Next Article in Journal
The Role of Intermediation in the Governance of Sustainable Chinese Web Marketing
Previous Article in Journal
An Improved Neural Network for Regional Giant Panda Habitat Suitability Mapping: A Case Study in Ya’an Prefecture
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 6
Issue 7
10.3390/su6074077
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance in the Mineral Industry: Evidence from Chinese Mineral Firms

by
Xiping Pan
1,2,*,
Jinghua Sha
1,2,*,
Hongliang Zhang
1,3 and
Wenlan Ke
1,2
1
School of Humanities & Economic Management, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
2
Key Laboratory of Carrying Capacity Assessment for Resource and Environment, Ministry of Land and Resource, Beijing 100083, China
3
School of Economics and Management, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2014, 6(7), 4077-4101; https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074077
Submission received: 20 March 2014 / Revised: 26 May 2014 / Accepted: 13 June 2014 / Published: 30 June 2014
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper examines the relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Corporate Financial Performance (CFP) using panel data for 228 Chinese mineral listed firms from 2010 to 2013 with Pooled Least Squares regression analysis. Our study considers five different sublevel CSR issues—shareholder responsibility, employee responsibility, environmental responsibility, public responsibility, and supplier, customer and consumer responsibility—in capturing the effects of CSR elements on CFP. The estimation results show the different effects of each sublevel CSR issue on CFP. Overall, shareholder, employee responsibility, environmental responsibility, supplier, customer and consumer responsibility have significant relationships with CFP, which are the stakeholders who have the closest linkage with firm operations. Meanwhile, public responsibility outside the firm does not show significant interaction with CFP, which is why many mineral firms ignore the public interest and this leads to conflicts. Shareholder responsibility has the most significant positive effect on CFP. Supplier, customer and consumer responsibility and environmental responsibility usually have negative effects on CFP as costs increase. Moreover, all 228 listed mineral firms that were selected in this paper have been classified into five sub-sectors: the extractive industry, metal fabrication industry, oil and gas industry, gas and water-related industry, and oil-producing equipment industry, based on the Industry Classification Benchmark (ICB). Our study shows that the differences in the relationship between CSR and CFP for five sublevel industries are due to industry characteristics. If the government wants to solve these conflicts and positively encourage firms to adopt CSR, it is necessary to create a mining development environment whereby firm profits are closely tied to CSR.

1. Introduction

The mineral industry experienced a huge boost over the last decade with mining output increasing 5.6 times during the 2002–2011 period [1]. However, accompanying this rapid growth was a lack of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), the presence of externalities, and many social conflicts, such as environmental pollution, security issues, employment of local residents, and illegal land use. All of these conflicts are closely associated with stakeholder interests. In recent years, the stakeholders of firms such as shareholders, employees, investors, governments, local communities, trading partners, consumers, and non-governmental organisations are conscious of their interests and corporate management. This directly or indirectly influences a firm’s financial performance [2]. In China, for example, many mineral enterprises have been shut down because of their significant environmental pollution and substandard security. At the present time, management usually ignores the stakeholder benefits outside the firms (such as the community and public) because the companies do not have an interest in adopting CSR spontaneously unless they could receive financial benefits. CSR is just a guise to cope with government regulation and fawn on the public. This phenomenon is also common in the minerals sector of some natural resources-rich areas such as Ghana and sub-Saharan Africa where companies have little sense of who to target in their local economic development policies, and programs lead to conflicts and scrambles [3,4].
To solve mineral conflicts and to maintain the sustainable development of the Chinese mineral industry as well as social harmony, minerals firms must adopt CSR ideas. Milton Friedman argued that it is the firm’s nature to pursue its interests and that the social responsibility of a business is to increase its profits [5]. To solve this problem, it is important to ask whether CSR has effects on Corporate Financial Performance (CFP) in the Chinese mineral industry. This paper aims to answer this question.
In previous studies, scholars sought to find the linkage between CSR and CFP. The earliest study of this subject began in the 1970s [6,7,8,9,10], came of age in the 1980s [11], and has continued in recent years. However, even in recent years, the empirical research has not arrived at a consensus. There have been different results about the relationship between CSR and CFP. The different opinions are mainly sorted into three types: positive, negative, and neutral. Vance found that firms considered to have good CSR performance may not do well in the stock market, and his research shows that CSR and return of equity (ROE) have a negative relationship [10]. Some studies also find that if managers pursue their own interests, they may sacrifice the interests of shareholders and stakeholders [12,13,14]. Related opinions that hold that the two have a negative relationship argued that managers pursuing CSR will come into conflict with value maximisation [15]. Blowfield found there is usually a neutral and negative correlation between social or environment issues and companies’ business performance. This situation is even more so in developing countries [16,17]. The idea that business is an agent to solve international development problems such as poverty is insufficient and unjustified [18]. Frynas argues that private firms are unlikely to act as successful development actors without corporate governance reforms, which would align the interests of non-traditional stakeholders with corporate interests [19]. There are fundamental problems surrounding the capacity of private firms to deliver development and the aspiration of achieving development through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) based on the evidence from multinational oil companies [20]. Scholars holding the neutral relationship opinion said that the two do not have a significant interaction because profits from socially responsible conduct will compensate for the cost in market equilibrium. The linkages are quite complex. Some academic research shows that a social orientation does not have any linkage with the firm’s financial performance [21]. Most empirical studies’ results support the positive relationship hypothesis, and the opposing research is usually based on a country or region [22,23,24,25].
In recent years, the new research direction for the relationship between CSR and CFP has been detailed in specific industries and specific CSR elements. Industry specialisation includes the financial industry (banking industry), petroleum-gas industry, information technology industry, and restaurant industry [26,27,28,29,30]. This trend may be due to fast development within these industries during recent years, which caused conflicts among stakeholders and attracted public attention. The second research innovation in this field is that scholars began to find relationships between CFP and a specialised CSR element such as employee and supply chain responsibility. Lee et al. studied the relationship between employee rights protection and CFP and stated that both buyer and supplier should adopt employee rights protection to improve their corporate reputation and financial performance [31]. Wang found that financial benefits are associated with environmental and social supply chain management activities [32]. Some scholars found that environmental issues interact with CFP [2,33,34]. There is also some research focused on moderate roles such as ownership, institutional difference, or R&D on the relationship between CSR and CFP [35,36,37]. Meanwhile, we have not found previous studies that capture empirical research on the linkage between CSR and CPF specific to the minerals industry.
This paper aims at complementing the existing literature by explicitly studying the relationship between CSR and CFP in the Chinese mineral industry using the panel data of 228 listed mineral firms from 2010 to 2013 with Pooled Least Squares regression analysis. In this paper, there are four main goals we want to achieve. First, this study adopts well-established techniques in a systematic matter using the Pooled Least Squares regression method to find the relationship between CSR and CFP, instead of a qualitative judgment. Second, we try to find the relationships between CSR elements and CFP. In this paper, CSR is composed of shareholder responsibility, employee responsibility, supplier, customer and consumer responsibility, environmental responsibility, and public responsibility based on stakeholder theory. Third, all 228 listed mineral firms selected have been classified into five sub-sectors: the extractive industry, metal fabrication industry, oil and gas industry, gas and water-related industry, and oil-producing equipment industry based on the Industry Classification Benchmark (ICB). This research will find the different relationships between CSR and CFP among the five sub-sectors. Fourth, we try to find measures to solve Chinese mineral industry conflicts from the financial scope which are different from other measures such as legislation and supervision.
The structure of the remainder of this paper is as follows. Section 2 introduces the data. Section 3 introduces the measures and methods. The empirical results and discussion are reported in Section 4. Finally, there is a brief conclusion.

2. Data

CSR performance and financial performance are taken from a Chinese professional financial services website named HEXUN, which is specialised for high-end investors in China.
The data on CSR performance come from the open online Corporate Social Responsibility Database released by HEXUN. It is the only available data source we could obtain that covers the evaluation and ranking of CSR performance on all of the listed companies in China. The details of the evaluation method used by HEXUN can be seen in Appendix A. The CSR performance evaluation on the website is based on the annual financial report and CSR report of each firm released by the Shanghai stock exchange and Shenzhen stock exchange.
The financial performance data come from the HEXUN online financial ratio database based on each firm’s Annual Financial Report. We chose five different financial indicators for CFP that include both accounting-based data and market-based data. The indicators will be introduced in the Measures section. More details can be seen in Appendix B.
We chose all data from the HEXUN website for two reasons: first, it is the only data source we could obtain that covers all Chinese listed mineral firms’ CSR performance. Second, all of the data come from the same source and all of these firms’ data are calculated in the same way, which ensure the data’s consistency and comparability.
We have used all available data in the initiation of this study. This paper yields 228 firms (the details can be seen in Table B2) or 912 firm-years; a total of 9273 data points. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of each variable. It appears that there is a wide diversity in the firms and no trend in the variables. This suggests that there is ample scope for analysis and that, apart from looking into the overall data, the sub-level variables seem promising.
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
MeanMedianMaximumMinimumS.DSkewnessKurtosisObservations
CSR30.55721.1285.77−4.2520.550.7918342.216253826
Shareholder-R 12.89913.4920.47−8.254.388−0.865773.90468826
Employee-R4.61022.5451504.6780.939612.393785826
Supply chain-R3.639202005.6541.0635992.438038826
Environmental-R5.490303008.6251.1136492.584567826
Public-R 3.91844.1715.79−103.015−0.2553425.332701826
ROE0.03810.073.1−20.70.809−22.04669543.3537826
ROA0.03980.030.88−1.090.075−1.87556984.7509826
EPS0.37660.273.73−1.690.5451.3882159.541381826
MB0.35510.1650.3−0.722.25219.04598389.9247826
NA0.54150.06122.97−0.954.45725.28182691.0031826
Notes: Shareholder-R, Employee-R, Supply chain-R, Environmental-R, Public-R MB, and NA in Table 1 is short for Shareholder-Responsibility, Employee-Responsibility, Suppliers, customers and consumers responsibility, Environmental-Responsibility, Public-Responsibility, Growth Rate of Main Operating and Expansion Rate of Net Assets Respectively.

3. Measures of CSR and CFP

3.1. Financial Performance

Raze et al. have summarised numerous empirical studies from 1972–2012 in their review paper using content analysis, showing that financial measures such as stock market returns, Tobin’s Q, and accounting profits ratios such as return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), and return on sales (ROS) are targeted [38]. Most scholars choose ROE, ROA, EPS, and ROIC as important financial variables in their studies [2,7,39,40,41]. Scholtens (2008) uses stock returns as a financial index [42]. McGuire et al. compare both stock market-based and accounting-based measures that focus on different aspects of financial performance. The accounting-based measures emphasise the firm’s historical performance and capture a wide range of indicators such as ROA, ROE, Growth Rate of Main Operating, and Expansion Rate of Net Assets [41]. Stock market-based measures refer to investors’ evaluations and expectations of firms. However, these measures may not reflect the real evaluation if there is asymmetric information [42]. In the Chinese mineral industry, firms would face all types of stakeholders, and it is not feasible for them to only focus on investors. Thus, this paper takes into account both stock-market returns and accounting-based measures. We employ EPS as a market-based CFP index and ROA, ROE, Growth Rate of Main Operating, and Expansion Rate of Net Assets as accounting-based CFP indicators.

3.2. CSR Performance

Over the decades, the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has continued to grow in importance and significance, although there is generally no consistent definition. Even competing, complementary, and overlapping concepts such as corporate citizenship, business ethics, stakeholder management, and sustainability are all vying to become the most accepted and widespread descriptor of the field [11]. As there is generally no consistent definition, there is also no consistent evaluation of CSR performance. Scholars use different methods to assess CSR performance. Some studies have used questionnaires answered by CEOs or managers for CSR performance [21]. McGuire used an enterprise’s reputation released by FORTUNE magazine as CSR performance [41]. Some CSR performance is based on KLD’s measures, which use multidimensional variables capturing a wide range of stakeholder performance aspects [42,43]. In recent years, studies also evaluated CSR performance based on the firms’ CSR reports [44]. Furthermore, scholars even establish their own evaluation systems for specific industries such as the construction and infrastructure industry [45,46].
As for China, the CSR field is just in the fledging period. Most Chinese firms’ CSR reports were first released in 2010 when required by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council. In this study, we cited CSR performance evaluation data from a professional Chinese financial website named HEXUN, which evaluated CSR performance every year from 2010 on all listed Chinese firms. According to the website, CSR is divided into five sub-levels: shareholder responsibility, employee responsibility, supplier, customer and consumer rights responsibility, environmental responsibility, and social responsibility based on stakeholder theory. Each of the elements also has several sub-criteria. Shareholder responsibility includes profitability, debt situation, return, credit, and innovation. Employee responsibility covers performance, security, and caring for employees. Supplier, customer, and consumer responsibility mainly focuses on product quality, service, and mutual good faith. Environmental responsibility is composed of environmental awareness, environmental management system certification, environmental investment amount, number of sewage types, and number of energy conservation types. Public responsibility represents a firm’s contribution value, which covers taxes and donations. The detailed definitions of each variable are provided in Appendix A.

3.3. Firm’s Sector

In China, there is no clear definition of the minerals industry. Usually there is a wide range of industries which are related to mine exploitation and operation. Their businesses are closely tied with natural resources; most firms have extractive and downstream processing functions as well as a smelting sector. In this paper, the firms we chose are from the HEXUN website, which evaluates the CSR performance of all Chinese listed firms. In their open online CSR evaluation database, the firms are classified into 35 industries according to the Industry Classification Benchmark (ICB). We choose the industries which are closely related to natural resources, which are the extractive industry, metal fabrication industry, oil and gas industry, gas and water-related industry, and oil-producing equipment industry, comprising of 228 firms (see Appendix B, Table B2). These five sectors are basically different from each other by production. As their CSR performance is quite different from each other, we want to study the detailed relationship between CSR and CFP so that we can make feasible suggestions for solving these problems.

4. Models

This study is designed to examine the relationship between CSR and CFP. It appears that the regression model is used to investigate the association between social and financial performance [42]. Regression analysis is a statistical process for estimating the relationships among variables. This method has been developed considerably. Pooled regression can be used when the groups to be pooled are relatively similar or homogenous. Again, it is the regression model with Pooled Least Squares that is used to investigate the association between CSR and CFP in the Chinese mineral industry.
As our samples are extremely equal to all of the listed mineral companies in China and the data period is relatively short (because the CSR field in China has just started in recent years, CSR data are limited though we have found all of the available data), the firms-fixed effects regression model was adopted in this research and we passed over the unit root test for the short term data.
Equation (1) examines the relationship between unitary CSR and CFP. The two variables are CFP and CSR, which are calculated by the CFP ratio and total CSR score. Equation (2) provides a further study of the internal relationship among CSR elements and CFP. All of the CSR sub-criteria are explanatory variables in regression Equation (2) where S, EM, EN, P, C stands for shareholder responsibility, employee responsibility, environmental responsibility, public responsibility, and supplier, customer and consumer responsibility, respectively.
Following previous research studies, some other determinants that may have effects on financial performance also should be included in the estimation equation as supplementary explanatory variables in addition to CSR performance, such as input and tax credit. However, data collection was a significant problem because we could not obtain data for all 228 firms. As our research mainly focuses on the relationship between CSR and CFP, we would like to include the supplementary explanatory variables as part of the constant β0. Our basic equations are expressed as follows:
CFPit = β0 + β1 CRSit + μj + εit
CFPit = β0 + β1 Sit + β2 EMit + β3 Cit + β4 ENit + β5 pit + μj + εit
where i represents the firm; j refers to the industry; t indicates the period; μ is the firm fixed effects, which will be introduced later; and ε is the standard error term. The CFP performance indicators are ROE, ROA, Growth Rate of Main Operating, Expansion Rate of Net Assets, and EPS.
Our analysis moves as follows. First, we use the full sample data of 228 mineral firms to estimate Equations (1) and (2). Second, we examine the relationship between CSR and CFP in the five mineral sub-sectors.
We adopt software EVIEWS 6.0 to do estimation. After the estimation proceeds, it is important to improve the estimation quality. If the variable could not pass the t-test and the P value, then we reduce insignificant variables gradually. However, the analysis shows that reducing the variables still could not improve the equation’s quality. The possible reason is that these variables do not have significant effects on the dependent variable (CFP).

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. The Relationship between CSR and CFP across All 228 Firms

The estimation results of the full sample (228 firms) are shown in Table 2. CSR has significant positive effects on ROA, and EPS in columns (2)–(3), judging from the value of R2 and the t-test. The results show that CSR may have positive connections with firm profits. CSR does not show significant effects on the growth rate of the main operating or expansion rate of net assets, which shows that CSR does not have a relationship with corporate main operating revenue. Based on the above, CSR issues may help the company reduce costs and then lead to a profit increase.
As for the CSR elements, shareholder responsibility performance has a significant positive effect on most CFP indicators (except for the growth rate of main operating). This finding implies that shareholder responsibility has impacts on firm cost reduction. Shareholder responsibility is composed of profits, debt situation, return, credit, and innovation (see Appendix A), which mainly focus on the issues inside the firm; Apart from shareholder responsibility, supplier, customer and consumer rights responsibility has negative effect on EPS, which means that product quality, service and mutual faith has negative effects on earning. The spare sub-criteria of CSR do not show a significant impact on a firm’s financial performance. This finding indicates that the other stakeholders such as the employees, community, clients, and the public do not have significant positive effects on CFP. In addition, only the CSR issues closely related to company operations could have effects on CFP, which is why mineral companies do not have the necessity or motivation for CFP, leading to conflicts.
Table
Table 2. Estimation results for the relationship between CSR and CFP in all 228 firms.
Table 2. Estimation results for the relationship between CSR and CFP in all 228 firms.
(1)
ROE		(2)
ROA		(3)
EPS		(4)
MB		(5)
NA
Constant−0.06970.0240 ***0.1419 ***0.66881.0431 ***
(−0.7599)(3.7270)(3.8104)(0.6554)(2.7456)
CSR0.00450.0005 ***0.0076 ***0.0038−0.0177
(−1.6336)(2.7476)(6.8297)(0.1241)(−1.5666)
R20.27410.48510.51700.24760.2517
Constant−0.9952 ***−0.1291 ***−0.9048 ***−0.7452−0.6596
(−5.1824)(−11.5355)(−15.7045)(−0.3474)(−0.8233)
Shareholder responsibility0.0852 ***0.0139 ***0.1000 ***0.13210.1217 **
(6.0852)(16.8531)(23.5878)(0.8359)(2.0758)
Employee Responsibility−0.0083−0.00130.00230.1454−0.1614
(−0.3012)(−0.7926)(0.2694)(0.4599)(1.3926)
Suppliers, customers and consumers responsibility0.00330.0004−0.0175 **−0.06090.0322
(0.1432)(0.2615)(−2.4731)(−0.2310)(0.3338)
Environmental Responsibility−0.0032−0.00110.0086−0.0359−0.0199
(−0.1935)(−1.1148)(1.7122)(−0.1915)(−0.2904)
Public Responsibility0.00190.0004−0.0001−0.10720.0844
(0.0958)(0.3766)(−0.0169)(−0.4767)(1.0257)
R20.31470.64940.73930.24880.2648
No. of firms228228228228227
Observations838842842840830
Notes: 1. The numbers in parentheses are the t-test value; 2. The asterisks ***, **, and * indicate 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively; 3. “MB” is the abbreviation for growth rate of main operating and “NA” is the abbreviation for expansion rate of net assets.
A possible reason for the results is China’s mineral industry development period. Different development periods led to different developing environments. Developed countries have robust legislation and monitoring regulations. Whereas, at present in developing countries such as China that lack legislative constraints and effective monitoring measures, companies find that there is very little financial consequence for ignoring CSR. They are typically in a self-regulation position. For example, there are numerous economic incentives from tax breaks and low royalty payments, which may worsen public conditions, destroy the environment, and cheat the government [47]. In this period, CSR issues that do not have close ties to CFP (usually the stakeholders’ interests outside a firm’s operations) would be abandoned by the corporations.

5.2. The Relationship between CSR and CFP in the Extractive Industry

The estimation results in the extractive industry are shown in Table 3. CSR has significant positive impacts on ROA, EPS and insignificant effects on the other three CFP indices. This result indicates that CSR has long-run effects on CFP because ROA includes both assets and equity.
Table
Table 3. Estimation results for the relationship between CSR and CFP in the extractive industry.
Table 3. Estimation results for the relationship between CSR and CFP in the extractive industry.
(1)
ROE		(2)
ROA		(3)
EPS		(4)
MB		(5)
NA
Constant0.00100.0437 ***0.1984 **0.02820.3014
(0.0366)(2.7756)(2.2382)(0.0534)(1.0587)
CSR0.0028 ***0.00030.0106 ***0.01490.0012
(3.6027)(0.8598)(4.2582)(1.0039)(0.1550)
R20.48680.40670.65110.25050.3108
Constant−0.3570***−0.1252 ***−0.6663 ***−0.6227−0.5822
(−7.6557)(−4.9331)(−4.6403)(−0.6052)(−1.0267)
Shareholder responsibility0.0319 ***0.0139 ***0.0912 ***0.1287*0.0900 **
(9.9717)(7.7350)(8.9584)(1.7639)(2.2854)
Employee Responsibility0.00610.0013−0.0138−0.1739−0.0608
(0.7988)(0.2977)(−0.5468)(−0.9606)(−0.6352)
Suppliers, customers and consumers responsibility0.00320.00400.02510.10760.0593
(0.4674)(0.9900)(1.1010)(0.6584)(0.6928)
Environmental Responsibility−0.0059−0.0058 ***−0.00430.0441−0.0171
(−1.6302)(−2.7387)(−0.3550)(0.5097)(−0.3730)
Public Responsibility0.00190.0018−0.0057−0.0945−0.0264
(0.3770)(0.5839)(−0.3280)(−0.7628)(−0.4065)
R20.68750.60400.76460.26770.3391
No. of firms5454545454
Observations204205205205200
Notes: 1. The numbers in parentheses are the t-test value; 2. The asterisks ***, **, and * indicate 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively; 3. “MB” is the abbreviation for growth rate of main operating and “NA” is the abbreviation for expansion rate of net assets.
As for the CSR elements, shareholder responsibility has significant positive impacts on all CFP indicators in Columns (1)–(5). Environmental performance also has a significant negative impact on ROA, which shows that it has negative effects on profits. The other elements of CSR do not have effects on CFP over the 90% significance level.
The difference in the estimation results between the extractive industry and all 228 firms is that environmental performance has negative effects on profits. One explanation for the difference is the extractive industry’s characteristics. The extractive industry is highly polluting, which has aroused the attention of the government and public. As a result of the pressure of these stakeholders, extractive firms must take measures to respond to the environment, which increases costs, burdens the company, and reduces profits.

5.3. The Relationship between CSR and CFP in the Metal Fabrication Industry

The estimation results in the metal fabrication industry are shown in Table 4. CSR performance has significant positive effects on ROA and EPS. The results show that CSR has positive effects on corporate profits by reducing the cost.
Table
Table 4. Estimation results for the relationship between CSR and CFP in the metal fabrication industry.
Table 4. Estimation results for the relationship between CSR and CFP in the metal fabrication industry.
(1)
ROE		(2)
ROA		(3)
EPS		(4)
MB		(5)
NA
Constant0.0213−0.00370.03680.90291.4019 *
(0.1110)(−0.2748)(0.6213)(0.4354)(1.8457)
CSR0.00040.0009 **0.0067 ***0.0097−0.0293
(0.0756)(2.5287)(3.7062)(0.1530)(−1.2776)
R20.23920.35070.36210.24910.2550
Constant−1.4258 ***−0.1825 ***−1.0406 ***−1.5605−1.5963
(−4.2340)(−10.074)(−14.6465)(−0.4131)(−1.1750)
Shareholder responsibility0.1499 ***0.0186 ***0.1129 ***0.22810.2448 **
(5.3569)(12.2328)(18.9117)(0.7179)(2.1436)
Employee Responsibility0.00720.00470.0210 *0.49050.0713
(0.1318)(1.5446)(1.7771)(0.7820)(0.3213)
Suppliers, customers and consumers responsibility0.0304−0.0023−0.0360 ***−0.1827−0.3267
(0.5266)(−0.7185)(−2.8982)(−0.2767)(−1.3977)
Environmental Responsibility−0.0389−0.00210.0040−0.11400.0240
(−1.1361)(−1.1073)(0.5435)(−0.2915)(0.1734)
Public Responsibility−0.0626−0.0028−0.0038−0.30260.0307
(−1.5204)(−1.2402)(−0.4298)(−0.6400)(0.1813)
R20.31210.57370.72410.25200.2795
No. of firms113113113113113
Observations407410410408403
Notes: 1. The numbers in parentheses are the t-test value; 2. The asterisks ***, **, and * indicate 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively; 3. “MB” is the abbreviation for growth rate of main operating and “NA” is the abbreviation for expansion rate of net assets.
As for CSR elements, (1) shareholder responsibility has significant positive effects on most CFP indices (except for the growth rate of main operating); (2) supplier, customer, and consumer responsibility has negative effects on EPS; (3) employee responsibility has positive effects on the EPS; and (4) apart from the three CSR elements above, the other sub-criteria do not show a significant impact on a firm’s financial performance. These results imply that in the metal fabrication industry, shareholder responsibility and employee responsibility has positive effects on profits. These results also show that the other stakeholders such as community and the public do not have a significant relationship with CFP.
Metal fabrication mainly uses materials that must be of good quality, which leads to cost increases and profit reductions. Quality management may have short-run negative effects and long-run positive effects on a firm’s profits. Employee responsibility may increase employee motivation and lead to profit increase. Results show that only the CSR issues that are closely related to a company’s traditional operations have effect on CFP.

5.4. The Relationship between CSR and CFP in the Oil and Gas Industry

The estimation results in the oil and gas industry are shown in Table 5. CSR performance only has a significant positive effect on EPS over the 90% significance level.
Table
Table 5. Estimation results for the relationship between CSR and CFP in the oil and gas industry.
Table 5. Estimation results for the relationship between CSR and CFP in the oil and gas industry.
(1)
ROE		(2)
ROA		(3)
EPS		(4)
MB		(5)
NA
Constant0.0446 **0.0186 **0.1999 **0.05160.2072
(2.5029)(2.1852)(3.4810)(0.2182)(1.0169)
CSR0.00100.00030.0039 *0.00880.0029
(1.5123)(1.2822)(1.9008)(1.0587)(0.3972)
R20.64160.58430.792830.24450.5621
Constant−0.0835 *−0.0427 **−0.2754 **−0.8615−0.6665
(−2.0579)(−2.2468)(−2.3719)(−1.4376)(−1.2098)
Shareholder responsibility0.0099 **0.0046 ***0.0370 **0.04820.0829 *
(2.8251)(2.8349)(3.6746)(0.9275)(1.7371)
Employee Responsibility0.00830.00490.03260.2569 *−0.0354
(0.9485)(1.1927)(1.3045)(1.9898)(−0.2986)
Suppliers, customers and consumers responsibility−0.00050.0003−0.0004−0.13910.0323
(−0.0557)(0.0764)(−0.0135)(−0.9913)(0.2506)
Environmental Responsibility−0.0036−0.0025−0.0143−0.0381−0.0032
(−0.8726)(−1.3132)(−1.2250)(−0.6317)(−0.0579)
Public Responsibility0.00430.00160.0163 *0.02650.0014
(1.3331)(1.0253)(1.7571)(−0.5541)(−0.0310)
R20.77820.75170.92560.42090.618
No. of firms99999
Observations3535353535
Notes: 1. The numbers in parentheses are the t-test value; 2. The asterisks ***, **, and * indicate 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively; 3. “MB” is the abbreviation for growth rate of main operating and “NA” is the abbreviation for expansion rate of net assets.
As for the CSR elements, (1) shareholder responsibility has a significant positive effect on most CFP indices (except for the growth rate of main operating); (2) employee responsibility has a significant positive impact on growth rate of main operating; (3) public responsibility has a positive effect on EPS, indicating that tax and charity has positive effects on profits; and (4) the other elements have no significant relationship with CFP.
The difference from other industries regarding the relationship between CSR and CFP is that public responsibility has significant positive impacts on EPS. One possible explanation for the result is that most oil and gas companies are state-owned, obtaining huge profits and attracting a large amount of public attention. Public responsibility may improve consumer loyalty and coordination with the local community in the exploitation process. Caring for employees would encourage the staff to work better, and their good performance would improve financial performance.

5.5. The Relationship between CSR and CFP in the Oil-Producing Equipment Industry

The estimation results in the oil-producing equipment industry are shown in Table 6. CSR has negative effects on the growth rate of main operating. Shareholder responsibility performance has positive effects on ROE, ROA, and EPS over the 90% significance level. CSR does not show a significant effect on the growth rate of main operating or expansion rate of net assets, which shows that CSR does not have a relationship with corporate main operating revenue. Based on the above, CSR issues may help the company reduce costs, leading to a profit increase.
Table
Table 6. Estimation results for the relationship between CSR and CFP in the oil-producing equipment industry.
Table 6. Estimation results for the relationship between CSR and CFP in the oil-producing equipment industry.
(1)
ROE		(2)
ROA		(3)
EPS		(4)
MB		(5)
NA
Constant0.1142 ***0.0819 ***0.7682 ***0.4095 ***1.1438 *
(4.1215)(4.1082)(6.8067)(4.1124)(1.8906)
CSR−0.0002−0.0003−0.0053−0.0056 *−0.0108
(−0.1942)(−0.5319)(−1.4573)(−1.7474)(−0.5507)
R20.50020.56100.76300.34680.1920
Constant−0.0990−0.0471−0.19930.05680.9689
(−1.0520)(−0.6803)(−0.5251)(0.1686)(0.4144)
Shareholder responsibility0.0147 ***0.0091 **0.0588 ***0.02900.0183
(2.8654)(2.4190)(2.8408)(1.5762)(0.1434)
Employee Responsibility−0.0066−0.0045−0.0169−0.03150.0756
(−0.8019)(−0.7463)(−0.5095)(−1.0699)(0.3698)
Suppliers, customers and consumers responsibility0.00200.0010−0.0109−0.0395−0.0420
(0.2431)(0.1544)(−0.3256)(−1.3320)(−0.2040)
Environmental Responsibility0.00170.00140.00320.0329−0.0061
(0.2892)(0.3065)(0.1331)(1.5288)(−0.0412)
Public Responsibility−0.0016−0.0037−0.0080−0.0548−0.1862
(−0.1534)(−0.4761)(−0.1888)(−1.4658)(−0.7179)
R20.62420.65500.82590.51270.2144
No. of firms1313131313
Observations4949494949
Notes: 1. The numbers in parentheses are the t-test value; 2. The asterisks ***, **, and * indicate 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively; 3. “MB” is the abbreviation for growth rate of main operating and “NA” is the abbreviation for expansion rate of net assets.

5.6. The Relationship between CSR and CFP in the Gas and Water-Related Industry

The estimation results for the gas and water-related industry are shown in Table 7. CSR has a positive relationship with ROE, ROA, and EPS. This situation is similar to all 228 firms, which shows that CSR may help reduce costs and lead to profit growth.
Table
Table 7. Estimation results for the relationship between CSR and CFP in the gas and water-related industry.
Table 7. Estimation results for the relationship between CSR and CFP in the gas and water-related industry.
(1)
ROE		(2)
ROA		(3)
EPS		(4)
MB		(5)
NA
Constant0.0812 ***0.0396 ***0.3449 ***0.17060.8041
(4.2893)(4.6487)(4.6159)(0.6704)(1.5096)
CSR0.00060.00040.00340.0047−0.0065
(0.9852)(1.6025)(1.4208)(0.5746)(−0.3810)
R20.40850.57940.68910.21540.2091
Constant−0.1188***−0.0650 ***−0.5014 ***−0.9891−0.3855
(−3.0962)(−4.0864)(−3.3772)(−1.6414)(−0.2993)
Shareholder responsibility0.0165 ***0.0089 ***0.0697 ***0.0718 *0.0643
(6.5508)(8.4814)(7.1515)(1.8138)(0.7607)
Employee Responsibility−0.0171 *−0.0078 **−0.05070.0087−0.0655
(−1.9517)(−2.1521)(−1.4944)(0.0633)(−0.2226)
Suppliers, customers and consumers responsibility0.00320.0010−0.00090.0007−0.0006
(0.8919)(0.6499)(−0.0640)(0.0116)(−0.0047)
Environmental Responsibility0.00160.00180.0192−0.0236−0.0226
(0.4290)(1.1245)(1.3165)(−0.3985)(−0.1785)
Public Responsibility0.00180.00050.00470.04460.0477
(0.9736)(0.6425)(0.6734)(1.5603)(0.7803)
R20.59200.75320.79400.26100.2236
No. of firms3939393939
Observations144144144144144
Notes: 1. The numbers in parentheses are the t-test value; 2. The asterisks ***, **, and * indicate 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively; 3. “MB” is the abbreviation for growth rate of main operating and “NA” is the abbreviation for expansion rate of net assets.
As for the CSR elements, (1) shareholder responsibility performance has positive effects on ROE, ROA, EPS and growth rate of main operating over the 90% significance level; (2) employee responsibility has negative effects on ROE and ROA, which implies that it may have a negative impact on profit but have long-run positive effects on profits because ROA includes both debt and equity capital.

6. Conclusions

To solve mineral conflicts and, even further, to maintain the sustainable development of the Chinese mineral industry as well as social harmony, mineral firms must adopt CSR ideas. This paper examines the relationship between CSR and financial performance using data from 228 Chinese mineral listed firms from 2010–2013 with Pooled Least Squares regression analysis.
The main findings in this paper are as follows: (1) overall, CSR has significant effects on ROA, ROE, and EPS, which indicates that CSR issues may help a company reduce costs, thereby leading to a profit increase; (2) shareholder responsibility is mainly positive in relation to a firm’s profits. Environmental responsibility is mainly negative for profits in a highly polluting industry. The reason for these results is that a significantly polluting industry must spend a lot of money to decrease environmental impacts under the pressure of public attention. Employee responsibility has positive effects on firm profits in the metal fabrication industry and oil and gas industry, whereas it has short-run negative effects on profit in the water and gas-related industry. Public responsibility has positive effects on EPS in the oil and gas industry mainly because it can improve coordination with the local community in the exploitation process; (3) Generally, the CSR sub-criteria that have significant effects on a company’s CFP are the stakeholders who are closely related to its business operations. Public responsibility does not show a significant relationship with CFP (except for the oil and gas industry), which may explain why so many mineral firms ignore the public interest, leading to fierce conflicts; (4) Different estimation results for the relationship between the CSR elements and CFP are due to industry characteristics.
The main reason for this phenomenon is the differing industry development periods and developing environments. In China, as the laws are imperfect and there are high costs associated with supervising companies, Chinese mineral firms have only economic incentives and not social responsibility incentives. Most mineral companies only pay attention to profits and have no interest in other public issues.
Our results have some policy implications for the relationship between firms and the government. Chinese mineral firms do not have much interest in stakeholder responsibility outside the firm, such as charities and taxes, because these issues are not closely related to CFP. This situation will improve if firms’ profits are closely tied to their CSR performance within the mineral industry development environment. For example, if CSR faces a set of robust command-and-control regulations, then companies would incorporate CSR into their business models to operate normally and obtain profits. What is more, stimulating and restricting mechanisms must be combined. Besides enhancing supervision and legislation, we could implement some measures which would help to stimulate corporate initiatives; for example, provide tax reductions and exemptions to the firms which demonstrate excellent CSR performance, or enhance public awareness and education to improve the firm’s devotion to CSR. Then, conflicts would gradually lessen, supporting the sustainable development of the Chinese mineral industry as well as social harmony.
These results can be regarded as a preliminary discussion about the relationship between CSR performance and CFP in the Chinese mineral industry. However, there is a caveat to our sample. As CSR is a relatively new concept for Chinese firms, data related to CSR is extremely limited. The time horizon of our sample data is relatively short, although we employed all available data to initiate this study. During our research period, the most recent data available is only from 2010–2013. Longer term data may provide a more promising research study.

Appendix A

(1) CSR Professional Evaluation System for Listed Companies Provided by the HEXUN Website

The CSR professional evaluation system uses the five aspects of shareholder responsibility, staff responsibility, suppliers, customers, and consumers responsibility, environmental responsibility, and public responsibility, which involves 13 secondary-class indicators and 37 third-class indicators.
Each different industry can have its own weight ratio distribution, but the typical distribution is the following: the shareholder responsibility weight accounted for 30% employee responsibility weight was 15%; the supplier, customer, and consumer responsibility weight was 15%; the environmental responsibility weight accounted for 20%; and the social responsibility weight represented 20%. In the consumer sector industry, the employee responsibility weight was 10%; the supplier, customer, and consumer responsibility weight accounted for 20%; and the other indicators’ weight ratios remain unchanged. In the manufacturing industry, the environmental responsibility weight accounted for 30%; the public responsibility weight accounted for 10%; and the other index weight ratios remain unchanged. In the services industry, environmental responsibility accounted for 10% weight; the weight of social responsibility accounted for 30%; and the other indicators’ weights remain unchanged.

(2) Data Sources of Corporate Social Responsibility Professional Evaluation

(a)
Corporate Social Responsibility report and annual report released by the official website listed in the Shanghai Stock Exchange.
(b)
Corporate Social Responsibility report and annual report released by the official website listed in the Shenzhen Stock Exchange.

(3) Scoring Methods of Corporate Social Responsibility Professional Evaluation

(a)
The social responsibility report professional evaluation index table describes in detail each index assignment.
(b)
The indicators are divided into two categories: the first one is a numeric index, and the second one is a class of logic-based index. The numeric index is calculated using the data and hearing an accurate score based on the centre model; the logic-based index is based on the social responsibility report, as to whether there was disclosure of the indicators and the detailed disclosure score.
(c)
Due to different situations, the focus on shareholders; employees; supplier, customer, and consumer responsibility; the environment; and public responsibility is different, so there will be a corresponding adjustment in the assigned weights to be more reasonable.
Table
Table A1. Data definitions and evaluation system.
Table A1. Data definitions and evaluation system.
First-class indicatorsSecond-class indicatorsThird-class indicators
Shareholder responsibility (A)
weight ratio: 30%		Profits (Aa) 10%ROE (2%)
ROA (2%)
OPE (2%)
Cost margin (1%)
Earnings per share (EPS) (2%)
Retained earnings per share (1%)
Debt situation (Ab) 3%Quick ratio (0.5%)
Liquidity ratio (0.5%)
Cash ratio (0.5%)
Shareholders’ equity ratio (0.5%)
Asset-liability ratio (1%)
Return (Ac) 8%Dividend capital ratio (2%)
Dividend yield (3%)
Bonus share allocation ratio of profits (3%)
Credit (Ad) 5%Exchange of the company and the number of responsible person penalties (5%)
Innovation (Ae) 4%Product development expenditure (1%)
Concept of technological innovation (1%)
The number of items of technological innovation (2%)
Employee responsibilities (B)
weight ratio: 15%
weight: 10% in the consumer sector		Performance (Ba) 5%Per capita income of workers (4%) (3%)
Staff training (1%) (1%)
Security (Bb) 5%Security check (2%) (1%)
Safety training (3%) (2%)
Caring for employees (Bc) 5%Condolences awareness (1%) (1%)
Condolences to the people (2%) (1%)
Condolence payments (2%) (1%)
Supplier, customer, and consumers responsibility (C)
weight ratio: 15%
weight: 20% in the consumer sector		Product quality (Ca) 7%Quality management awareness (3%) (5%)
Quality Management System Certificate (4%) (4%)
Service (Cb) 3%Customer satisfaction survey (3%) (4%)
Mutual good faith (Cc) 5%Vendor fair competition (3%) (4%)
Anti-bribery training (2%) (3%)
Environmental responsibility (D)
weight ratio: 20%
weight: 30% in the manufacturing sector
weight: 10% in the service sector		Environmental governance (Dd) 20%Environmental awareness (2%) (4%) (2%)
Environmental management system certification (3%) (5%) (2%)
Environmental investment amount (5%) (7%) (2%)
Number of types of sewage (5%) (7%) (2%)
Number of types of energy conservation (5%) (7%) (2%)
Public responsibility (E)
weight ratio: 20%
weight: 10% in the manufacturing sector
weight: 30% in the service secto		Contribution value (Ee) 20%Tax (10%) (5%) (15%)
Donation amount (10%) (5%) (15%)

Appendix B

Table
Table B1. CFP Data Definitions and Sources.
Table B1. CFP Data Definitions and Sources.
VariableDescriptionSource
ROEReturn on equity is defined as income for the term divided by total stockholders’ equity[48]
ROAReturn on assets is defined by the following ratio. The numerator is the sum of operating profit, interest revenue/discount fee/interest on securities, and dividend revenue. The denominator is the sum of liabilities and net assets.[48]
EPSEarnings per share are defined as income for the term divided by total stockholders’ equity.[48]
Growth Rate of Main OperatingThe growth rate of the Revenue of the Main Business.[48]
Expansion Rate of Net Assets (%)The growth rate of Net Assets.[48]
Table
Table B2. Mining firms and classification.
Table B2. Mining firms and classification.
SectorsCompany nameStock code
ExtractiveChenzhou Mining Group Co., Ltd.002155
Sdic Xinji Energy Co., Ltd.601918
Shanxi Lanhua Sci -Tech Venture Co., Ltd.600123
Jizhong Energy Resources Co., Ltd.000937
Yunnan Chihong Zinc & Germanium Co., Ltd.600497
Shanxi Lu’an Environmental Energy Development Co., Ltd.601699
Inner Mongolia Pingzhuang Energy Resources Co., Ltd.000780
China Shenhua Energy Company Limited.601088
Huolinhe Opencut Coal Industry Corporation Limited Of Inner Mongolia.002128
Shanxi Xishan Coal And Electricity Power Co., Ltd.000983
Zijin Mining Group Company Limited.601899
Yunnan Coal And Energy Co., Ltd.600792
Kailuan Energy Chemical Co., Ltd.600997
Shanxi Coal International Energy Group Co., Ltd.600546
China Coal Energy Company Limited601898
Shandong Jinling Mining Co., Ltd.000655
Shanghai Prosolar Resources Development Co., Ltd.600193
Yanzhou Coal Mining Company Limited600188
Beijing Haohua Energy Resource Co., Ltd.601101
China Molybdenum Co. Ltd.603993
Shanghai Datun Energy Resources Co., Ltd.600508
Tibet Mineral Development Co., Ltd.000762
Taiyuan Coal Gasification Company Limited000968
Shandong Dacheng Pesticide Co., Ltd.600882
Gansu Jingyuan Coal Industry And Electricity Power Co., Ltd.000552
Yang Quan Coal Industry (Group) Co., Ltd.600348
Chifeng Jilong Gold Mining Co., Ltd.600988
Henan Dayou Energy Co., Ltd.600403
Shandong Gold Mining Co., Ltd.600547
Guizhou Panjiang Refined Coal Co., Ltd.600395
Anhui Hengyuan Coal Industry And Electricity Power Co., Ltd.600971
Zhongjin Gold Corp., Ltd.600489
Shandong Hongda Mining Co., Ltd.600532
Sundiro Holding Co., Ltd.000571
Zhengzhou Coal Industry & Electric Power Co., Ltd.600121
Xinjiang International Industry Co., Ltd.000159
Anyuan Coal Industry Group Co., Ltd.600397
Pingdingshan Tianan Coal Mining Co., Ltd.601666
Sino-Platinum Metals Co., Ltd.600459
Shanghai Ace Co., Ltd.600652
Shandong Humon Smelting Co., Ltd.002237
Datong Coal Industry Co., Ltd.601001
Qinghai Jinrui Mineral Development Co., Ltd.600714
Shanxi Antai Group Co., Ltd.600408
Gansu Ronghua Industry Group Co., Ltd.600311
Qitaihe Baotailong Coal&Coal Chemicals Public Co., Ltd.601011
Changchun Gas Co., Ltd.600333
Shanxi Meijin Energy Co., Ltd.000723
Shanxi Coking Co., Ltd.600740
Heilongjiang Heihua Co., Ltd.600179
Qinghai Sunshiny Mining Co., Ltd600381
Jingu Yuan Holding., Ltd.000408
Sichuan Shengda Industrial Co., Ltd.000835
Shaanxi Coal And Chemical Industry Group Co., Ltd.601225
Metal FabricationBaoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.600019
Yunnan Aluminium Co., Ltd.000807
Nanjing Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.600282
Shenzhen Zhongjin Lingnan Nonfemet Co., Ltd.000060
Henan Shen Huo Coal Industry And Electricity Power Co., Ltd.000933
Yunnan Tin Co., Ltd.000960
Guizhou Wire Rope Co., Ltd.600992
Wuhan Iron And Steel Company Limited600005
Shenzhen Green Eco-Manufacture Hi-Tech Co., Ltd.002340
Fujian Minfa Aluminium Co., Ltd.002578
Inner Mongolia Baotou Steel Rare-Earth (Group) Hi-Tech Co., Ltd.600111
Xinxing Ductile Iron Pipes Co., Ltd.000778
Pangang Group Vanadium Titanium & Resources Co., Ltd.000629
Jiaozuo Wanfang Aluminum Manufacturing Co., Ltd.000612
China Nonferrous Metal Industry’s Foreign Engineering And Construction Co., Ltd.000758
Tongling Nonferrous Metals Group Co., Ltd.000630
Beijing Cisri-gaona Materials & Technology Co., Ltd.300034
Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co., Ltd.000825
Chengtun Mining Group Co., Ltd.600711
Gansu Jiu Steel Group Hongxing Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.600307
Xining Special Steel Co., Ltd.600117
Baoji Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.600456
Jiangxi Copper Company Limited.600362
Henan Yuguang Gold And Lead Co., Ltd.600531
Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd.000969
Sansteel Minguang Co., Ltd., Fujian.002110
Liuzhou Iron And Steel Co., Ltd.601003
Western Mining Co., Ltd601168
Hebei Iron And Steel Co., Ltd.000709
Xiamen Tungsten Co., Ltd.600549
Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd.002203
Henan Zhongfu Industrial Co., Ltd.600595
Ningxia Orient Tantalum Industry Co., Ltd.000962
Aluminum Corporation Of China Limited.601600
Angang Steel Company Limited000898
Jinduicheng Molybdenum Co., Ltd.601958
Anhui Xinke New Materials Co., Ltd.600255
Chongqing Iron & Steel Company Limited.601005
Xinjiang Joinworld Co., Ltd.600888
Maanshan Iron And Steel Co., Ltd.600808
Shandong Iron And Steel Company Ltd.600022
Anyang Iron & Steel Inc.600569
Ji Lin Ji En Nickel Industry Co., Ltd.600432
Shengda Mining Co., Ltd.000603
Sichuan Western Resources Holding Co., Ltd.600139
China Minmetals Rare Earth Co., Ltd.000831
Jilin Liyuan Aluminum Co., Ltd.002501
Yunnan Lincang Xinyuan Germanium Industrial Co., Ltd.002428
Honyu Wear-Resistant New Materials Co., Ltd.300345
Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.601028
Ganfeng Lithium Co., Ltd.002460
Jiangsu Asia-Pacific Light Alloy Technology Co., Ltd.002540
Chongyi Zhangyuan Tungsten Co., Ltd.002378
Shaanxi Ligeance Mineral Resources Co., Ltd.000697
Suzhou Lopsking Aluminum Co., Ltd.002333
Dongguan Eontec Co., Ltd.300328
Shantou Wanshun Package Material Co., Ltd.300057
Yinbang Clad Material Co., Ltd.300337
Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd.002318
Shandong Lipeng Co., Ltd.002374
Suzhou Yangtze New Materials Co., Ltd.002652
Jinzhou New China Dragon Molybdenum Co., Ltd.603399
Rising Nonferrous Metals Share Co., Ltd.600259
Roshow Technology Co., Ltd.002617
Henan Mingtai Al. Industrial Co., Ltd.601677
Yechiu Metal Recycling (China) Ltd.601388
Jiangsu Changbao Steeltube Co., Ltd.002478
Xinjiang Bai Hua Cun Co., Ltd.600721
Jiangxi Hengda Hi-Tech Co., Ltd.002591
Jiangsu Shagang Co., Ltd.002075
Daye Special Steel Co., Ltd.000708
Maanshan Dingtai Rare Earth & New Material Co., Ltd.002352
Nanjing Yunhai Special Metals Co., Ltd.002182
Ningbo Boway Alloy Material Co., Ltd.601137
Juli Sling Co., Ltd.002342
Guangdong Jingyi Metal Co., Ltd.002295
Inner Mongolia Baotou Steel Union Co., Ltd.600010
Xinjiang Ba Yi Iron And Steel Co., Ltd.600581
Yunnan Copper Co., Ltd.000878
Shandong Loften Aluminium Foil Co., Ltd.002379
Luyin Investment Group Corp., Ltd.600784
Nbtm New Materials Group Co., Ltd.600114
Western Metal Materials Co. Ltd.002149
Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd.000761
Fushun Special Steel Co., Ltd.600399
Tibet Summit Industry Co., Ltd.600338
Jiangsu Fasten Company Limited.000890
Ningxia Xinri Hengli Steel Wire Co., Ltd.600165
Lingyuan Iron And Steel Co., Ltd.600231
Anhui Jingcheng Copper Share Co., Ltd.002171
Ningbo Fubang Jingye Group Co., Ltd.600768
Xinyu Iron And Steel Co., Ltd.600782
Beijing Shougang Co., Ltd.000959
Hangzhou Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.600126
Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co., Ltd.002160
Hunan Valin Steel Co., Ltd.000932
China Tungsten And Hightech Materials Co., Ltd.000657
Yunnan Luoping Zinc&Electricity Co., Ltd.002114
Sgis Songshan Co., Ltd.000717
Zhuzhou Smelter Group Co., Ltd.600961
Huludao Zinc Industry Co., Ltd.000751
Sichuan Hongda Co., Ltd.600331
Jingui Silver Industry Co., Ltd.002716
Jilin Liyuan Precision Manufacturing Co., Ltd.002501
Beijing Kingfe Culture Development Co., Ltd.002721
Lofen Environmental Technology Co., Ltd.002379
Laiwu Steel Corporation Co., Ltd.600102
Shengyang Hejin Holding Co., Ltd.000633
Hunan Corun New Energy Co., Ltd.600478
Wasu Media Holding Co., Ltd.000156
Guangdong Golden Horse Tourism Group Stock Co., Ltd.000602
Guangzhou Guangri Stock Co., Ltd.600894
Langfang Development Co., Ltd.600149
Oil Producing EquipmentChina Oilfield Services Limited601808
Offshore Oil Engineering Co., Ltd.600583
Guanghui Energy Co., Ltd.600256
Sichuan Renzhi Oilfield Technology Services Co., Ltd.002629
Yantai Jereh Oilfield Services Group Co., Ltd.002353
Landocean Energy Services Co., Ltd.300157
China Oil Hbp Science & Technology Co., Ltd.002554
Gi Technologies (Beijing) Co., Ltd300309
Tong Oil Tools Co., Ltd.300164
Sino Geophysical Co., Ltd300191
Kingdream Public Limited Company000852
Lanzhou Haimo Technologies Co., Ltd.300084
Oil and GasChina Petroleum & Chemical Corporation600028
PetroChina Company Limited601857
Wintime Energy Co., Ltd.600157
Oriental Energy Co., Ltd.002221
Shenzhen Guangju Energy Co., Ltd.000096
Shanghai Lonyer Fuels Co., Ltd.603003
Xinjiang Zhundong Petroleum Technology Co., Ltd.002207
Zhejianghaiyueco., Ltd600387
Sinopec Shandong Taishan Petroleum Co., Ltd.000554
Gas and Water RelatedJiangsu Jiangnan Water Co., Ltd.601199
Tianjin Capital Environmental Protection Group Company Limited600874
Beijing Origin Water Technology Co., Ltd.300070
Nanhai Development Co., Ltd.600323
Shanghai Chengtou Holding Co., Ltd.600649
Sound Environmental Resources Co., Ltd.000826
Chengdu Xingrong Investment Co., Ltd.000598
Shenzhen Gas Corporation Ltd.601139
Tianjin Teda Co., Ltd.000652
Heilongjiang Interchina Watertreatment Co., Ltd.600187
Shanghai Dazhong Public Utilities(Group) Co., Ltd.600635
Tieling Newcity Investment Holding Limited000809
Luenmei Holding Co., Ltd600167
Xinjiang Haoyuan Natural Gas Co., Ltd.002700
Beijing Capitalco., Ltd.600008
Liaoning Hongyang Energy Resource Invest Co., Ltd.600758
Dongjiang Environmental Company Limited002672
Yintai Resources Co., Ltd.000975
Shaanxi Provincial Natural Gas Co., Ltd.002267
Shanghai Safbon Water Service Co., Ltd.300262
Jiangsu Welle Environmental Co., Ltd.300190
Ningbo Thermal Power Co., Ltd.600982
Guangdong Golden Dragon Development Inc.000712
Nanjing Cec Environmental Protection Co., Ltd.300172
Beijing Water Business Doctor Co., Ltd.300055
Yonker Environmental Protection Co. Ltd.300187
Tianjin Binhai Energy & Development Co., Ltd.000695
Zhongshan Public Utilities Group Co., Ltd.000685
Chongqing Water Group Co., Ltd.601158
Inner Mongolia Xingye Mining Co., Ltd000426
Qianjiang Water Resources Development Co., Ltd.600283
Guangzhou Devotion Thermal Technology Co., Ltd.300335
Shenyang Huitian Thermal Power Co., Ltd.000692
Jiangxi Hongcheng Waterworks Co., Ltd.600461
Wuhan Sanzhen Industry Holding Co., Ltd.600168
Zhongyuan Environment-Protection Co., Ltd.000544
Grandblue Environment Co., Ltd.600323
Nanjing Gaoke Co., Ltd.600064
Changchun Jinkai Co., Ltd.600215
Notes: More details of these data could be provided if it is need.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Yan Jingjing, Zhang Hua, Ren Jingbo, and Xiang Nan, Zhang Dingding for their critical comments and suggestions. Furthermore, this research is funded by a project of the Key Laboratory of Carrying Capacity Assessment for Resource and Environment of the Ministry of Land and Resource (Grant No. CCA2012.11), and we wish to acknowledge their decision to submit the article for publication. The authors would also like to thank the editor of Sustainability and the two anonymous referees for their precious time and constructive comments on the paper.

Author Contributions

Jinghua Sha jointly conceived the study with Xiping Pan, designed and implemented the regression model, prepared the manuscript, discussed the results and commented on the manuscript at all stages; Xiping Pan created the analytic model with contributions from Hongliang Zhang and Wenlan Ke, supervised its analysis and described the analytic model. Xiping Pan collected and interpreted the data, wrote and editing the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sun, L. China’s mining output expanded nearly six times ten years. Available online: http://finance.eastmoney.com/news/1350,20121105257716331.html (accessed on 9 March 2014).
  2. Iwata, H.; Okada, K. How does environmental performance affect financial performance? Evidence from Japanese manufacturing firms. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1691–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Ackah-Baidoo, A. Fishing in troubled waters: Oil production, seaweed and community-level grievances in the Western Region of Ghana. Community Dev. J. 2013, 48, 406–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ackah-Baidoo, A. Enclave development and “offshore Corporate Social Responsibility”: Implications for oil-rich sub-Saharan Africa. Resour. Policy 2012, 37, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Friedman, M. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 173–178. [Google Scholar]
  6. Moskowitz, M. Choosing socially responsible stocks. Bus. Soc. Rev. 1972, 1, 71–75. [Google Scholar]
  7. Parket, I.R.; Eilbirt, H. The practice of business social responsibility: The underlying factors. Bus. Horiz. 1975, 18, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Alexander, G.J.; Buchholz, R.A. Corporate Social Responsibility and stock market performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1978, 21, 479–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Abbott, W.F.; Monsen, R.J. On the measurement of Corporate Social Responsibility: Self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Acad. Manag. J. 1979, 22, 501–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vance, S.C. Are socially responsible corporations good investment risks? Manag. Rev. 1975, 64, 19–24. [Google Scholar]
  11. Carroll, A.B.; Shabana, K.M. The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 85–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Williamson, O.E. The Economics of Discretionary Behavior: Managerial Objectives in a Theory of the Firm; Markham Publishing Company: Chicago, IL, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jensen, M.C.; Meckling, W.H. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financ. Econ. 1976, 3, 305–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pava, M.L.; Krausz, J. The Association between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Paradox of Social Cost. J. Bus. Ethics 1996, 15, 321–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jensen, M.C. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Bus. Ethics. Q. 2002, 12, 235–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Blowfield, M.; Murray, A. Corporate Responsibility: A Critical Introduction; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  17. Blowfield, M. Poverty’s Case for Business: The Evidence, Misconceptions, Conceits and Deceit Surrounding the Business Case. Available online: http://bdsnetwork.cbs.dk/publications/Working%20Papers/bsd_working_paper_(paper5)_copy.pdf (accessed on 18 June 2014).
  18. Blowfield, M.E.; Dolan, C. Fairtrade Facts and Fancies: What Kenyan Fairtrade Tea Tells us About Business’ Role as Development Agent. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 93, 143–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Frynas, J.G. Corporate Social Responsibility and international development: Critical assessment. Corp. Gov. 2008, 16, 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Frynas, J.G. The false developmental promise of Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from multinational oil companies. Int. Aff. 2005, 81, 581–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Aupperle, K.E.; Carroll, A.B.; Hatfield, J.D. An empirical examination of the relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and profitability. Acad. Manag. J. 1985, 28, 446–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bhunia, A. Association between Corporate Social Responsibility and firm financial performance: Empirical evidence from bombay stock exchange. Econ. Bull. 2012, 32, A20. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fauzi, H.; Idris, K.M. The relationship of CSR and financial performance: New evidence from Indonesian companies. Issues Soc. Environ. Account. 2012, 3, 66–87. [Google Scholar]
  24. Iqbal, N.; Ahmad, N.; Basheer, N.A.; Nadeem, M. Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Financial Performance of Corporations: Evidence from Pakistan. Int. J. Learn. Dev. 2012, 2, 107–118. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tyagi, R. Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Financial Performance and Competitiveness of Business: A Study of Indian Firms. Ph.D. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Indian, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wu, M.-W.; Shen, C.-H. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Banking Industry: Motives and Financial Performance. J. Bank. Financ. 2013, 37, 3529–3547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Parast, M.M.; Adams, S.G. Corporate Social Responsibility, benchmarking, and organizational performance in the petroleum industry: A quality management perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 139, 447–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Govindarajan, V.; Amilan, S. An influence of CSR initiatives with financial performance: Evidence from petro-gas products industry in India. ACADEMICIA: Int. Multidiscip. Res. J. 2013, 3, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cowan, A.; Parzinger, M.; Welch, O.J.; Welch, S. Performance and Corporate Social Responsibility in the Information Technology Industry. J. Inf. Syst. Appl. Res. 2013, 7, 43–55. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lee, S.; Singal, M.; Kang, K.H. The Corporate Social Responsibility-financial performance link in the US restaurant industry: Do economic conditions matter? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 32, 2–10. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lee, P.K.; Lau, A.K.; Cheng, T. Employee rights protection and financial performance. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1861–1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, Z.; Sarkis, J. Investigating the relationship of sustainable supply chain management with Corporate Financial Performance. Int. J. Product. Perfor. Manag. 2013, 62, 871–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lioui, A.; Sharma, Z. Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility and financial performance: Disentangling direct and indirect effects. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 78, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sariannidis, N.; Zafeiriou, E.; Giannarakis, G.; Arabatzis, G. CO2 Emissions and Financial Performance of Socially Responsible Firms: An Empirical Survey. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2013, 22, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Peng, C.-W.; Yang, M.-L. The Effect of Corporate Social Performance on Financial Performance: The Moderating Effect of Ownership Concentration. Available online: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10551-013-1809-9# (accessed on 18 June 2014).
  36. Julian, S.D.; Ofori-Dankwa, J.C. Financial resource availability and Corporate Social Responsibility expenditures in a sub-saharan economy: The institutional difference hypothesis. Strateg. Manag. J. 2013, 34, 1314–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chen, G.-T. A Study of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Peformance: The Mediating Effect of R&D. Master’s Thesis, National Central University, Taiwan, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  38. Raza, A.; Ilyas, M.I.; Rauf, R.; Qamar, R. Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Corporate Financial Performance (CFP): Literature review approach. Elixir Financ. Manag. 2012, 46, 8404–8409. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sturdivant, F.D.; Ginter, J.L. Corporate Social Responsiveness: Management Attitudes and Economic Performance. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1977, 19, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hart, S.L.; Ahuja, G. Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 1996, 5, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. McGuire, J.B.; Sundgren, A.; Schneeweis, T. Corporate Social Responsibility and firm financial performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1988, 31, 854–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Scholtens, B. A note on the interaction between Corporate Social Responsibility and financial performance. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 68, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sharfman, M. The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg & Domini social performance ratings data. J. Bus. Ethics. 1996, 15, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Roca, L.C.; Searcy, C. An analysis of indicators disclosed in corporate sustainability reports. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 20, 103–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Álvarez, M.; Moreno, A.; Mataix, C. The analytic hierarchy process to support decision-making processes in infrastructure projects with social impact. Total Q. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2013, 24, 596–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhao, Z.-Y.; Zhao, X.-J.; Davidson, K.; Zuo, J. A Corporate Social Responsibility indicator system for construction enterprises. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 29, 277–289. [Google Scholar]
  47. Hilson, G. Corporate Social Responsibility in the extractive industries: Experiences from developing countries. Resour. Policy 2012, 37, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. HEXUN. Stocks financial database (2010, 2011, 2012). Available online: http://stockdata.stock.hexun.com/2008en/cwbl.aspx?stockid=002155 (accessed on 9 March 2014).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pan, X.; Sha, J.; Zhang, H.; Ke, W. Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance in the Mineral Industry: Evidence from Chinese Mineral Firms. Sustainability 2014, 6, 4077-4101. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074077

AMA Style

Pan X, Sha J, Zhang H, Ke W. Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance in the Mineral Industry: Evidence from Chinese Mineral Firms. Sustainability. 2014; 6(7):4077-4101. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074077

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pan, Xiping, Jinghua Sha, Hongliang Zhang, and Wenlan Ke. 2014. "Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance in the Mineral Industry: Evidence from Chinese Mineral Firms" Sustainability 6, no. 7: 4077-4101. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074077

APA Style

Pan, X., Sha, J., Zhang, H., & Ke, W. (2014). Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance in the Mineral Industry: Evidence from Chinese Mineral Firms. Sustainability, 6(7), 4077-4101. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074077

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop