Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate Social Performance and Ownership Structure

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Finance in Japan

Part of the book series: Advances in Japanese Business and Economics ((AJBE))

  • 981 Accesses

Abstract

In the development of global business and increased cross-border investment, it has become important for corporate governance research to explore the effects of changing ownership structures on corporate social performance (CSP) and related issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, in 2008, Norway’s public pension fund stated it would continue a policy of increasing investment in Japanese firms (Nikkei Newspaper, December 28, 2008).

  2. 2.

    In pension fund management, investment advisory companies give instructions to trust banks on behalf of pension funds, including instructions on how to exercise shareholders’ rights (Suto 2002: pp. 264–265).

  3. 3.

    In 2006, the TSE required listed companies to disclose a corporate governance report. In 2008, the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act required corporations to submit internal control reports to the Ministry of Finance.

  4. 4.

    We first run an OLS analysis and consider observations whose standardized residuals are larger than 3.0 or smaller than −3.0 to be outliers. In the subsequent two-stage least square analysis, we exclude these observations. When we compute the t-values for regression slopes, standard errors are corrected by the two-way cluster error correction method described by Petersen (2009).

  5. 5.

    We conduct the Wu–Hausman’s test for endogeneity and Sargan’s over-identification test before the two-stage least square analysis. The results of these tests are available upon request from the authors. Since Wu–Hausman’s test statistics are not significant at the 5% level in most cases, endogeneity is not severe in regression models (2) and (3), although we use a two-stage regression method.

References

  • Aggarwal, R., L. Klapper, and P. Wysocki. 2005. Portfolio preference of foreign institutional investors. Journal of Banking & Finance 29 (12): 2919–2946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmadjan, C. 2007. Foreign investors and corporate governance in Japan. In Corporate governance in Japan: Institutional change and organizational diversity, ed. M. Aoki, G. Jackson, and H. Miyajima, 125–150. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Asian Corporate Governance Association. 2008. White paper on corporate governance in Japan. Retrieved January 2018. http://acga-asia.org/upload/files/advocacy/20170402191458_69.pdf.

  • Barnea, A., and A. Rubin. 2010. Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics 97 (1): 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickley, J.A., C.W. Smith, and J.L. Zimmerman. 2003. Corporate governance, ethics, and organizational architecture. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 15 (3): 34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaganti, R., and F. Damanpour. 1991. Institutional ownership, capital structure, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal 12 (7): 479–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choe, H., B.C. Koh, and R.M. Stulz. 2005. Do domestic investors have an edge? The trading experience of foreign investors in Korea. The Review of Financial Studies 18 (3): 795–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, B.S., and G.E. Fryxell. 1991. Institutional ownership of stock and dimensions of corporate social performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics 10 (6): 437–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, P., S. Brammer, and A. Millington. 2004. An empirical examination of institutional investor preferences for corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics 52 (1): 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, P., S. Brammer, and A. Millington. 2008. Pension funds and corporate social performance: An empirical analysis. Business and Society 47 (2): 213–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, P., and M. Schneider. 2010. Is corporate social performance a criterion in the overseas investment strategy of U.S. pension plans? An empirical examination. Business and Society 49 (2): 252–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dam, L., and B. Scholtens. 2012. Does ownership type matter for corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance: An International Review 20 (3): 233–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dam, L., and B. Scholtens. 2013. Ownership concentration and csr policy of european multinational enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics 118 (1): 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deakin, S., and R. Hobbs. 2007. False dawn for CSR? Shifts in regulatory policy and the response of the corporate and financial sectors in Britain. Corporate Governance: An International Review 15 (1): 68–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Graaf, F.J., and J.W. Stoelhorst. 2013. The role of governance in corporate social responsibility: Lessons from Dutch finance. Business and Society 52 (2): 282–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal, D.S., O.Z. Li, A. Tsang, and Y.G. Yang. 2011. Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The Accounting Review 86 (1): 59–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmans, A. 2011. Does the stock market fully value intangibles? Employee satisfaction and equity prices. Journal of Financial Economics 101 (3): 621–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faleye, O., and E.A. Trahan. 2011. Labor-friendly corporate practices: Is what is good for employees good for shareholders? Journal of Business Ethics 101 (1): 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F., and K.R. French. 1992. The cross-section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance 47: 427–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompers, P.A., and A. Metrick. 2001. Institutional investors and equity prices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (1): 229–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, S.B., and S.A. Waddock. 1994. Institutional ownership and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal 37 (4): 1034–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J.J., and J.E. Mahon. 1997. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty–five years of incomparable results. Business and Society 36 (1): 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jagannathan, R., K. Kubota, and H. Takehara. 1998. Relationship between labor-income risk and average return: Empirical evidence from the Japanese stock market. Journal of Business 71 (3): 319–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.A., and D.W. Greening. 1999. The effect of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal 42 (5): 564–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, J.K., and R.M. Stulz. 1997. Why is there a home bias? An analysis of foreign portfolio equity ownership in Japan. Journal of Financial Economics 46 (1): 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kho, B.C., R.M. Stulz, and F.E. Warnock. 2006. Financial globalization, governance, and the evolution of the home bias. NBER Working Paper Series 12389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, L. 2008. Socially responsible investment and shareholder activism. In The oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility, ed. A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, and D.S. Stiegel, 249–280. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leuz, C., K.V. Lins, and F.E. Warnock. 2009. Do foreigners invest in poorly governed firms? The Review of Financial Studies 23 (3): 3245–3285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, L., and R.W. Roberts. 2007. Corporate social performance, financial performance, and institutional ownership in Canadian firms. Accounting Forum 31 (3): 233–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyajima, H., and K. Nitta. 2011. Diversification of shareholding structure and the results: Dissolution and revive of cross-shareholdings and role of foreign investors. RIETI Discussion Paper Series 11-J-011 (in Japanese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Neubaum, D.O., and S.A. Zahra. 2006. Institutional ownership and corporate social performance: The moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination. Journal of Management 32 (1): 108–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omura, K., M. Suto, and M. Masuko. 2002. Corporate governance of Japanese institutional investors: Major results of questionnaires concerning corporate governance by institutional investors. PRI Discussion Paper Series (No. 22A-28), Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Finance Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, M.A. 2009. Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Review of Financial Studies 22: 435–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Research Institute for Policies on Pension and Aging. 2008. Research report on SRI and PRI (SRI oyobi PRI nikansuru Chosahoukokusho) (in Japanese), Retrieved January 2018. http://www.nensoken.or.jp/pastresearch/pdf/sripri_houkokusyo.pdf.

  • Scholtens, B., and Y. Zhou. 2008. Stakeholder relations and financial performance. Sustainable Development 16 (3): 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, F., and J. Yermo. 2010. Options to improve the governance and investment of Japan’s government pension investment fund. OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance and Private Pensions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suto, M. 2002. New development in Japanese corporate governance in the 1990s: The role of corporate pension funds. In Japanese economy and society under pax-Americana, ed. H. Shibuya, M. Maruyama, and M. Yasaka, 249–274. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suto, M., and M. Toshino. 2005. Behavioral biases of Japanese institutional investors: Fund management and corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review 13 (4): 466–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suto, M., and H. Takehara 2018. Does foreign ownership enhance the corporate social performance of Japanese firms? In Building new bridges between business and society, ed. H. Lu, R. Schmidpeter, N. Capadi, and L. Zu, 171–189. Springer International Publishing AG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D.B., and D.W. Greening. 1997. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employers. Academy of Management Journal 40 (3): 658–672.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

    Megumi Suto

  2. Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

    Hitoshi Takehara

Authors
  1. Megumi Suto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hitoshi Takehara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Megumi Suto .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Suto, M., Takehara, H. (2018). Corporate Social Performance and Ownership Structure. In: Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Finance in Japan. Advances in Japanese Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8986-2_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation