See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/376645693

Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance in Nigeria

Article · December 2023

CITATIONS READS
0 354

3 authors, including:

Aimienrovbiye Ehigie
Lighthouse Polytechnic, Evbuobanosa, Nigeria
8 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Aimienrovbiye Ehigie on 19 December 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING AND BUSINESS
DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING
UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT, CHOBA
PORT HARCOURT, RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA
VOL. 10 NO. 2 SEPTEMBER 2023

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FIRM PERFORMANCE IN NIGERIA

EHIGIE AIMIENROVBIYE HUMPHREY
Department of Accountancy,
Lighthouse Polytechnic, Evbuobanosa,
Edo State,
EHIGIE ISOKEN PRAISE
Registry Department Lighthouse Polytechnic,
Evbuobanosa,
Edo State
And
OBEGBUNAM VALENTINE UGOCHUKWU
Department of Accountancy,
Lighthouse Polytechnic,
Evbuobanosa,
Edo State
Abstract
The study focus was to ascertain the relationship between corporate
social responsibility and firm performance in Nigeria. The study used
primary data which were gathered by administering sixty (60) copies of
questionnaire to the selected sample. The ordinary least square
technique was employed in order to validate the research hypothesis.
The dependent variable was corporate social responsibility and
business sustainability, profitability, accountability, competitiveness
and comparability were used as the independent variables so as
empirically examine the relationship that existed between corporate
social responsibility and firm performance. The study revealed that
there is no relationship between firm performance. The concludes that
business sustainability, profitability, accountability, competitiveness
and comparability have a positive relationship with firm performance.
The study recommends that corporations must act responsibility in
finding ways to ensure that the social implications of their business
concerns are addressed especially when it constitutes costto society.
Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, Firm Performance, Business
Sustainability.

Page | 1
 EHIGIE A. H.., EHIGIE I. P. AND OBEGBUNAM V. U.
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FIRM PERFORMANCE IN NIGERIA
Introduction
Companies across the universe have promoted their businesses through achieving
the deliverablesof corporate social responsibilities as well as attracting the society to their
companies (Akindele, 2011). However, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is perceived
as a business approach that highlights the respect for ethics, people, communities and the
environment, as a significant strategythat adds value and thus, improves the competitive
position of a firm. It is a comprehensive set ofpolicies, practices and programs that are
integrated throughout business operations and decision- making processes (Orlitzky,
Schmidt & Rynes, 2003).
Akindele, (2011) noted that, there is a growing global trend towards both
governments mandated and voluntary corporate disclosure of information on the
environmental, labor, human rights, andsocial impacts of business practices. The goal of
this reporting grouped here under the rubric of Corporate Social Responsible (CSR)
reporting, is to generate new and better information on the performance of firms in
Nigeria. This is aimed at supporting more informed decision-making by key shareholders,
and ultimately to create new incentives for firms to reduce adverse impacts of their
activities (Agbadudu, 2002).
Agbadudu (2002) noted that over the past decade, a growing number of firms have
recognized the business benefits of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policies and
practices. The firm experiences are bolstered by a growing body of empirical studies that
CSR has a positive impact on business economic performance and is not detrimental to
shareholder value. Firms also have been encouraged to adopt or expand CSR efforts due
to the result of pressures from customers, suppliers, employees, communities, investors,
activist organizations and other stakeholders. As a result, CSR has grown dramatically in
recent years, with firms of all sizes and sectors developinginnovative strategies (Akindele,
2011). Firms have come to realize that CSR is good for business, since it increases
productivity, contribute to competitiveness and creates a positive corporate imagein the
eyes of consumers, investors, employees and community at large. In addition, socially
responsible business, with a purpose beyond making profit, can have a positive social,
economic and environmental impact by helping to improve working and surrounding
conditions (Babalola, 2013). Corporate Social Responsibility could be viewed as a symbolic
relationship that exists between a firm and all the stakeholders (Bello, 2005).
As far as Corporate Social Responsibility is concerned, most of the compelling
pressures mountedon organization to engage in CRS may not necessarily be applicable to
firms operating in Nigeria. Local consumer and civil society pressures are almost non-
existent and law enforcement mechanisms have been weak and inefficient Oyejide &
Soyibo (2001) and Ahunwan (2002). Furthermore, many firms do not fully understand
what Corporate Social Responsibility is or howit can be practiced to improve their bottom
lines and reduce risk and liabilities, Second, there are few local experts in Nigeria that could
assist firms to implement Corporate Social Responsibilitiesmeasures, making the cost of
consulting prohibitive, especially for smaller businesses and lastly, transparency,
accountability and disclosure of information has generally not been a requirement from

Page | 2
UNIPORTJAB VOL. 10 NO. 2 SEPTEMBER 2023
governments and shareholders in Nigeria (Ahunwan, 2002).
Davis and Zald (2005) stated that if these firms want to compete in the global
market place, however, they must begin making changes and incorporating Corporate
Social Responsibility measures. It is against this backdrop that this study is undertaken in
an attempt to ascertain the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on the performance
of firms in Nigeria.
Several studies such as Williams and Siegel (2001) discovered that there is negative
relationship between corporate social responsibility and firm performance, while another
study of studies suchas Davis and Zald (2005) suggested that there is positive relationship
between corporate social responsibility and firm performance and the third set of studies
which include Famiyeh (2017) revealed that they are no any significant relationship
between corporate social responsibility and firm performance. In accordance with the
above inconsistencies in findings this study seeks to fillthe research gap by conducting a
study on corporate social responsibilities and firm performance in Nigeria.
Corporate Social Responsibility has grown exponentially in the last decades and is
gradually becoming a global trend when majority of companies quoted and unquoted issue
and some reactive companies may take these issues as challenges for the future, but
proactive companies search for competitive advantage by differentiating themselves from
competitors by engaging in CSR to achieve a sustainable business (Oyejide & Soyibo, 2001).
Based on the highlights above the focusof the study is to ascertain relationship between
corporate social responsibility and firm performance in Nigeria. The study proxies
Corporate Social Responsibility with variables such as business sustainability, corporate
profitability, corporate accountability, business competitiveness comparability. The study
examines the relationship between corporate social responsibility and firm performance
in Nigeria. However, the study focuses on the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on
the firm performance of the manufacturing companies listed in the Nigeria StockExchange.
Firm Performance
Firm performance has become a relevant concept in strategic management
research and isfrequently used as a dependent variable. Although it is a very common
notion in the academic literature, there is hardly a consensus about its definition and
measurement (Saeed, 2013). Taouaband Issor (2019) suggests that the firm performance
as an achievement or results obtained by management, economics, and marketing in
providing competitiveness, efficiency, and effectiveness to the company.
Verboncu and Zalman (2005) appreciated that performance is a particular result
obtained in management, economics, and marketing that gives characteristics of
competitiveness, efficiency, and effectiveness to the organization and its structural and
procedural components. Siminica (2008) appreciates that a firm is performant when it is
at the same time efficient and effective. Therefore, the performance is a function of two
variables, efficiency and efficacy. Colase (2009) considers the word performance as a bag-
word because it covers various and different notions suchas growth, profitability, return,
productivity, efficiency, and competitiveness (Mbastha & Momaya2004). Bartoli and Blatrix
(2015) believed that the definition of performance should be achieved through items such

Page | 3
 EHIGIE A. H.., EHIGIE I. P. AND OBEGBUNAM V. U.
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FIRM PERFORMANCE IN NIGERIA
as piloting, evaluation, efficiency, effectiveness, and quality.
Firm performance from an accounting literature perspective hinge on company
profitability and performance of stocks in the capital market. The measures of firm
performance based on literaturecan be broadly classified into two namely the market-
oriented measures and the accounting- oriented measures. A well performing firm can
bring high and long-term profits, which will generate employment opportunities and
improve the income of individuals. Furthermore, financialprofitability of a firm will enhance
the returns of its employees, have better production units, andbring products of higher
quality for its customers. This process cannot be possible without an outcome
measurement (Hailab, 2014).
Corporate Social Responsibility
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a business approach that views respect for
ethics, people, communities and the environment, as an integral strategy that increase
value added, and thus, improves the competitive position of a firm. In a given society, firms
cannot ignore the environment and major coalition members with which they interact
(Akindele, 2011). Corporate social responsibility is the inherent obligation of each business
entity to account for the way its activities impact on the economic, social and
environmental dimensions of its environs and to ensure that this impact generates
equitable and sustainable benefits-and no harm-to all stakeholdersinvolved (Deregil, 2003).
The stakeholders represent the various interest groups of society wherethe firm operates.
They comprise of workers, consumers, and indigenous groups all with a legitimate right to
demand socially responsible and right corporate behavior. The stakeholders include all the
members belonging to the corporation’s social environs, which contribute to or are
encumbered by the corporation’s activity (Ojo, 2010). Corporate social responsibility is
thus concerned with treating the stakeholders of the firm ethically or in a responsible
manner (Hopkins, 2004). Ethically means treating stakeholders in a manner deemed
acceptable in civilized societies.Stakeholders exist both within a firm and outside. The wider
aim of social responsibility is to create higher standards of living while preserving the
profitability of the corporation (Stakeholder Alliance, 2002).
Corporate Social Responsibility has grown exponentially in the last decades and is
gradually becoming a global trend when majority of companies quoted and unquoted issue
(Jye & Pavel, 2009). Companies engage in corporate social responsibility activities on host
communities to builda good reputation in other to boost their corporate linage (Ojo, 2010).
An increasing number of users of financial statements such as the shareholders, analysts
and regulators as a whole request for company’s responsibility and accountability of a
dynamic set of corporate social responsibilityissues. In addition, the concept of Corporate
Social Responsibility asserts that corporations have an obligation to consider the interests
of its users as well as the ecological footprint in all aspects of their operations (Babalola,
2013).
Business Sustainability and Firm Performance
Business sustainability, also known as corporate sustainability, is the management

Page | 4
UNIPORTJAB VOL. 10 NO. 2 SEPTEMBER 2023
and coordination of environmental, social and financial demands and concerns to ensure
responsible, ethical and ongoing success (Dunfee, 2009). Sustainability is an institution’s
ability to adopt additional activities that push it towards facing events and changes relating
to economic, social, and ecological environment, and the risk management resulting
therefrom. This ability affects the reputation and presence of the institution, as well as
liability and opportunities management, which promotes creativity and innovation and
increases its ability to cope with the course of the internal and external environment
(Bansal & Ivey, 2013). Many consider sustainable development to be recognition of the
role of society in the protection of its resources and ensuring the continuity of life on Earth
(Albu, Odetayo & Adeyemi, 2014). Baumgartner and Ebner (2010) examined that when a
firm incorporates sustainable development it’s called corporate sustainability. Different
terms are being proposed and adopted in studies pertaining application of sustainable
developmentat firm level. Businesses have been experiencing growing environmental and
social pressures for some years and stakeholders are becoming more vocal in their
demands for information on business activities aside from financial performance (Keeble,
Topiol & Berkeley, 2002).
The sustainability practices that firms develop will facilitate the establishment of
better systems ofinternal control, decision-making and cost saving (Adams, 2002). Through
the efficient management of resources, companies will be able to achieve long term
sustainable competitive advantage. From the firm’s perspective, sustainability can be
defined as meeting the needs of a firm’s direct and indirect stakeholders, without
compromising its ability to meet the needs of futurestakeholders (Dyllick & Hockerts,2002).
The hypothesis validated in the study is: Business sustainability has no significant
relationship with firm performance.
Corporate Profitability and Firm Performance
Profitability is the ability to make profit from all the business activities of an
organization, company, firm, or an enterprise. It shows how efficiently the management can
make profit by usingall the resources available in the market (Pasvel, 2009). Harvard and
Upton (2003) noted that profitability is the ability of a given investment to earn a return
from its use. Profitability is a relative measure of how profitable a business is and it tells
you how much extra money is left forowners at the end of a period. What this means is
that calculating profitability removes the raw absolute amount of the profit, revenue, and
expenses and looks at those in percentage terms. By doing so, you can look at companies
of different sizes and look at their levels of profit side by side.
Generally, a company with higher profitability is more efficient, in as much as they
are generating a higher percentage of profit for each dollar of input expended (Javed,
2013).
Weston (2001) declared that the profit is use to test the efficiency and use to
measure the control and worth of the investment to the owners, margin of safety to the
creditors, source of extreme benefits to the employees, to the Government a measure of
taxable capacity and the basis of legislative action, to the country profits are an index of
economic progress, national income generated and rise in the standard of living.

Page | 5
 EHIGIE A. H.., EHIGIE I. P. AND OBEGBUNAM V. U.
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FIRM PERFORMANCE IN NIGERIA
Profitability is a business's ability to produce a returnon an investment based on its
resources in comparison with an alternative investment. The objective of a financial
manager is to improve the stock-holders value. This means stock holder includes all stake
holders, that is even suppliers, creditors, employees, customers, social sets attached to
the company who makes a difference in the company’s life, stock holders etc. When your
financial decisions increase their value, then we can say the company is financially
performing well. For example, if one picks up more debt instead of just the right amount
and thiscreates toxicity in all the stake holders and the economic and existential cost rise
due to risk risenthrough more toxicity they need to handle otherwise, the one can say a
company fumbles with itsfinancial performance. Right amount is the quantity of debt that
don’t increase the cost to stake holders that make the loose out more than they gain from
such decisions (Babalola, 2005) Profitability is the incremental profit generated from
change in a financial decision. For example,if you invest in a new venture and this raises
the overall profitability or net income by say x%, then we say that profitability has risen
due to such a move (Odetayo, 2014). Even cost cuts or budget cuts can lead to higher
profitability sometimes which are all like raising incremental rise inprofits or profitability
source for the company or rise in earnings per share for corporations (Cherian, 2016).
Profitability is the primary goal of all business ventures. Without profitability the
business will notsurvive in the long run. So, measuring current and past profitability and
projecting futureprofitability is very important. Profitability is measured with income and
expenses. Income is money generated from the activities of the business. For example, if
crops and livestock are produced and sold, income is generated. However, money coming
into the business from activitieslike borrowing money do not create income. This is simply a
cash transaction between the businessand the lender to generate cash for operating the
business or buying assets (Javed, 2013). The hypothesis validated in the study is:
Profitability has no significant relationship with firm performance.
Corporate Accountability and Firm Performance
There is a growth on the demand for accountability with pressure being put on
businesses to be more transparent in their actions to society and the environment.
Accountability could increase individual performance in context-specific tasks, for
example, duties in a non-profit organization (Kim & Lee, 2010) or performance appraisal
accuracy (Moynihan & Ingraham, 2003). It can alsoimprove organizational effectiveness in
the aspect of budgetary decisions or policy implementation, for example, in performance-
based budgeting (Gilmour and Lewis, 2006), school funding policy (Rabovsky, 2012), or
contracting out (Amirkhanyan, 2011). Corporate accountability also implies that an
organization must be answerable for any deviations from its stated goals and values, which
might be documented and made publicly available through a mission statement or vision
statement (Khanam, 2003). Corporate accountability also involves being answerable to all
an organization’s stakeholders for all actions and results. Beyond that, the concept of
corporate accountability is often broadened to imply a requirement for business to follow
ethical, responsible and sustainable practices (Utting, 2008).
Accountability is manifested in the relationship between an organization and the

Page | 6
UNIPORTJAB VOL. 10 NO. 2 SEPTEMBER 2023
individuals therein, Some studies have focused specifically on the roles of the
accountability mechanism, which is defined as the institutional structures or arrangements
that hold bureaucrats accountable for their roles in the policymaking process (Hong, 2016).
Accountability could increase individualperformance in context-specific tasks, for example,
duties in a nonprofit organization (Kim and Lee, 2010) or performance appraisal accuracy
(Moynihan & Ingraham, 2003). It can also improveorganizational effectiveness in aspects
such as rational budgetary decisions or policy implementation, for example, in
performance-based budgeting (Gilmour and Lewis, 2006), school funding policy
(Rabovsky,2012), or contracting out (Amirkhanyan, 2011). Accountability involves
mechanisms for establishing and managing mutual obligations between accountability
forums and actors to induce appropriate behavior and outcomes (Dubnick & Frederickson,
2011). The hypothesis validated in the study is: Accountability has no significant
relationship with firm performance.
Competitiveness and Firm Performance
Cruz (2006) noted competitiveness as the capability of company to design, create
and realize product better or more effective compared to competitors concerning price
and non-price factors. Competitiveness bears on company resources, i.e. tangible and
intangible assets and competenceswhich potentially can lead to the company competitive
advantage creation. Competitiveness is measured by the range of indicators both financial
and nonfinancial as well. Most of them refer tothe various evaluations of the company
success in the market relating to the realization of the offeror supply. A subject who can
probably be regarded as the most important evaluator of the offer isthe customer (Hailab,
2009).
Competitiveness is not the evidence of company success but only the ability to
compete. The intensity of this ability is joined to other concepts which are easily measurable
namely performance and prosperity, where competitiveness can be regarded as the
performance level for the effect (Blazek, 2007). Competitiveness involves a combination of
assets and processes, where assets areinherited (e.g. natural resources) or created (e.g.
infrastructure) and processes transform assets to achieve economic gains from sales to
customers (Donaldson, 2001). Firm competitiveness is defined as the ability of the firm to
withstand its performance better than its market competitors inthe long term by offering
goods and services as per the customer requirements (Ambastha & Momaya,2004). It
determines the capacity to conquer new markets, outplay other market players, and
attract investments (Falciola, Barnett & Cheruiyot, 2020). Competitiveness can be
measured from a variety of perspectives including technology, new product development,
quality, etc. The hypothesis validated in the study is: competitiveness has no significant
relationship with firm performance.
Comparability and Firm Performance
Comparability is one of the key qualities which accounting information must
possess. Accountinginformation is comparable when accounting standards and policies are
applied consistently from one period to another and from one region to another.

Page | 7
 EHIGIE A. H.., EHIGIE I. P. AND OBEGBUNAM V. U.
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FIRM PERFORMANCE IN NIGERIA
Comparability is one of the most importantcharacteristics of useful financial information
(Egbide, 2012).
Accounting information comparability is an enhancing qualitative characteristic
that enables usersto identify and understand similarities in, and differences among items
(Dunfee, 2009). Comparability suggests that accounting information generated by similar
items should be similar while different items should reflect difference (Fang & Wang,
2017). Because information users’decisions involve a process of comparison and selection,
and comparability aims to improve the usefulness of information through comparisons
between firms (International Accounting StandardBoard, 2010), comparability has a level
of decision-making usefulness that distinguishes it from other qualitative characteristics.
Comparability is an accounting principle which explains, that financial information for a
company should be comparable with financial information for other similar companies
(Sybil, 2003).
Comparability is the level of standardization of accounting information that allows
the financial statements of multiple organizations to be compared to each other. This is a
fundamental requirement of financial reporting that is needed by the users of financial
statements (Gray, 2011). Financial statements are more comparable when the same
accounting policies and standards are applied across multiple reporting periods, as well as
across multiple entities within an industry. For example, if a number of oil and gas firms
consistently apply the same industry-specific accounting standards to their financial
statements, then there should be a high level of comparability within that industry.
Comparability is also higher for firms with similar earnings attributes such as accruals
quality, earnings predictability, earnings smoothness, and whether or not the firm reports
losses. Comparability between firms is largely fixed, particularly in short-termperiods. That
is, comparability is largely an external, environmental condition (Spence, 2008). The
financial statements are a function of the underlying economic events captured and the
accountingfor those events. Assuming a given set of economic events, comparability can
be defined as the extent of similarity between firms' accounting systems (Franco, 2011).
The hypothesis validated in the study is: Comparability has no significant relationship with
firm performance.
Empirical Studies
Spicer (2007) conducted a study on Corporate social responsibility and firm
performance in South Africa. He used the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression
techniques. The study revealed that CSR is concerned with the provision of information
about a firm’s performance of the social contract and also CSR has been a growing
dimension in accounting theory and practice since the 70s. The accounting profession has
been involved in the struggle to ensure that social responsibilityexpenditures are accounted
for and adequately disclosed in the annual reports/financial statements.The study finds a
positive connection between CSR and firm performance.
Deregil (2003) conducted a study on Corporate social responsibility and firm
performance in Spain. Deregil used the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression techniques.
He discovered that the social responsibility of business was not widely considered to be a

Page | 8
UNIPORTJAB VOL. 10 NO. 2 SEPTEMBER 2023
significant problem from the time of Adam Smith to the period of the great depression.
However, increasingly since the 1960s, social responsibility has become an important issue
not only for businesses but in the theoryand practice of law, accounting and economics.
The study finds a positive connection between Social responsibility and firm performance.
Mamman (2004) conducted a study on Corporate Social Responsibility and firm
performance in London. He used the OLS regression techniques. The study emphasized that
there is no agreement over the meanings attached to the concept of Corporate Social
Responsibility. The lack of unity inthe definition of the concept generates the controversy
surrounding the role that a business is expected to play in different countries among
business theorists, executives, accountants and the general public. The study finds a
positive understanding and explanation on CSR and firm performance in different country.
Friedman (2000) conducted a study on Corporate Social Responsibility and firm
performance in France. The study revealed that the sole objective of a firm should be to
maximize shareholders’ wealth and thus an organization striving to attain this objective is
already acting in the best interestof the society at large. He used the OLS regression and
correlation analysis. The study finds a positive objective on Corporate Social Responsibility
and firm performance.
Deegan & Rankin (2006) conducted a study on Corporate Social Responsibility and
firm performance in china. They used the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression
techniques. The study viewed the practice of CSR as an interaction between an
organization and its physical and social environment, including disclosures relating to
human resources, community involvement, the natural environment, product/customer
safety, and corporate financial performance. The study finds a positive relationship
between Corporate Social Responsibility and firm performance.
Becchetti (2008) conducted a study on Corporate Social Responsibility and firm
performance in France. He used the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression techniques. The
study concluded that the additional costs are potentially compensated for by a range of
direct and indirect benefits whichshow a positive correlation between social responsibility
and firm performance.
Ullmann & Bradgon (2012) conducted a study on Corporate Social Responsibility
and firm performance in India. The study investigated that the relationship between
corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm performance have been based mainly on
theoretical arguments. Those that have suggested a negative relation between social
responsibility and financial performance have argued that high responsibility results in
additional costs, which put the firm atan economic disadvantage compared to other less
socially responsible firm. The Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression techniques was used.
The study finds a negative relationship Corporate Social Responsibility and firm
performance.
Crisóstomo (2011) conducted a study on The Relationship between CSR and Firm
Performance inMexico. Using the OLS regression techniques, the study states that there
are three-dimensional (positive, negative and neutral) arguments concerning the
relationship between CSR and corporatefinancial performance.

Page | 9
 EHIGIE A. H.., EHIGIE I. P. AND OBEGBUNAM V. U.
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FIRM PERFORMANCE IN NIGERIA
Weber (2008) conducted a study on Corporate Social Responsibility and firm
performance in Kenya. He used the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression and correlation
analysis. The study suggested that the commitment to social and environmental
responsibility is likely to improve corporate performance and improve in the relationship
between CSR and corporate performance.The study finds a positive relationship between
Corporate Social Responsibility and firm performance.
Jones (2005) conducted a study on Corporate Social Responsibility and firm
performance in Egypt.He used the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression techniques. The
study examined that firms involved in repeated transactions with stakeholders on the basis
of trust and corporation are motivated to be honest, trustworthy and ethical because the
returns to such behavior are high. Thestudy finds a positive relationship between Corporate
Social Responsibility and firm performance.
Methodology
The Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression technique will be used as data analysis
method for this study. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression is a statistical method of
analysis that estimatesthe relationship between one or more independent variables and a
dependent variable. The use ofOLS in this study is based on the following justification, first
this technique will be used to identify a Firms profitability, secondly OLS will be used to
estimate a firms Accountability level and lastlyOLS will be used to estimate the relationship
between profitability and competitiveness.
The study adapted the model from the study of Lozano (2012) and Atiq and Karastas-
ozkan (2013).The study introduced business stability and corporate accountability to the
model.
The models are stated below:
FMPM= F (BUST, PFTY, ACTY, CPTS, CPBY)
FMPM= β0 + β1 BUST it + β2 PFTY it + β3 ACTY it + β4 CPTS it + β5 CPBY it + X
Where:
BUST= Business SustainabilityPFTY= Profitability
ACTY= Accountability CPTS= CompetitivenessCPBY= Comparability
(β1, β2, β3, β4 and β5) – ConstantX= Error term
Data Analysis and InterpretationDescriptive Statistics
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics
FMPM BUST PFTY ACTY CPTS CPBY
Mean 15.86667 17.15000 16.96667 16.08333 15.63333 15.81667
Median 17.00000 17.00000 18.00000 18.00000 16.00000 16.00000
Maximum 24.00000 25.00000 24.00000 23.00000 25.00000 27.00000
Minimum 5.000000 7.000000 7.000000 5.000000 8.000000 6.000000
Std. Dev. 5.832308 5.236201 4.675818 5.231235 4.613784 5.146964
Skewness -0.504784 -0.423497 -0.373014 -0.676571 0.251733 0.002634
Kurtosis 2.042868 2.228016 2.004748 2.317360 1.972626 1.863702

Page | 10
UNIPORTJAB VOL. 10 NO. 2 SEPTEMBER 2023
Jarque-Bera 4.838330 3.283397 3.867712 5.742484 3.272436 3.228004
Probability 0.088996 0.193651 0.144590 0.056629 0.194715 0.199089
Sum 952.0000 1029.000 1018.000 965.0000 938.0000 949.0000
Sum Sq. Dev. 2006.933 1617.650 1289.933 1614.583 1255.933 1562.983
Obs 60 6 60 60 60 60
erva 0
tion
s
Source: Researcher’s Computation Using Eviews 8
The descriptive statistics outcome above shows that firm performance, business
sustainability profitability, accountability, competitiveness, and comparability variables
have a mean value of 15.86, 17.15, 16.96, 16.08, 15.63 and 15.81, while the median
values are 17.00, 17.00, 18.00, 18.00, 16.00 and 16.00, furthermore, the standard
deviation values are 5.83, 5.23,4.67, 5.23, 4.61 and 5.14 respectively. However, on the
average, the business sustainability (BUST) variable has amaximum mean value of 17.15,
while competitiveness variable has a minimum mean value 15.63,more so, profitability and
accountability variables have a tie in the maximum median value of 18.00, while
competitiveness and comparability variables have a tie in the minimum median valueof
16.00 and Firm performance variable has a maximum standard deviation value of 5.83
while competitiveness variable have a minimum standard deviation value of 4.61.
Meanwhile, all the variables are negatively skewed except for the variables of
competitiveness and comparability. The kurtosis shows a maximum value of 2.31 and a
minimum value of 1.86. The variables show a maximum Jarque-Bera value of 5.74 and
minimum value of 3.22.
Correlation Coefficient Matrix
Table 2: Correlation coefficient matrix
FMPM BUST PFTY ACTY CPTS CPBY
FMPM 1.000000
BUST 0.581194 1.000000
PFTY 0.520662 0.387878 1.000000
ACTY 0.441457 0.375747 0.406862 1.000000
CPTS 0.527242 0.527795 0.264190 0.520244 1.000000
CPBY 0.427154 0.394728 0.376526 0.160469 0.333292 1.000000
Source: Research’s Computation using Eviews 8
The correlation coefficient matrix shows the association that exit between the explanatory
variables and the dependent variables. However, on the average, the result indicates that
at 0.581194 firm performance associate with business sustainability, while at 0.520662
firm performance associates with profitability, furthermore, Firm performance associates
with accountability, competitiveness and comparability at 0.441457, 0.527242, 0.427154
respectively. However, the dependent variables have better association.

Page | 11
 EHIGIE A. H.., EHIGIE I. P. AND OBEGBUNAM V. U.
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FIRM PERFORMANCE IN NIGERIA
Regression Output
Table 3: Regression Output
Variables Coefficient t-Statistic P-Value Value
C -3.412098 -1.280924 0.2057
BUST 0.306072 2.288364 0.0261
PFTY 0.335971 2.378662 0.0209
ACTY 0.104657 0.787747 0.4343
CPTS 0.277049 1.751085 0.0856
CPBY 0.146358 1.178746 0.2437
R-squared 0.512111
Adjusted R-squared 0.466936
F-Statistic 11.33619
P-(F-statistic) 0.000000
Durbin-Waton Statistic 2.246879
Source: Researchers Computation using Eviews 8
The regression Output above shows an R-squared of 0.512111, which indicates that
the explanatory variables have explained the dependent variables at 51%, while the
adjusted R-squaredof 0.466936 indicates that the explanatory and predictability power of
the model is approximately 46%. However, the business sustainability (BUST) with a
coefficient of 0.306072 has a positive relationship with firm performance (FMPM), while
profitability (PFTY) with a coefficient of 0.335971 has a positive relationship with firm
performance (FMPM), more so accountability (ACTY) with a coefficient of 0.104657 has a
positive relationship with firm performance (FMPM), competitiveness (CPTS) with a
coefficient of 0.277049 has a positive relationship with firm performance (FMPM) and
comparability (CPBY) with a coefficient of 0.146358 has a positive relationship with firm
performance (FMPM). The model has Durbin-Watson statistics of 2.246879which indicates
that there is multi-collinearity.
Discussion of findings and data interpretation
Business sustainability is positively associated with firm performance. Therefore,
an increase in business sustainability translates into an increase in firm performance.
Furthermore, it indicates that business sustainability is significantly related to firm
performance. The null hypothesis stated as business sustainability has no significant
relationship with firm performance was accepted.
Corporate profitability also shows positive association with firm performance, it
therefore indicates further that corporate profitability is significant in its association with
firm performance.Whereas, this means that an increase in profitability directly increases
firm performance. The nullhypothesis stated as corporate profitability has no significant
relationship with firm performance was accepted.
Corporate accountability was not different as it was reported to have positive
association with firmperformance. It means that where corporate accountability increases
firm performance will increase accordingly. Corporate accountability has no significant

Page | 12
UNIPORTJAB VOL. 10 NO. 2 SEPTEMBER 2023
relationship with firm performance. However, the null alternative hypothesis that state as
follows; corporate accountability has significant relationship with firm performance was
accepted.
Competitiveness is positively related with firm performance. However, this means
that an increase in competitiveness may result to an increase in firm performance.
Competitiveness has nosignificant relationship with firm performance. This indicate that
the null hypothesis stated as; competitiveness has no significant relationship with firm
performance was rejected, while the alternative hypothesis will be accepted.
Comparability is positively related to firm performance. However, this means that
an increase in comparability may result to an increase in firm performance. The alternate
hypothesis stated as comparability has a significant relationship with firm performance
was accepted.
Conclusion
The study evaluated the relationship between corporate social responsibility and
firm performancein Nigeria. However, companies sustain their business in order to stay
active and functional to remedy poor governance systems that seem to prevail in emerging
market and to improve firm performance. The sustainability of business operations
increases the wealth of the organization and translates to firm performance.
Furthermore, profitability of the companies is an indication that the assets of the
organisation has been used to generate surpluses. Besides, companies that are profit
oriented worked towards obtaining positive results in the market. The performance of an
organization may be a function ofthe profit made. Accountability, competitiveness and
comparability variables influences firm performance. Where an organization have good
accosting and internal system that enhances the accountability of it processes this may
also determine how better the organization will perform in the market. In addition, the
better competitive an organization is the more strategic position the organization will it
achieve.
Finally, the comparability of an organization assets structure should be considered
in order to increase firm performance. Therefore, an increase in comparability of an
organisation’s assets maytranslates into better firm performance.
References
Ahunwan, B. (2002). Corporate Governance in Nigeria. Journal of Business Ethics, 37,
269-287.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015212332653
Akindele, R.I. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility: An Organizational Tool for Survival
in Nigeria. An International Journal, 19, 114-126.
Akindele, A. & Ojo, W. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in Nigeria: western mimicry
or indigenous influences. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 4(9), 34 - 58.
Agbadudu, A.B. (2002). Major Statistical Tools and their Uses in Research Analysis. Research
Design and Implementation in Accounting and Finance, University of Benin Press,
Benin.

Page | 13
 EHIGIE A. H.., EHIGIE I. P. AND OBEGBUNAM V. U.
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FIRM PERFORMANCE IN NIGERIA
Babalola, T. (2013). An empirical investigation of the relationship between corporate social
responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 2(7), 67 – 88.
Bartoli, E. & Blatrix, L. (2015). Corporate social performance and stock Returns: UK Evidence
from disaggregate measures. Faculty of Finance CASS Business school, city University
London.
Bello, Z.Y. (2005). Socially Responsible Investing and Portfolio Diversification. Journal of
Financial Research, 28, 41-57.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6803.2005.00113.x
Colase, R. (2009). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance. Academy of Management Review, 34, 75 – 97.
Davis, G.F.& Zald, M. N. (2005). Social change, social theory, and the convergence of
movements and organizations. Social Movements and Organization Theory.
NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 335-350.
Deregil, T. (2003). Corporate social responsibility still an infant discipline. The Jus Semper
Global Alliance Issue Brief.
Dunfee, E. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in a General Equilibrium stock market
model Solving the financial performance puzzle. Department of Economics,
Universityof Groningren, Netherlands.
Famiyeh, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and firm’s performance: empirical
evidence. Social Responsibility Journal, 13(2), 390–406. doi:10.1108/srj-04-2016-
0049
Harvard, R. & Upton, D. (2003). Value maximization, stakeholder theory and the corporate
objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly. 6 – 20.
Jye, Q. & Pavel, C. (2009). An investigation of corporate social responsibility reputation in
economic performance. Accounting organization and society.
Lozano, R. (2012). Towards Better Embedding Sustainability into Companies’ Systems: An
Analysis of Voluntary Corporate Initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 25, 14-
26.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.060
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm
Perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117.
doi:10.2307/259398
Pasvel, T. (2009). The corporate social financial performance relationship: a typology
andanalysis. Business and society.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial
performance: A meta-analysis. Organization studies, 24(3), 403-441.
Oyejide, T. A., & Soyibo, A. (2001, January). Corporate governance in Nigeria. In conference
on 29(30).

Page | 14
 UNIPORTJAB VOL. 10 NO. 2 SEPTEMBER 2023
Saeed, K. (2013). The social responsibilities of the Businessman, New York.
Stakeholder Alliance, (2002). A project of the center of the Advancement of public policy.
Statement of principle. www.stakeholderalliance.Org/start print
Taouab, J. & Issor, A. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and stock market
performance. The academy of Management Journal, 21(10). 54 – 76.
Verboncu, R. & Zalman, U. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and financial
performancein the Australia context. Corporations and Financial Services Division,
The AustralianTreasury.

Page | 15

View publication stats