of Business
Ethics, 122 (1), 145–165.
Lambooy, T., 2010. Institutionalization of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Corporate Governance Code: The
New Trend of the Dutch Model. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Malcolm, S., Khadijah, Y., Amiruddin, A. M., 2007. Environmental Disclosure and Performance Reporting in
Malaysia. Asian Review of Accounting, 15 (2), 185–199.
Mishra, S., Suar, D., 2010. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Influence Firm Performance of Indian Companies?
Journal of Business Ethics, 95 (4), 571–601.
804 Ismail Sila et al. / Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804
804 Ismail Sila et al. / Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017) 797–804

Nicholson, G., Kiel, G., Kiel-Chisholm, S., 2011. The Contribution of Social Norms to the Global Financial Crisis:
A Systemic Actor Focused Model and Proposal for Regulatory Change. Corporate Governance: An
International Review, 19, 471–488.
O'Dwyer, B., Unerman, J., Hession, E., 2005. User Needs in Sustainability Reporting: Perspectives of
Stakeholders in Ireland, European Accounting Review, 14 (4), 759–787.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., Rynes, S. L., 2003. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis.
Organization Studies, 24 (3), 403–441.
Ortas, E., Gallego-Alvarez, I., Etxeberria, A. I., 2015. Financial Factors Influencing the Quality of Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management Disclosure: A Quantile Regression Approach. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22, 362–380.
Palazzo, G., Richter, U., 2005. CSR Business as Usual? The Case of the Tobacco Industry. Journal of Business
Ethics, 61(4), 387–401.
Porter, M. E., Kramer, M. R., 2006. Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate
Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review 84, 12, 78–92.
Revelli, C., Viviani, J. L., 2015. Financial Performance of Socially Responsible Investing (SRI): What Have We
Learned? A Meta-Analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review 24 (2), 158–185.
Rhouma, A. B., Francoeur, C., Robin, G., 2014. International Corporate Sustainability Barometer 2012:
Sustainability Management in France. In Corporate Sustainability in International Comparison,
Springer International Publishing: New York, 69–91.
Richardson, B. J.,2009. Keeping Ethical Investment Ethical: Regulatory Issues for Investing for Sustainability.
Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 555–572.
Rupp, D. E. 2011. An Employee-Centered Model of Organizational Justice and Social Responsibility.
Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 72–94.
Sacconi, L., 2006. A Social Contract Account for CSR as Extended Model of Corporate Governance (I): Rational
Bargaining and Justification’, Journal of Business Ethics (Special Issue on Social Contract Theories in
Business Ethics), 259–281.
Schwartz, M. S., Carroll, A. B., 2003. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three Domain Approach, Business Ethics
Quarterly, 13, 503–530.
Siegel, D. S., Vitaliano, D. F., 2007. An Empirical Analysis of the Strategic Use of Corporate Social Responsibility.
Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 16, 773–792.
Tarmuji, I., Maelah, R., Tarmuji N. H., 2016. The Impact of Environmental, Social and Governance Practices (ESG)
on Economic Performance: Evidence from ESG Score, International Journal of Trade, Economic and
Finance, 7 (3), 67–74.
Turban, D.B., Greening, D.W., 1996. Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness to
Prospective Employees, Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658–672.
Turcotte, M. F., Bellefeuille, S., Hond, F., 2007. Gildan Inc.: Influencing Corporate Governance in the Textile
Sector. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 27, 23–36.
Turker, D., 2009. How Corporate Social Responsibility Influences Organizational Commitment. Journal of Business
Ethics, 89, 189–204.
van Beurden, P., Gössling, T., 2008. The Worth of Values — A Literature Review on the Relation Between
Corporate Social and Financial Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 82 (2), 407–424.
Wagner, M., Van, P. N., Azomahou, T., Wehrmeyer, W., 2002. The Relationship between the Environmental and
Economic Performance of Firms: An Empirical Analysis of the European Paper Industry. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9 (3), 133–146.
Wood, D., 1991. Corporate Social Performance Revisited, Academy of Management Review, 16 (4), 691–717.
Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., Schwarz, N., 2006. The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Activities on
Companies with Bad Reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (4), 377–390.