[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
About the Journal
Aims& Scopes
Editorial Board ::
Articles archive::
All Issues
Current Issue
Publication Ethics::
For Authors::
Guide for Authors
Submission Form
Peer Review Process::
Reviewers Section
Registration::
Registration Form
Site Facilities::
Site map
Search contents
FAQ
Top 10 contents
Inform to friends
Contact us::
Contact Information
Contact us
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: ::
Back to the articles list Back to browse issues page
The Effect of Contingency Factors on Social Responsibility Capability and Marketability Efficiency of Companies Listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange
Behrooz Badpa 1, Mahdis Naseri2 , Amin Ghanbari3
1- Assistant Professor, Department of Accounting, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran. (Corresponding Author) , b.badpa@ilam.ac.ir
2- M.Sc. Student of Accounting, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran. (mahdisnaseri901@gmail.com)
3- M.Sc. Student of Accounting, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran, (ghanbariamin1400@gmail.com)
Abstract:   (4672 Views)
Paying attention to social responsibility is one of the important strategies of companies to respond to society's demand and as a strategy for survival and greater efficiency, which is also considered a competitive advantage for success in business. Therefore, it is very important to know the effective factors in improving the level of social responsibility of the company and increasing its share in the market. The purpose of this research is to investigate the impact of contingency factors including firm size, firm age and cost leadership and differentiation strategies on the company's social responsibility capability and also its marketability efficiency. In addition, the company's marketing power is also one of the contingency factors whose effect on the company's social responsibility capability has been investigated. The statistical population of the research includes all active companies in the Tehran Stock Exchange; However, by applying the necessary restrictions, the number of 166 active companies in the 10-year period (2013 to 2022) has been investigated. To measure the social responsibility capability and marketability efficiency of the company by purposefully determining the input and output variables, the stochastic frontier function approach (SFA) has been used. Also, multiple regression has been used to test the research hypotheses. The findings of the research showed at the 95% confidence level, firm size has a negative effect on social responsibility capability, while firm age and marketing power have a positive effect on company social responsibility capability. Also, the results showed that the variables of firm size and firm age have a positive effect on its marketability. However, no significant relationship was observed between cost leadership and differentiation strategies with both variables of social responsibility capability and marketability efficiency. This research, in the framework of the stakeholder theory and with the aim of increasing the responsiveness to the society and the success of the companies, introduced the factors, characteristics and strategies affecting social responsibility and determined their role in the marketing and marketability of the companies, which is of special importance for researchers. Based on the results of evaluating social responsibility capability and marketability efficiency, as well as explaining the role of contingency factors affecting social responsibility and the firm's performance in the competitive market, management can adjust the firm's strategic plan and focus or invest specifically on factors such as marketing strength and increasing capital assets that can play a significant role in the firm's success.
Keywords: Social Responsibility Capability, Marketability Efficiency, Contingent Factors, Stochastic Frontier Analysis, Competitive Advantage.
     
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2024/06/17 | Accepted: 2024/09/21
References
1. Abdelqader, M., A. Uyar, and C. Kuzey. 2024. CSR transparency and firm value: Is the connection differential for cost leaders and differentiators?. Journal of Cleaner Production 141102, 1-12.
2. Aisyah, E. N. 2016. Pengaruh Diversitas Dewan dan kinerja keuangan terhadap voluntary corporate disclosure. EL DINAR: Jurnal Keuangan dan Perbankan Syariah 4(1): 25-39.
3. Alkasim, S. B., A. M. Mohammed, and A. A, Bala. 2018. The Effect of Product-Market Strategy on Differentiation Strategy of SMES. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 6: 1.
4. Elmassri, M., Kuzey, C., Uyar, A., & Karaman, A. S. 2023. Corporate social responsibility, business strategy and governance performance. Management Decision, 61(10), 3106-3143.
5. Anning-Dorson, T. 2016. Interactivity innovations, competitive intensity, customer demand and performance. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 8(4): 536-554.
6. Azad, N., S. Zarifi., and S, Aliakbar. 2013. The role of new product development on export market share. Decision Science Letters 2(4): 241-250.
7. Badulescu, A., D. Badulescu., T. Saveanu, and R. Hatos. 2018. The Relationship between Firm Size and Age, and Its Social Responsibility Actions—Focus on a Developing Country (Romania). Sustainability 10(3): 1-21.
8. Balsam, S., G. D. Fernando, and A. Tripathy. 2011. The impact of firm strategy on performance measures used in executive compensation. Journal of business research 64(2): 187-193.
9. Banker, R. D., R. Mashruwala, and A. Tripathy. 2014. Does a differentiation strategy lead to more sustainable financial performance than a cost leadership strategy?. Management Decision 52(5): 872-896.
10. Barnett, M. L., and R. M. Salomon. 2006. Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic management journal 27(11): 1101-1122.
11. Bawai, R., and H. Kusumadewi. 2021. Effect of corporate governance, firm characteristic, disclosure of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on firm value. Jurnal Economia 17(1): 20-33.
12. Ben Brik, A., B. Rettab, and K. Mellahi. 2011. Market orientation, corporate social responsibility, and business performance. Journal of Business Ethics 99: 307-324.
13. Bonifazi, G., E. Corradini., D. Ursino, and L. Virgili. 2023. Modeling, Evaluating, and Applying the eWoM Power of Reddit Posts. Big Data and Cognitive Computing 7(1): 47.
14. Cacciolatti, L., and S. H. Lee. 2016. Revisiting the relationship between marketing capabilities and firm performance: The moderating role of market orientation, marketing strategy and organisational power. Journal of business research 69(12): 5597-5610.
15. Çera, G., J. Belas., J. Marousek, and E. Çera. 2020. Do Size and Age Of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Matter in Corporate Social Responsibility?. Economics & Sociology 13(2): 86-99.
16. Chatterjee, S., R. Chaudhuri., A. Thrassou, and G. Sakka. 2021. Impact of firm's intellectual capital on firm performance: a study of Indian firms and the moderating effects of age and gender. Journal of Intellectual Capital 23(1): 103-126.
17. Chen, C. J., R. S. Guo., Y. C. Hsiao, and K. L. Chen. 2018. How business strategy in non-financial firms moderates the curvilinear effects of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility on corporate financial performance. Journal of Business Research 92: 154-167.
18. Chen, C. X., E. M. Matsumura., J. Y. Shin, and S. Y. C. Wu. 2015. The effect of competition intensity and competition type on the use of customer satisfaction measures in executive annual bonus contracts. The Accounting Review 90(1): 229-263.
19. Cho, E., and A. Tsang. 2020. Corporate social responsibility, product strategy, and firm value. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Financial Studies 49(2): 272-298.
20. Chua, A. B., A. Hidalgo., J.J. Huyo-a, and A. J. G. Santos. 2022. Pink power: The extent of awareness, driving factors, and overall perception of Filipina youth consumers in Metro Manila, Philippines on pink tax caused by pink marketing strategy. Journal of business and management studies 4(2): 277-293.
21. Činčalová, S., and V. Hedija. 2020. Firm characteristics and corporate social responsibility: The case of Czech transportation and storage industry. Sustainability 12(5): 1992.
22. Costales, M. J. L. 2023. Green marketing and its impact on consumer buying behavior in city of Muntinlupa, Philippines. Part I. Marketing Science & Inspirations 18(4): 48-53.
23. Cowen, S. S., L. B. Ferreri, and L. D. Parker. 1987. The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency-based analysis. Accounting, Organizations and society 12(2): 111-122.
24. Dhaliwal, D. S., O. Z. Li., A. Tsang, and Y. G. Yang. 2011. Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The accounting review 86(1): 59-100.
25. Dutse, A. H. G., and M. S. Aliyu. 2018. Cost leadership, market orientation and business performance: An empirical investigation. Journal of Quantitative Methods 2(2): 28-42.
26. Ednave, P. D. M., S. M. Kumar., J. K. R. Roxas, and C. L. M. Solidum. 2016. The impact of the different dimensions of corporate social responsibility on firm profitability and marketability of shares: A study of selected publicly listed companies in the Philippines for the years 2009 to 2013.
27. El Ghoul, S., O. Guedhami., C. C. Kwok, and D. R. Mishra. 2011. Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital?. Journal of banking & finance 35(9): 2388-2406.
28. Elmassri, M., C. Kuzey., A. Uyar, and A. S. Karaman. 2023. Corporate social responsibility, business strategy and governance performance. Management Decision 61(10): 3106-3143.
29. Frambach, R. T., J. Prabhu, and T. M. Verhallen. 2003. The influence of business strategy on new product activity: The role of market orientation. International journal of research in marketing 20(4): 377-397.
30. Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston.
31. Fiedler, F. E. 1967. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.
32. Galan, J.I. 2006. Corporate social responsibility and strategic management. Journal of Management Studies 43(7): 1629-1641.
33. Ganji, H., M. Jahandoust Marghoub., V. Menati, and S. R. Hosayni. 2023. The Moderating Effect of Competition in the Product Market on the Relation of Corporate Social Responsibility and Debts Ratio. Iranian Journal of Finance 7(3): 25-47.
34. Gao, L. 2023. The impact of consumer behavior and product innovation on enterprise R&D decisions in a macroeconomic environment. Frontiers in Business, Economics and Management 11(2): 262-265.
35. García, I., J. J. Gibaja, and A. Mujika. 2003. A Study on the Effect of Cause-Related Marketing on the Attitude Towards the Brand: The Case of Pepsi in Spain. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 11(1): 111-135.
36. Giantari, G. A. K., and M. Jatra. 2019. The role of differentiation strategy and innovation in mediating market orientation and the business performance. Journal of Business Management and Economic Research 3(6): 39-60.
37. Habib, A. M. 2023. Do business strategies and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance mitigate the likelihood of financial distress? A multiple mediation model. Heliyon 9(7).
38. Haji, A. A., P. Coram, and I. Troshani. 2022. Consequences of CSR reporting regulations worldwide: a review and research agenda. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 36(1): 177-208.
39. Hambrick, D. C. 1983. High profit strategies in mature capital goods industries: A contingency approach. Academy of Management journal, 26(4), 687-707.
40. Han, H., and Y. Kim. 2020. The impact of firm age on corporate social responsibility. In Proceedings of the 49th annual EMAC Conference, Budapest, Hungary 26-29.
41. Handoyo, S., H. Suharman., E. K. Ghani, and S. Soedarsono. 2023. A business strategy, operational efficiency, ownership structure, and manufacturing performance: The moderating role of market uncertainty and competition intensity and its implication on open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 100039.
42. Haque, M. G., M. Munawaroh., D. Sunarsi, and A. Baharuddin. 2021. Competitive advantage in cost leadership and differentiation of SMEs “Bakoel Zee” marketing strategy in BSD. PINISI Discretion Review 4(2): 277-284.
43. Haque, M. G., M. Munawaroh., D. Sunarsi, and A. Baharuddin. 2021. Competitive Advantage in Cost Leadership and Differentiation of SMEs “Bakoel Zee” Marketing Strategy in BSD. PINISI Discretion Review 4(2), 277-284.
44. Hodge, L. R. 2014. Predicting the Presence of Chief Marketing Officers (CMOs) on Top Management Teams and the Moderating Influence of CMO Presence on the Relationship Between Firm Visibility, Market Power, and Industry Orientation and Firm Performance.
45. Hur, W. M., H. Kim, and J. Woo. 2014. How CSR leads to corporate brand equity: Mediating mechanisms of corporate brand credibility and reputation. Journal of Business Ethics 125: 75-86.
46. Jaworski, B. J., and A. K. Kohli. 1993. Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of marketing 57(3): 53-70.
47. Jensen, M., and W. H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3(4): 305-360.
48. Kaliappen, N., and H. H. Abdullah. 2013. Enhancing organizational performance through strategic alignment of cost leadership strategy and competitor orientation. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 18(10): 1411-1416.
49. Kelton, A. S., and Y. W. Yang. 2008. The impact of corporate governance on Internet financial reporting. Journal of accounting and Public Policy 27(1): 62-87.
50. Kemper, J., O. Schilke., M. Reimann., X. Wang, and M. Brettel. 2013. Competition-motivated corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Research 66(10): 1954-1963.
51. Khan, S. Z., Q. Yang, and A. Waheed. 2019. Investment in intangible resources and capabilities spurs sustainable competitive advantage and firm performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26(2): 285-295.
52. Kim, B. C., H. Rhim, and H. Yang. 2021. Price competition or technology improvement? An investigation of green car technology. International Journal of Production Research 59(9): 2800-2816.
53. Li, H., X. Wang., S. Wang., W. Zhou, and Z. Yang. 2023. The power of numbers: an examination of the relationship between numerical cues in online review comments and perceived review helpfulness. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 17(1): 126-139.
54. Lu, W. C. 2009. The evolution of R&D efficiency and marketability: Evidence from Taiwan's IC‐design Industry. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 17(2): 1-26.
55. Luo, X. 2003. Evaluating the profitability and marketability efficiency of large banks: An application of data envelopment analysis. Journal of Business Reseaarch 56(8): 627-635.
56. Mahmood, M., A. Uyar., C. Kuzey, and A. S. Karaman. 2023. Business strategy, sustainability, and firm value: A test of financial slack and agency theories. Managerial and Decision Economics 44(5): 2924-2947.
57. Maignan, I., and O. C. Ferrell. 2001. Antecedents and benefits of corporate citizenship: An investigation of French businesses. Journal of Business Research 51(1): 37-51.
58. McWilliams, A., and D. Siegel. 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification?. Strategic management journal 21(5): 603-609.
59. McWilliams, A., and D. Siegel. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of management review 26(1): 117-127.
60. Menon, A., and A. Menon. 1997. Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: The emergence of corporate environmentalism as market strategy. Journal of marketing 61(1): 51-67.
61. Morgan, N. A., D. W. Vorhies, and C. H. Mason. 2009. Market orientation, marketing capabilities, and firm performance. Strategic management journal 30(8): 909-920.
62. Morsing, M. 2006. Corporate social responsibility as strategic auto-communication: on the role of external stakeholders for member identification. Business Ethics: A European Review 15: 171-182.
63. Mubeen, R., D. Han., J. Abbas., S. Raza, and W. Bodian. 2022. Examining the relationship between product market competition and Chinese firms performance: the mediating impact of capital structure and moderating influence of firm size. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 709678.
64. Neville, B. A., S. J. Bell, and B. Mengüç. 2005. Corporate reputation, stakeholders and the social performance‐financial performance relationship. European Journal of Marketing 39(9): 1184-1198.
65. Nguyen, T. H., Q. T. Vu., D. M. Nguyen, and H. L. Le. 2021. Factors influencing corporate social responsibility disclosure and its impact on financial performance: The case of Vietnam. Sustainability 13(15): 8197.
66. Ogrizek, M. 2002. The effect of corporate social responsibility on the branding of financial services. Journal of Financial Services Marketing 6: 215-228.
67. Pandey, P. K., N. Bajpai, and A. V. Tiwari. 2023. Examining the role of cause-related marketing in influencing the purchase intention of Indian customers in the FMCG sector: the role of attitude and cause involvement. British Food Journal 126(3): 1121-1146.
68. Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive advantage free press. New York 33: 61.
69. Porter, M. E., and Strategy, C. 1980. Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Competitive Strategy. New York: Free rk.
70. Prajogo, D. I., and A. S. Sohal. 2006. The relationship between organization strategy, total quality management (TQM), and organization performance––the mediating role of TQM. European journal of operational research 168(1): 35-50.
71. Pulaj, E., V. Kume., and A. Cipi. (2015). The impact of generic competitive strategies on organizational performance. The evidence from Albanian context. European Scientific Journal 11(28): 273-284.
72. Rahman, J. M., and L. Yilun. 2021. Firm size, firm age, and firm profitability: evidence from China. Journal of Accounting, Business and Management 28(1): 101-115.
73. Rakshit, B. 2019. Evaluating profitability and marketability efficiency: A case of Indian commercial banks. Global Business Review 22(4): 1-19.
74. Ramchander, S., R. G. Schwebach, and K. I. M. Staking. 2012. The informational relevance of corporate social responsibility: Evidence from DS400 index reconstitutions. Strategic management journal 33(3): 303-314.
75. Rhoades, S. A. 1985. Market share as a source of market power: Implications and some evidence. Journal of Economics and Business 37(4): 343-363.
76. Roberts, R. W. 1992. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, organizations and society 17(6): 595-612.
77. Saleh, M. H. M., A. A. Azmin, and U. N. Saraih. 2021. The effects of market orientation, product innovation and marketing ethics on firm performance: A theoretical framework. International Journal of Innovation and Industrial Revolution (IJIREV) 7(3): 31-47.
78. Sembiring, E.R. 2006. The Influence of Corporate Characteristics and Disclosure of Social Responsibility: Empirical Study on Companies Listed on the Jakarta Stock Exchange. Journal of Master of Accounting 6(1): 69-85.
79. Shahwan, T. M., and Y. M. Hassan. 2013. Efficiency analysis of UAE banks using data envelopment analysis. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences 29(1): 4-20.
80. Sharif-Azadeh, M., & M. Basirat. 2013. Estimating technical efficiency of Iranian oil and gas pipe manufacturing industry using stochastic frontier function estimation. The Journal of Economic Studies and Policies 24: 181-200 (Persian).
81. Shubita, M. F. 2023. Relationship between marketing strategy and profitability in industrial firms: Evidence from Jordan. Innovative Marketing 19(2): 17.
82. Singh, R., D. Tiwari., and H. Tiwari. 2023. Influencer Marketing: Concepts, Practices, and Strategies: An Overview. EPRA International Journal of Environmental Economics, Commerce and Educational Management (ECEM) 10(8): 6-12.
83. Sitanggang, C. H., and Y. Absah. 2019. The influence of innovation, cost leadership strategy and customer orientation on competitive advantage and its impact on customer satisfaction at container depot of Pt Masaji Tatanan Container Branch of Belawan. International Journal of Research and Review 6(1): 34-46.
84. Smith, N. C., G. Palazzo, and C. B. Bhattacharya. 2010. Marketing’s consequences: Stakeholder marketing and supply chain corporate social responsibility issues. Business ethics quarterly 20(4): 617-641.
85. Sun, W., and Y. Ding. 2020. Corporate social responsibility and cash flow volatility: The curvilinear moderation of marketing capability. Journal of Business Research 116: 48–59.
86. Sun, W., Z. Ding, and J. Price. 2020. Board structure and firm capability: An environment embedded relationship between board diversity and marketing capability. Industrial Marketing Management 90: 14–29.
87. Sun, W., and R. Govind. 2022. A new understanding of marketing and “doing good”: Marketing’s power in the TMT and corporate social responsibility. Journal of business ethics 176(1): 89-109.
88. Sun, W., and X. Xu. 2023. Sustaining firm sustainability endeavors: The role of international diversification on firm CSR capability. Journal of Cleaner Production 412: 137402.
89. Tang, L., Z. Gu., Q. Zhang, and J. Liu. 2022. The effect of firm size, industry type and ownership structure on the relationship between firms' sustainable innovation capability and stock liquidity. Operations Management Research 15(4): 825–837.
90. Uyar, A., M. A. Koseoglu. C. Kuzey, and A. S. Karaman. 2023. Does firm strategy influence corporate social responsibility and firm performance? Evidence from the tourism industry. Tourism Economics 29(5): 1272-1301.
91. Vo, T. T., X. Xiao, and S. Y. Ho. 2019. How does corporate social responsibility engagement influence word of mouth on Twitter? Evidence from the airline industry. Journal of Business Ethics 157: 525-542.
92. Waddock, S. A., and S. B. Graves. 1997. The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic management journal 18(4): 303-319.
93. Walters, B. A., M. Kroll, and P. Wright. 2010. The impact of TMT board member control and environment on post-IPO performance. Academy of Management Journal 53(3): 572-595.
94. Waluyo, W. 2017. Firm Size, Firm Age, and Firm Growth on Corporate Social Responsibility in Indonesia: The Case of Real Estate Companies. European Research Studies Journal 20(4): 360-369.
95. Weihong, J., T. H. Kuo., S. Y. Wei., M. S. Hossain., K. Tongkachok, and A. Imran. 2022. Relationship between trade enhancement, firm characteristics and CSR: key mediating role of green investment. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja 35(1): 3900-3916.
96. Withisuphakorn, P., and P. Jiraporn. 2016. The effect of firm maturity on corporate social responsibility (CSR): do older firms invest more in CSR?. Applied Economics Letters 23(4): 298-301.
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Back to the articles list Back to browse issues page
دوفصلنامه علمی حسابداری ارزشی و رفتاری journal of Value & Behavioral Accounting
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.1 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4666