Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Financial Performance: The Mediating Role of Innovation Ability

• Thesis title in Czech: Role inovací ve vztahu mezi finanční výkonnosti firem a jejich společenskou odpovědností
• Thesis title in English: Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Financial Performance: The Mediating Role of Innovation Ability
• Key words: Podniková sociální odpovědnost Podnikový finanční výkon Inovativní schopnosti Efekt prahu Regulační efekt Pracuje pro prostředníka
• English key words: Corporate social responsibility; Enterprise financial performance; Innovative ability; Threshold effect; Regulation; Intermediary function
• Academic year of topic announcement: 2021/2022
• Thesis type: diploma thesis
• Thesis language: angličtina
• Department: Department of Russian and East European Studies (23-KRVS)
• Supervisor: PhDr. Jaromír Baxa, Ph.D.
• Author: hidden - assigned by the advisor
• Date of registration: 12.10.2022
• Date of assignment: 12.10.2022
• Date and time of defence: 15.06.2023 09:30
• Venue of defence: Jinonice - Nový Kampus, C321, 321, seminární místnost IMS
• Date of electronic submission: 02.05.2023
• Date of proceeded defence: 15.06.2023
• Opponents: Dr. Serena Merrino

References

Adegbite, E., Guney, Y., Kwabi, F., & et al. (2019). Financial and corporate social performance
in the UK listed firms: The relevance of non-linearity and lag effects. Review of Quantitative
Finance and Accounting, 52(1), 105-158.
Allocca, M. A., & Kessler, E. H. (2006). Innovation Speed in Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(3), 279-295.
Ang, R., Shao, Z., Liu, C., et al. (2022). The relationship between CSR and financial
performance and the moderating effect of ownership structure: Evidence from Chinese heavily
polluting listed enterprises. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 30, 117-129.
Artz, K. W., Norman, P. M., Hatfield, D. E., & Cardinal, L. B. (2010). A Longitudinal Study of
the Impact of R&D, Patents, and Product Innovation on Firm Performance. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 27(5), 725-740.
Atanassov, J., Julio, B., & Leng, T. (2015). The bright side of political uncertainty: The case of
R&D. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Bahta, D., Yun, J., Islam, M., et al. (2020). Corporate social responsibility, innovation
capability and firm performance: evidence from SME. Social Responsibility Journal.
Balasubramanian, N., & Lee, J. (2008). Firm age and innovation. Industrial and Corporate
Change, 17(5), 1019-1047.
Barba Navaretti, G., Castellani, D., & Pieri, F. (2014). Age and firm growth: evidence from
three European countries. Small Business Economics, 43(4), 823-837.
Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between
shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 71-86.
Bastič, M., Mulej, M., & Zore, M. (2020). CSR and financial performance – Linked by
innovative activities. Our Economy, 66(2), 1-14.
Bendell, B. L., & Nesij Huvaj, M. (2018). Does stakeholder engagement through corporate
social and environmental behaviors affect innovation? Journal of Business Research.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why, and How
Consumers Respond To Corporate Social Initiatives. California Management Review, 47, 9-24.
Bocquet, R., Le Bas, C., Mothe, C., et al. (2013). Are firms with different CSR profiles equally
innovative? Empirical analysis with survey data. European Management Journal, 31(6), 642-654.
Bowen, F. E., Rostami, M., & Steel, P. (2010). Timing is everything: A meta-analysis of the
relationships between organizational performance and innovation. Journal of Business Research,
63(11), 1179-1185.
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the
relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal,
29(12), 1325-1343.
Brammer, S., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate social performance and stock returns:
UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financial Management, 35.
Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource￾Based Perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 111-132.
Brown, J. R., & Petersen, B. C. (2011). Cash holdings and R&D smoothing. Journal of
Corporate Finance, 17(3), 694-709.
Busch, T., Stinchfield, B. T., & Wood, M. S. (2011). Rethinking sustainability, innovation, and
financial performance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cainelli, G., Evangelista, R., & Savona, M. (2004). The impact of innovation on economic
performance in services. The Service Industries Journal, 24(1), 116-130.
Carrasco, I., & Martínez, I. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: A crossroad between
changing values, innovation and internationalisation. European Journal of International
Management, 7(3), 295-314.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. The
Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G., Reverte, C., Gómez-Melero, E., et al. (2016). Linking social and
economic responsibilities with financial performance: The role of innovation. European
Management Journal, 34(5), 530-539.
Chang, X., Fu, K., Low, A., et al. (2015). Non-executive employee stock options and corporate
innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, 115(1), 168-188.
Chen, H., Zhang, L., & Xiang, Y. (2016). Empirical research on corporate social responsibility
in mainland China from 2000 to 2015. Management Review, 13(07), 1051-1059.
Chen, Q. (2010). Advanced Econometrics and Stata Applications. Higher Education Press.
Chen, X., Wang, Y., & Yang, Z. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and enterprise value:
The moderating effects of organizational inertia and industry sensitivity. Technology Economics,
39(7), 140-146+158.
Choi, W. Y., Lee, H. S., & Hong, C. S. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and firm value:
Focused on corporate contributions. Korean Management Review, 38(2), 407-432.
Chukwu, G. J., & Egbuhuzor, C. A. (2017). Tangible assets and corporate performance:
Evidence from the manufacturing industry in Nigeria. Research Journal of Financial Sustainability
Reporting, 2(1), 271-277.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37
definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1-13.
Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational Innovation and Performance: The
Problem of "Organizational Lag". Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 392-409.
Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). The Dynamics of the Adoption of Product and
Process Innovations in Organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 45-65.
Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management
Review, 2(3), 70-76.
Deng, X., Kang, J.-k., & Low, B. S. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder
value maximization: Evidence from mergers. Journal of Financial Economics, 110(1), 87-109.
Dhawan, R. (2001). Firm size and productivity differential: theory and evidence from a panel
of US firms. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 44(3), 269-293.
Donaldson, T. (1982). Corporations and Morality. Journal of Business Ethics, 1(3), 251-253.
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a Unified Conception of Business Ethics:
Integrative Social Contracts Theory. The Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252-284.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts,
Evidence, and Implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
Dong, X., Zhao, J., & Yuan, P. (2014). Research on the efficiency loss of innovation in state￾owned enterprises. China Industrial Economics, (2), 97-108.
Driscoll, J. C., & Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation with Spatially
Dependent Panel Data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549-560.
Drucker, P. F. (1984). Converting social problems into business opportunities: The new
meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 26, 53-63.
Elkington, J., & Rowlands, I. H. (1999). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st
century business. Alternatives Journal, 25(4), 42.
Farah, T., Li, J., Li, Z., et al. (2021). The non-linear effect of CSR on firms’ systematic risk:
International evidence. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 71.
Ferauge, P. (2013). The complementarity of corporate social responsibility and innovation:
evidence from Belgian firms. Global Journal of Business Research, 7(5), 99-113.
Flammer, C. (2015). Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial
performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Management Science, 61(11), 2549-2568.
Franco, S., Caroli, M. G., Cappa, F., & et al. (2020). Are you good enough? CSR, quality
management and corporate financial performance in the hospitality industry. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 88.
Frederick, W. C. (2016). Commentary: Corporate social responsibility: Deep roots, flourishing
growth, promising future. Frontiers in psychology, 7.
Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. New
York Times Magazine, 13, 122-126.
Galant, A., & Cadez, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance
relationship: A review of measurement approaches. Economic Research, 30, 676-693.
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory.
Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1), 51-71.
Giannarakis, G., Konteos, G., Zafeiriou, E., & et al. (2016). The impact of corporate social
responsibility on financial performance. Investment Management & Financial Innovations, 13, 171-
182.
Griffin, J., & Mahon, J. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial
Performance Debate: Twenty-Five Years of Incomparable Research. Business & Society, 36, 5-31.
Grupp, H. (1998). Foundation of the Economics of Innovation: Theory, Measurement and
Practice. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gu, L., Guo, J., & Wang, H. (2020). Corporate social responsibility, financing constraints, and
corporate financialization. Journal of Financial Research, (02), 109-127.
Guan, J., Gao, Z., Tan, J., et al. (2021). Does the mixed ownership reform work? Influence of
board chair on performance of state-owned enterprises. Journal of Business Research, 122, 51-59.
Guan, Y., Fan, C., & Zhang, G. (2020). Enterprise leverage, medium- and long-term credit and
enterprise performance. Accounting and Economic Research, 34(03), 68-80.
Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm
performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662-676.
Guo, Y. (2006). The critical thinking of management. China Renmin University Press.
Halme, M., & Laurila, J. (2009). Philanthropy, integration or innovation? Exploring the
financial and societal outcomes of different types of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business
Ethics, 84(3), 325-339.
Hansen, B. E. (1999). Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing, and
inference. Journal of Econometrics, 93(2), 345-368.
Hasan, I., Kobeissi, N., Liu, L., et al. (2018). Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm
Financial Performance: The Mediating Role of Productivity. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(3),
671-688.
He, J. J., & Tian, X. (2013). The dark side of analyst coverage: The case of innovation. Journal
of Financial Economics, 109(3), 856-878.
Hirshleifer, D., Hsu, P.-H., & Li, D. (2013). Innovative efficiency and stock returns. Journal of
Financial Economics, 107(3), 632-654.
Hu, G. Y. (2010). Research on the Basic Issues of Corporate Social Responsibility Theory:
Based on the Perspective of Value Creation and Benefit Allocation of Enterprises. (Doctoral
dissertation). Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
Hu, H. (2008). On corporate social responsibility. Eastern Law, (01), 105-113.
Hull, C. E., & Rothenberg, S. (2008). Firm performance: the interactions of corporate social
performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Southern Medical Journal, 29, 781-789.
Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and
impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429-438.
Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective
Function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235-256.
Jiang, J., Jiang, X., & Yi, Z. (2020). Research on enterprise innovation efficiency - the impact
of equity pledge. Financial Research, (2), 128-146.
Jones, T. M. (1980). Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California
Management Review, 22(3), 59-67.
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. The
Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404-437.
Karyawati, P. G., Subroto, B., & Saraswati, E. (2019). The complexity of relationship between
corporate social responsibility (CSR) and financial performance. EMAJ: Emerging Markets Journal,
8, 19-25.
Klassen, R. D., & Whybark, D. C. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on
manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 599-615.
Kleinknecht, A., & Verspagen, B. (1990). Demand and innovation: Schmookler re-examined.
Research Policy, 19(4), 387-394.
Kozubek, R. (2015). The link between innovation and CSR. Short look on a bi-directional
system of innovation-driven CSR and CSR-driven innovation. Politechnika Śląska.
Lankoski, L. (2000). Determinants of environmental profit：an analysis of the firm-level
relationship between environmental performance and economic performance (Doctoral dissertation,
Helsinki University of Technology).
Lankoski, L. (2008). Corporate Responsibility Activities and Economic Performance: a Theory
of Why and How They Are Connected. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17, 536-547.
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that
moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152-1189.
Li, G. P., & Wei, X. Q. (2014). Connotation, Measurement and Economic Consequences of
Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Foreign Corporate Social Responsibility Theories.
Accounting Research, (08), 33-40+96.
Li, H. J., & Zhang, J. (2015). Corruption and firm innovation: lubricant or stumbling block.
Nankai Economic Studies, (02), 24-58.
Li, S., & Xie, X. (2014). Corporate social responsibility, political connections and debt
financing: Empirical evidence from China's capital market. Nankai Business Review International,
5(2), 110-121.
Li, S., Song, X., & Wu, H. (2015). Political connection, ownership structure, and corporate
philanthropy in China: A strategic-political perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2), 399-
411.
Li, W. (2003). The Social Contract of Enterprises: A New Research Framework for Corporate
Behavior Norms. Finance and Economics Research, 29(10), 26-30.
Li, W., & Yu, M. (2015). Equity structure of privatized enterprises and corporate innovation.
Management World, (04), 112-125.
Li, W., & Zheng, M. (2016). Substantive innovation or strategic innovation? The influence of
macro-industrial policies on micro-enterprise innovation. Economic Research, 51(04), 60-73.
Liang, A., & Wu, X. (2021). Corporate deleveraging, investment efficiency and corporate
performance. Economics and Management, 35(01), 62-69.
Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). First-mover advantages. Strategic
Management Journal, 9, 41-58.
Lin, C.-H., Yang, H.-L., & Liou, D.-Y. (2009). The impact of corporate social responsibility on
financial performance: Evidence from business in Taiwan. Technology in Society, 31(1), 56-63.
Lin, J. (2004). Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility from the Perspective of Social
Contract Theory. Lingnan Journal, (04), 71-75.
Lins, K., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2016). Social Capital, Trust, and Firm Performance: The
Value of Corporate Social Responsibility during the Financial Crisis. The Journal of Finance, 72.
Liu, B., Sun, P.-Y., & Zeng, Y. (2020). Employee-related corporate social responsibilities and
corporate innovation: Evidence from China. International Review of Economics & Finance, 70,
357-372.
Liu, H., Zheng, S., & Wang, Y. (2015). Ownership type, technological innovation, and firm
performance. China Soft Science, (3), 28-40.
Lu, D. (2002). The economic and legal analysis of corporate social responsibility. Law Press.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction,
and Market Value. Journal of Marketing, 70, 1-18.
Luo, X., & Du, S. (2015). Exploring the relationship between corporate social responsibility
and firm innovation. Marketing Letters, 26(4), 703-714.
Lyne, M. B. (2003). Aligning R&D with business strategy. Research-Technology Management,
46(6), 44-46.
Macdonald, S. (2004). When means become ends: Considering the impact of patent strategy
on innovation. Information Economics and Policy, 16(1), 135-158.
Mahoney, L., & Roberts, R. W. (2007). Corporate social performance, financial performance
and institutional ownership in Canadian firms. Accounting Forum, 31(3), 233-253.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives
by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268-305.
Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate Citizenship: Toward an Extended Theoretical
Conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166-179.
Matten, D., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the Mask: Revealing the True Face of
Corporate Citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1), 109-120.
Matthew, B., Rebecca, B., & Greg, H. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and financial
performance in the Australian context. Economic Roundup, (2), 47-58.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (1997). Event Studies in Management Research: Theoretical and
Empirical Issues. The Academy of Management Journal, 40, 626-657.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial
performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603-609.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127.
Mehar, A., & Rahat, F. (2007). Impact of corporate social responsibility on firm's financial
performance. South Asian Journal of Management Sciences, 1(1), 16-24.
Mishina, Y., Pollock, T. G., & Porac, J. F. (2004). Are more resources always better for growth?
Resource stickiness in market and product expansion. Strategic Management Journal, 25(12), 1179-
1197.
Mithani, M. A. (2017). Innovation and CSR - Do they go well together? Long Range Planning,
50(6), 699-711.
Montoya, M. M. (2011). Innovation, corporate social responsibility and financial performance
(Doctoral dissertation).
Moskowitz, M. R. (1972). Choosing socially responsible stocks. Business & Society Review,
(1), 71-75.
Muttakin, M., & Subramaniam, N. (2015). Firm ownership and board characteristics: Do they
matter for corporate social responsibility disclosure of Indian companies? Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal, 6(2).
Namazi, M., & Namazi, N. R. (2016). Conceptual Analysis of Moderator and Mediator
Variables in Business Research. Procedia Economics and Finance, 36, 540-554.
Nelling, E., & Webb, E. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The
“virtuous circle” revisited. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 32(2), 197-209.
Nollet, J., Filis, G., & Mitrokostas, E. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and financial
performance: A non-linear and disaggregated approach. Economic Modelling, 52, 400-407.
Odalo, S. K., Njuguna, A. G., & Achoki, G. (2016). Relating sales growth and financial
performance in agricultural firms listed in the Nairobi securities exchange in Kenya.
Okafor, A., Adeleye, B. N., & Adusei, M. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and financial
performance: Evidence from U.S tech firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource
Dependence Perspective.
Qian, M., Xu, G., Shen, Y., et al. (2017). Dynamic relationship between voluntary social
responsibility information disclosure and financing constraints in private enterprises. Management
Review, 29(12), 163-174.
Riano, J. D., & Yakovleva, N. (2020). Corporate Social Responsibility. Springer International
Publishing.
Roman, R. M., Hayibor, S., & Agle, B. R. (1999). The Relationship between Social and
Financial Performance. Business & Society, 38, 109-125.
Russo, M., & Fouts, P. (1997). A Resource-Based Perspective on Corporate Environmental
Performance and Profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40.
Santos, D. F. L., Basso, L. F. C., Kimura, H., & Kayo, E. K. (2014). Innovation efforts and
performances of Brazilian firms. Journal of Business Research, 67(4), 527-535.
Schilling, M. A., & Hill, C. W. L. (1998). Managing the new product development process:
Strategic imperatives. Academy of Management Perspectives, 12(3), 67-81.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Harper.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer
reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243.
Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework.
California Management Review, 17(3), 58-64.
Shams, S. M. R. (2016). Capacity building for sustained competitive advantage: A conceptual
framework. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 34(5), 671-691.
Shanmugam, K. R., & Bhaduri, S. N. (2002). Size, age and firm growth in the Indian
manufacturing sector. Applied Economics Letters, 9(9), 607-613.
Shao, S., Fan, M., & Yang, L. (2013). How does resource dependence affect economic
development efficiency? Testing and interpretation of the conditional resource curse hypothesis.
Management World, (2), 32-63.
Shefer, D., & Frenkel, A. (2005). R&D, firm size and innovation: an empirical analysis.
Technovation, 25(1), 25-32.
Simpson, P. M., Siguaw, J. A., & Enz, C. A. (2006). Innovation orientation outcomes: The good
and the bad. Journal of Business Research, 59(10), 1133-1141.
Souder, W. E., & Moenaert, R. K. (1992). Integrating marketing and R&D project personnel
within innovation projects: an information uncertainty model. Journal of Management Studies,
29(4), 485-512.
Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial
performance: the role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463-490.
Tsoutsoura, M. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance.
Visser, W. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in developing countries. The Oxford
Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility.
Wang, C., Rodan, S., Fruin, M., et al. (2014). Knowledge networks, collaboration networks,
and exploratory innovation. The Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 484-514.
Wang, Y., Luo, N., & Liu, W. (2019). What kind of leverage is beneficial for corporate
innovation? China Industrial Economy, (03), 138-155.
Warhurst, A. (2001). Corporate Citizenship and Corporate Social Investment Drivers of
TriSector Partnerships. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 1.
Wu, C., & Tang, Y. (2016). Intellectual property protection law enforcement, technological
innovation, and corporate performance: Evidence from listed companies in China. Economic
Research, 51(11), 125-139.
Wu, D., Zhao, Q., & Han, J. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and technological
innovation: Evidence from China. Nankai Economic Studies, (3), 140-160.
Wu, Y. (2012). Which type of ownership leads to the highest level of innovation in China?
World Economy, 35(6), 3-25+28-29+26-27.
Xiao, H., & Yang, Z. (2018). Forty years of corporate social responsibility in China: Historical
evolution, logical evolution, and future prospects. Economist, (11), 22-31.
Xue, H. (2020). Research on growth opportunities, investor sentiment and corporate innovation
investment. Shanxi University.
Yan, M. (2019). Corporate social responsibility versus shareholder value maximization:
Through the lens of hard and soft law. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 40.
Yang, F.-J., Lin, C.-W., & Chang, Y.-N. (2010). The linkage between corporate social
performance and corporate financial performance. African Journal of Business Management, 4.
Yang, H. (2000). The value and role of intangible assets in technological innovation. Statistics
and Information Forum, (02), 60-65.
Yu, G., Wu, Q., & Dong, Z. (2021). Does social responsibility enhancement help Chinese
multinational enterprises cope with international investment protection? Empirical research based
on the perspective of overseas subsidiaries. Finance and Trade Research, 47(07), 154-168.
Yuan, J. (1990). Corporate social responsibility. Ocean Press.
Zahra, S., & Das, S. (2009). Innovation strategy and financial performance in manufacturing
companies: An empirical study. Production and Operations Management, 2, 15-37.
Zhang, S., Yang, D., Qiu, S., & Zhao, X. (2018). Open innovation and firm performance:
Evidence from the Chinese mechanical manufacturing industry. Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management, 48, 76-86.
Zhang, X., & Chen, R. (2006). Customer involvement chain: Making customers and firms co�create competitive advantages. Management Review, (01), 51-56+64.
Zhang, X., Lin, Y., & Zhang, H. (2019). An empirical study on the relationship between
corporate social responsibility and enterprise market value based on samples of Chinese listed
companies. Management Review, 16(7), 1088-1096.
Zhang, Y., & Wang, G. (2001). On the fundamental issue of solving principal-agent
relationships in the reform of state-owned enterprises. China Industrial Economy, (11), 63-70.
Zhao, J., Zhu, G., & Lin, B. (2012). Ten major events of corporate social responsibility in China
in 2011. WTO Economic Review, (Z1), 22-29.
Zhou, F., Fu, J., & Zhong, S. (2014). External financing, firm size, and technological
innovation of listed companies. Science Research Management, 35(03), 116-122.
Zhou, Y., Zou, F., & Wang, Z. (2014). Profitability, technological innovation capability and
capital structure: an empirical analysis based on high-tech enterprises. Science Research
Management, 35(01), 48-57.
Zhou, Z. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Perspective, form, and content. Theoretical
Journal, (02), 58-61.
Zhu, C. (2008). Company's social responsibility: Between legal responsibility and moral
principles. Chinese and Foreign Law, (01), 29-35.

Preliminary scope of work

1. Oblast výzkumu
Samozřejmě nejsem první, kdo se tímto tématem zabývá. Společenská odpovědnost podniků a financování výkonnosti podniků jsou důležitá témata, která přitahují velkou pozornost, což také znamená, že byla rozsáhle a důkladně studována. Vlivem společenské odpovědnosti podniků na jejich finanční výkonnost se výzkumníci zabývali vždy. Margolis a Walsh v obsáhlé studii z roku 2003 zjistili, že výzkum společenské odpovědnosti podniků a jejich finanční výkonnosti lze vysledovat již v roce 1972. Autorem tohoto článku je Moskowitz. V této oblasti výzkumu však chybí jednotný konsenzus. Proto se až do současnosti o tomto tématu stále diskutuje. Nejvýznamnějšími badateli v této studii jsou Bastic a Bahta. V roce 2020 každý z nich publikoval, že přijetí větší společenské odpovědnosti podniků zvýší jejich inovační schopnost a následně dosáhnou lepší finanční výkonnosti. Jejich výzkumné myšlenky mě inspirovaly a jsou hlavním východiskem pro můj výzkum. Poukázali na cestu výzkumu. Ve srovnání s jejich prací jsou mé příspěvky především dva: Za prvé, k testování vztahu mezi těmito třemi faktory použiji údaje z Číny a rozšířím důkazy z Číny v této oblasti. Za druhé, na jejich základě budu diskutovat vztah "obráceného U" mezi společenskou odpovědností podniků a jejich finanční výkonností.
2. Výzkumné otázky
Můj výzkumný problém vychází především z četby publikované literatury. Zjistil jsem, že výzkum společenské odpovědnosti podniků k finanční výkonnosti podniků nedospěl k přesnému závěru, což mě přimělo prozkoumat vztah mezi nimi. Na základě nahlédnutí do literatury se domnívám, že vztah mezi nimi může být nelineární, zatímco minulé výzkumy zjistily pouze monotónně rostoucí nebo monotónně klesající část. Dalším problémem je, že existuje také polemika o mechanismu vlivu mezi nimi, a Bahtova analýza inovací mě dojala. Ty nakonec k tomuto tématu přispěly. V mém výzkumu jsou dvě hlavní otázky:
(1) zda je inovační schopnost důležitým faktorem ovlivňujícím finanční výkonnost podniků a zda ignorování inovační schopnosti povede k nesprávnému odhadu vztahu mezi společenskou odpovědností podniků a jejich finanční výkonností;
(2) zda inovační schopnost hraje zprostředkující roli ve vztahu mezi společenskou odpovědností podniků a jejich finanční výkonností. Náročnost výzkumu je mírná a výsledky jsou dostatečné pro vytvoření článku.
3. Zdroje
Jako vzorek pro výzkum plánuji vzít kótované společnosti ve střední a východní Evropě.
Údaje o kótovaných společnostech pocházejí z databáze Osiris, která je jednou z nejčastěji používaných databází pro studium světových podniků.
Údaje o společenské odpovědnosti podniků pocházejí z databáze RKS z univerzity Tsinghua, která poskytuje komplexní ukazatele hodnocení společenské odpovědnosti celosvětově kótovaných společností.
Inovační údaje podniků pocházejí rovněž z databáze Osiris.
Ostatní údaje o kontrolních proměnných pocházejí z databáze Osiris a z databáze Světové banky.
4. Teorie
Můj výzkumný plán vychází především ze dvou teorií.
První z nich je vysvětlení nelineárního vztahu mezi společenskou odpovědností podniků a jejich výkonností. Společenská odpovědnost jako investice do nehmotného majetku podniků pomáhá zlepšovat pověst podniků, ale nadměrná účast podniků na aktivitách společenské odpovědnosti může způsobit, že podniky obětují některé projekty s pozitivní čistou současnou hodnotou. Proto počáteční investice podniků do společenské odpovědnosti budou mít pozitivní dopad na hodnotu podniku, ale s nárůstem investic podniků do společenské odpovědnosti, zejména pokud podniky nadměrně usilují o výkonnost v oblasti společenské odpovědnosti, budou náklady převyšovat příjmy, což bude mít v konečném důsledku rozhodně negativní dopad na hodnotu podniku.
Druhým je zprostředkující účinek inovací mezi společenskou odpovědností podniku a výkonností podniku. Přijímání společenské odpovědnosti zaměstnanců může nejen vytvořit vzájemně prospěšnou, sdílenou a oboustranně výhodnou firemní kulturu, ale také přilákat lepší a inovativnější zaměstnance. Společenská odpovědnost podniků vůči dalším zainteresovaným stranám, jako je životní prostředí, zákazníci a investoři, podporuje výměnu interních a externích znalostí a informací a pomáhá zlepšovat inovační účinnost podniků. Z interního hlediska poskytuje společenská odpovědnost podniků inspiraci a vodítko pro technologické inovace. Z vnějšího hlediska může společenská odpovědnost podniků podporovat technologické inovace v obchodních vztazích a poskytovat podporu šíření veřejné image podniku, výrobků a ochranných známek. Obecně lze říci, že pro podniky je uplatňování vícerozměrné společenské odpovědnosti příležitostí pro inovace, přičemž inovace jsou důležitým faktorem ovlivňujícím finanční výkonnost podniků. Logické inovace proto hrají zprostředkující roli mezi společenskou odpovědností podniků a jejich finanční výkonností.
Tyto dvě teorie jsou domněnkami, které předložili a prokázali Choi a Bastic ve svých příslušných studiích. Tyto teorie jsou základem mého výzkumu, proto je musím použít.
5. Metodika
K provedení svého výzkumu plánuji použít kvantitativní metody. To je to, co empirický výzkum potřebuje.
Nejprve vytvořím dynamický panelový model o vztahu mezi společenskou odpovědností podniků a jejich finanční výkonností a k odhadu modelu použiji dvoukrokovou systémovou zobecněnou momentovou metodu odhadu a metodu odhadu konzistentní kovarianční matice.
Za druhé, prostřednictvím empirického výzkumu zjistím vliv inovační schopnosti podniku na finanční výkonnost podniku. Nakonec je do regresního modelu společenské odpovědnosti podniků a finanční výkonnosti podniků přidána inovační schopnost jako kontrolní proměnná a je zkoumán zprostředkující vliv inovační schopnosti podniků. Tato metoda je tradiční, ale velmi standardní.
6. Struktura a očekávané výsledky
Hlavní obsah výzkumu tohoto článku je následující:
První část textu je úvodem k tomu, co bude následovat. Tato kapitola obsahuje úvodní informace k různým tématům, včetně základních informací, významu studie, výzkumných koncepcí a metod, obsahu výzkumu a strukturálního uspořádání výzkumu, inovací a přínosu článku. Na úvod této kapitoly je zřejmé, že zkoumání vztahu mezi CSR a finanční výkonností podniků z inovačního pohledu má určitou novost a zajímavost nejen kvůli rostoucímu významu CSR ve všech sférách společnosti a nedostatku výzkumů a polemik o tomto vztahu v Polsku. Spíše má určitou novost a zajímavost také kvůli rostoucímu významu CSR ve všech sférách společnosti a nedostatku výzkumu a polemik o tomto vztahu v Polsku. Za druhé, tato část spojuje a vysvětluje jedinečný obsah výzkumu a strukturální uspořádání této práce tím, že uvádí výzkumné koncepty a konkrétní výzkumné postupy pro zkoumání vztahu mezi třemi. Činí tak tím, že nabízí výzkumné koncepty a specifické výzkumné postupy pro zkoumání vztahu mezi těmito třemi. Tato část uzavírá studii tím, že na vysoké úrovni shrnuje její hlavní přínosy.
Ve druhé části si projdeme důležitou teorii a práce, které byly v minulosti provedeny. Tato kapitola má dva cíle: objasňuje, jak se koncept a konotace společenské odpovědnosti podniků a související teorie v průběhu času vyvíjely, a shrnuje a přehledně uvádí relevantní literaturu o vlivu společenské odpovědnosti podniků na podnikové finance, včetně role, kterou ve vztahu mezi společenskou odpovědností podniků a podnikovými financemi hraje inovační schopnost. Tato kapitola nejprve objasňuje, jak se pojem a konotace společenské odpovědnosti podniků a souvisejících teorií v průběhu času vyvíjely.
Empirické zkoumání vztahu mezi společenskou odpovědností podniků a ekonomickou výkonností je uvedeno ve třetí části. Tato část se zaměřuje na vliv, který může mít ignorování inovačních schopností. Tato kapitola představuje teorii, která naznačuje, že může existovat něco jako optimální úroveň společenské odpovědnosti podniků a že existuje souvislost mezi společenskou odpovědností podniků a nelineární výkonností organizací z hlediska jejich financí. V důsledku toho je prvním krokem této kapitoly vytvoření dynamického panelového modelu vazby mezi CSR a finanční výkonností firem. Poté kapitola přistoupí k odhadu tohoto modelu pomocí dvoustupňového procesu, který se skládá ze zobecněné techniky odhadu momentů a odhadu konzistentní kovarianční matice. Výsledky regresní analýzy ukazují na souvislost, která není mezi oběma proměnnými lineární. Za druhé, tato kapitola zkoumá prahový vliv CSR na finanční výkonnost podniku a odpovídající výsledky dynamické panelové prahové regrese. Výsledky ukazují, že CSR má dvojí prahový účinek na finanční výkonnost podniku a že pozitivní vliv CSR na výkonnost se po překročení určité prahové hodnoty mírně snižuje. V závěru této kapitoly se diskutuje o důsledcích těchto zjištění pro budoucí výzkum. Závěrem lze říci, že přístupy, které jsou založeny na instrumentálních proměnných, jsou v této kapitole použity k provedení kontroly robustnosti výsledků původní studie.
Ve čtvrté části je uvedeno empirické šetření způsobů, jakými inovační schopnost ovlivňuje vazbu mezi CSR a výsledky hospodaření. Na začátku této kapitoly je regresní model CSR a finanční úspěšnosti vylepšen zahrnutím inovační schopnosti jako kontrolní proměnné. Nový model nyní dokáže lépe předpovědět vztah mezi CSR a finanční úspěšností. Výsledky regrese ukazují, že mezní klesající efekt pozitivního vlivu společenské odpovědnosti podniků na finanční výkonnost zůstává velký, ale existuje pouze jediný prahový efekt společenské odpovědnosti podniků na finanční výkonnost. Při srovnání se zjištěními regresní analýzy, která nezohledňuje vliv inovačních schopností podniku, se pozitivní vliv společenské odpovědnosti podniků na finanční výkonnost snižuje bez ohledu na to, zda je vyšší nebo nižší než prahová hodnota. Ve druhé části této kapitoly analyzujeme pomocí komponentní analýzy a regresní analýzy souvislost mezi inovačními schopnostmi podniků a jejich společenskou odpovědností a finanční výkonností. Podle zjištění pomáhá úroveň inovačních schopností podniku regulovat vazbu mezi

Preliminary scope of work in English

1. Research field
Of course, I am not the first person to study this topic. Corporate social responsibility and corporate performance finance are both important topics that have attracted much attention, which also means that they have been extensively and deeply studied. The impact of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance has always been concerned by researchers. Margolis and Walsh found in a comprehensive study in 2003 that the research on corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance can be traced back to 1972. The author of this article is Moskowitz. However, there is a lack of a unified consensus in this research field. Therefore, until now, this topic is still being discussed. The most relevant researchers in this study are Bastic and Bahta. In 2020, they each published that taking more social responsibilities for enterprises will enhance their innovation ability and then obtain better financial performance. Their research ideas have inspired me and are the main reference for my research. They pointed out the research path. Compared with their work, my contributions are mainly two: First, I will use the data of China to test the relationship among the three, and increase the evidence from China in this field. Secondly, based on them, I will discuss the "inverted U" relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance.
2. Research questions
My research problem mainly comes from reading the published literature. I found that the research on corporate social responsibility to corporate financial performance didn't get an accurate conclusion, which prompted me to explore the relationship between them. By consulting the literature, I guess the relationship between them may be nonlinear, while the past research only found the monotonically increasing or monotonically decreasing part. Another problem is that there is also controversy about the influence mechanism between them, and Bahta's analysis of innovation moved me. These finally contributed to this topic. There are two main questions in my research:
(1) whether innovation ability is an important factor affecting the financial performance of enterprises, and whether ignoring innovation ability will wrongly estimate the relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance;
(2) Whether innovation ability plays an intermediary role in the relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. The difficulty of the research is moderate, and the results are enough to form a paper.
3. Resources
I plan to take listed companies in central and Eastern Europe as samples to conduct research.
The data of listed companies come from Osiris, which is one of the most commonly used databases to study worldwide enterprises.
The data of corporate social responsibility comes from RKS database form Tsinghua University, which provides comprehensive evaluation indicators of social responsibility of worldwide listed companies.
The innovative data of enterprises come from Osiris database, too.
Other data of control variables are from Osiris database and database from world bank
4. Theory
My research plan is mainly based on two theories.
The first is the explanation of the nonlinear relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate performance. As an intangible asset investment of enterprises, social responsibility helps to improve the reputation of enterprises, but the excessive participation of enterprises in social responsibility activities may cause them to sacrifice some projects with positive net present value. Therefore, the initial corporate investment in social responsibility will have a positive impact on corporate value, but with the increase of corporate investment in social responsibility, especially when the corporate excessively pursues social responsibility performance, the cost will exceed the income, which will definitely have a negative impact on corporate value in the end.
The second is the intermediary effect of innovation between corporate social responsibility and corporate performance. Taking the social responsibility of employees can not only create a mutually beneficial, shared and win-win corporate culture, but also attract better and more innovative employees. Corporate social responsibility to other stakeholders, such as the environment, customers and investors, promotes the exchange of internal and external knowledge and information, and helps to improve the innovation efficiency of enterprises. From the internal point of view, corporate social responsibility provides inspiration and guidance for technological innovation. From the external perspective, corporate social responsibility can support technological innovation in business relations and provide support for the dissemination of corporate public image, products and trademarks. Generally speaking, for enterprises, the implementation of multi-dimensional social responsibility provides enterprises with opportunities for innovation, while innovation is an important factor affecting the financial performance of enterprises. Therefore, logical innovation plays an intermediary role between corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance.
These two theories are conjectures put forward and proved by Choi and Bastic in their respective studies. These theories are the basis of my research, so I need to use them.
5. Methodology
I plan to use quantitative methods to carry out my research. This is what empirical research needs.
Firstly, I will establish a dynamic panel model about the relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance, and use the two-step system generalized moment estimation method and the consistent covariance matrix estimation method to estimate the model.
Secondly, I will find the impact of enterprise innovation capability on enterprise financial performance through empirical research. Finally, the innovation ability as a control variable is added to the regression model of corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance, and the intermediary effect of the innovation ability of enterprises is investigated. This method is traditional, but very standard.
6. Structure and expected results
The main research contents of this article are as follows:
The first part of the text is an introduction to what will follow. This chapter provides an introduction to a variety of topics, including background information, the significance of the study, research concepts and methods, research content and the structural layout of the research, innovation, and contribution to the article. To begin, this chapter makes it clear that exploring the relationship between CSR and financial performance of enterprises from an innovative perspective not only has a certain novelty and interest because of the growing importance of CSR in all spheres of society and the lack of research and controversy over this relationship in Poland. Rather, it also has a certain novelty and interest because of the growing importance of CSR in all spheres of society and the lack of research and controversy over this relationship in Poland. Second, this part combines and explains the unique research content and structural layout of this work by giving research concepts and specific research procedures for examining the relationship among the three. It does this by offering research concepts and specific research methodologies for studying the link among the three. This section wraps up the study by providing a high-level summary of its primary contributions.
In the second portion, we will go through the important theory and work that has been done in the past. This chapter does two things: it clarifies how the concept and connotation of corporate social responsibility and related theories have evolved over time, and it summarizes and reviews the relevant literature on the impact of CSR on business finances, including the role that innovation capability plays in the relationship between CSR and business finances. The first thing this chapter does is clarify how the concept and connotation of corporate social responsibility and related theories have evolved over time.
An empirical examination of the association between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and economic performance is presented in the third section. The section focuses on the influence that ignoring innovative capabilities may have. This chapter presents a theory that suggests there may be such a thing as an optimal level of corporate social responsibility and that there is a link between CSR and the non-linear performance of organizations in terms of their finances. As a consequence of this, the first step of this chapter is to establish a dynamic panel model of the link between CSR and the financial performance of firms. Following that, the chapter proceeds to estimate that model by employing a two-stage process that is comprised of the generalized technique of moments estimation and the consistent covariance matrix estimation. The results of the regression analysis point to a link that is not linear between the two variables. Second, this chapter examines the threshold effect of CSR on enterprise financial performance and the corresponding dynamic panel threshold regression results. The results show that CSR has a double threshold effect on enterprise financial performance and that the positive impact of CSR on performance diminishes slightly after crossing a certain threshold. Finally, this chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of these findings for future research. In conclusion, the approaches that are based on instrumental variables are used in this chapter to conduct robustness checks on the results of the original study.
An empirical investigation into the ways in which innovation capability influences the link between CSR and bottom line performance is presented in the fourth part. To begin, this chapter improves the regression model of CSR and financial success by include innovation capability as a control variable. The new model can now better predict the relationship between CSR and financial success. The findings of the regression demonstrate that the marginal declining effect of the positive impact of corporate social responsibility on financial performance remains large, but there is only a single threshold effect of corporate social responsibility on financial performance. When compared with the findings of regression analyses that do not account for the impact of a company's innovation capabilities, the positive effect that CSR has on financial performance is reduced, regardless of whether it is higher than or lower than the threshold value. In the second part of this chapter, we analyze, through the use of component analysis and regression analysis, the link between the innovation skills of businesses and their corporate social responsibility and financial performance. According to the findings, a company's level of innovation competency helps to regulate the link between corporate social responsibility and the financial outcomes of firms. The positive impact that social responsibility initiatives have on a company's financial success is directly proportionate to the degree to which it is able to innovate.