




































Indian Journal of Finance and Banking 

 Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 

                                       ISSN 2574-6081   E-ISSN 2574-609X 

Published by CRIBFB, USA 

140 

   
DOES CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ADD VALUE 

TO THE INDIAN BANKING SECTOR? 
 

Nitika Gaba 

Research Scholar 

 DOMS, IIT Madras, India  

E-mail: nitikagaba1@gmail.com 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2110-5226 

 

R. Madhumathi 

Professor 

 DOMS, IIT Madras, India  

E-mail: rmm@iitm.ac.in 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3601-9964  

 

 

Received: December 09, 2021      Accepted: January 31, 2022      Online Published: February 13, 2022  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

DOI: 10.46281/ijfb.v9i1.1612            URL: https://doi.org/10.46281/ijfb.v9i1.1612 

 

 

ABSTRACT 

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is assumed to have an indirect impact on the performance of the 

banking sector due to the sector's core non-manufacturing and complex functionalities. This paper 

examines the value creation for a bank through CSR initiatives considering their earnings persistence 

and risk exposure in India. The authors measure CSR disclosure through content analysis. CSR scores 

for 14 items are identified from the annual reports, National CSR Portal, Ministry of Corporate Affairs 

(MCA, 2021) and websites of 20 Indian banks. Applying OLS and panel regression models, the role of 

CSR in creating value for the banking sector is established. The study found that CSR commitment has 

a positive impact on the market value of the banks, along with an adequate liquidity position and 

business risk. CSR commitment and earnings persistence contribute to the bank's expected operating 

performance, highlighting its sustainability through CSR investments. Participation of banks for 

education, healthcare, skill development, and environmental sustainability is associated with higher 

returns from their lending activities to customers creating social value addition. Specific CSR activities 

encourage bank customers to repay banks with the implication of business risk reduction for banks. 

 

Keywords: Business Risk, Corporate Social Responsibility, Market Value, Social Value, Sustainable 

Value. 

 

JEL Classification Code: M14, G21. 

 

INTRODUCTION 

In the past few decades in India, banks are focusing more on meeting environmental, social, governance, 

and economic goals. Financial scandals of 2008 indicate the lack of responsibility by them that could 

only be restored by strengthening the trust with all stakeholders (Thome, 2020). The banking system in 

every economy plays a vital role that impact society and also contribute to economic development 

(Levine, 2005; Scholtens, 2008). Unlike other firms, banks do not produce physical products that 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

141  

directly affect society. However, they are obliged to CSR, both directly and indirectly (Thompson & 

Cowton, 2004). Investment in CSR activities keeps the banks safe from indulging in unethical events 

due to their complex nature. They have been playing a crucial role in an economy as an agent of the 

financial inclusion process (Carbo-Valverde et al., 2015). The trust with the public after their collapse 

in the 2008 crisis can be restored by focussing on CSR commitment. After the Montreal carbon pledge 

signed by various banks worldwide in 2014 to measure and disclose the harmful gas emissions data of 

their financial assets on an annual basis; they have become more aware of the implications for CSR 

activities (Caby et al., 2020). Banks, in contrast to other sectors, are subject to stricter scrutiny in their 

reporting practices to stakeholders such as the government, media and lenders. This demands more 

attention in creating benefits for the society as they receive government bailouts or guarantees during 

tough times (Iannotta et al., 2013). 

Literature on CSR and performance relationship has gained momentum after being mandated by 

Section 135 of the Companies Act of 2013 in India. Although, it is not mandatory for banks, but they 

have realized that achieving social goals is as crucial as providing shareholder value. The prior literature 

has used both market-based measures and accounting-based measures to evaluate the impact of CSR on 

financial performance (Van Beurden & Goessling, 2008). The impact of CSR on market and accounting 

performance convey to various stakeholders their worth and the internal utilization of resources of the 

banks.  

For enhancing social value, firms usually advertise CSR activities along with their products and 

services that raise awareness among existing and potential customers. Most often, customers besides 

transacting in new products and services, have better corporate relationships through CSR that leads to 

positive marketing performance and higher market share (Servaes & Tamayo, 2013). However, Mittal 

et al. (2008) reported that Indian firms with a code of ethics generated little more value than those 

without codes on CSR.  

CSR commitment also impacts the operating performance of a bank by evaluating the cost and 

benefits of CSR activities in the context of productivity and cost efficiency, which are dependent on 

firm’s characteristics such as location, laws, etc. (Paul & Siegel, 2006). These research arguments on 

the convergence of CSR activities with the market, accounting and operating performance highlight the 

need for stakeholder engagement that adds to value creation. Delivering value involves making the right 

decisions by profitability planning which includes CSR allocation. These are enabled by good 

marketing, accounting and operating performance management that provides necessary resources and 

processes, revenues and costs and risks and value objectives.  

 

CSR and Market Value 

Market value impact in banking sector can be added through several mechanisms like costs, operational 

efficiency, sales, litigation and financial risk by providing disclosure in annual reports to meet the 

information demand of various stakeholders. Cheng et al. (2013) highlighted the role of capital markets 

in creating long-term value creation and increased market performance by adopting CSR strategies. CSR 

not only affects market value directly but also has some indirect effects through value relevance of 

earnings and book value of equity. CSR disclosure provides information that allow investors to make a 

better assessment of risks, which is reflected in higher market valuation of shares of the firms.  

 

CSR and Sustainable Value 

We live in a world where there are limited resources and growing pressure by humans on these 

constrained resources. Earlier, firms have only concentrated on economic value but now they are 

becoming fully aware of the potential value outcomes. The changing business environment and resource 

limitations have raised the need for sustainable value creation. CSR positively impacts the operating 

performance of a bank by decreasing the operating costs to its net interest income by channel 

optimization, process costs, benchmarking, attracting good talent and staff productivity, vendor 

relationships, technology, automated workflow process, thereby increasing the bank's sustainability. 

Value is created by saving resources from the costly operations and redirecting them to the areas where 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11628-016-0318-1#ref-CR8


https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

142  

there are new opportunities for the bank. When we reduce any uncaptured value, sustainable value is 

created for example, overcapacity of labour, under-utilized resources, etc.  

High persistent earnings imply a sustainable earnings generation process that investors highly 

value. Earnings persistence is determined by good strategic positioning and operating decisions with the 

help of right commitment of money towards CSR activities. The firms have to continue to generate 

sustainable value despite disruptive forces, turbulent regulatory conditions and other pressures. Top 

management strategically position their firms by connecting performance with a purpose for long-term 

sustainable value creation. Firms with more accruals can have the ability to manipulate their earnings in 

the future, and such strategic positions imply higher chances of non-sustainable returns. 

 

CSR and Social Value 

Socially responsible actions are associated with capital adequacy, high liquidity and low non-performing 

assets which increases the bank's operating performance by lowering moral hazard between bank 

shareholders and debtholders (Lotto, 2019). Banks create social acceptance by investing in diversified 

CSR activities like education, training, skill development, healthcare, technology, etc. The social impact 

of banks prompts bank customers to return the borrowed assets, which lowers the non-performing loans 

and enhances the reputation in the long run. Social value creates a positive change by social intervention 

in the subjective well-being of disadvantaged individuals and communities (Kroeger & Weber, 2014).  

CSR activities of banks will encourage the industry to participate more towards the 

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) goals of India. However, there is a need to justify that 

such CSR investments will be sustainable by the industry in the long term. The recognition of CSR 

activities by bank customers is crucial since banks hold a large part of their assets in lending activities. 

Hence, there is a need to identify the role of CSR investment by banks towards market value, its ability 

to sustain the CSR investment in the long term and the impact on bank customers to identify the social 

value created by the industry. This paper focuses on addressing the impact of CSR commitment on a 

bank's market value, sustainable value and social value. 

 

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT 
Existing literature on CSR elaborates the impact on firm performance, but very few studies discuss CSR 

and value creation (Ding et al., 2016, Alotaibi & Hussainey, 2016). Firm performance is elaborated as 

CSR impact on market value, sustaining operating performance and asset value generation through CSR 

activities. Further, literature discussion on bank specific factors such as business risk, governance and 

reporting practices and bank liquidity lead to the research design and development of a testable 

hypothesis. 

 

CSR and Market Value 

Researchers in accounting and finance apply surrogates like Tobin's q, share price, cost of capital and 

market value addition to measure market value as a theoretical construct of firm performance. Market 

valuation represents the investor’s expectation of the firm to generate returns which are diverted as 

investment in CSR. Additionally, CSR strategies emphasize firm's own idiosyncratic resources and 

capabilities rather than just replicating competitor's choices which lowers business risk and improves 

earning quality. Stakeholder theory also reflects the importance of the firm’s interests of various people 

(stakeholders) who are affected by it directly or indirectly. To succeed in the long term, it has to meet 

their expectations, which is met by investing in CSR activities that increase market value (Nekhili et al., 

2017). 

Dhaliwal et al. (2011) state that disclosure of CSR is useful for shareholders through several 

mechanisms like revenue, costs, operating efficiency, litigation risk and financing. Further, Deniz and 

Suarez (2005) applied cost-benefit analysis and found that there is an increase in market value of the 

firm with an increase in CSR expenditure. There is an inverse relationship between higher levels of CSR 

and lower cost of equity capital (Sherfman & Fernando, 2008; Orlitzky & Benjamin; 2001). CSR 

performance impacts firm value by lowering market risk expectation. Alsaid (2016) and Ferrell et al. 

(2016) also supported their argument that consistent CSR activities help in increasing earnings and firm 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

143  

value. Other factors like adherence to tax obligations enhance CSR evaluations, thereby adding market 

value. Zeng (2016) using their sample of Canadian firms found that paying more taxes contributes to 

higher overall CSR ranking and thus enhances firm's market value. In contrast, Palazzo et al. (2020) 

inferred that bank show less prominence to strategic CSR and value creation than other firms. 

Very few studies concentrated on the relationship between CSR and market value in the banking 

sector. Market performance (value) is measured as an efficiency indicator since the value of the financial 

assets is the primary component of their total asset structure (Jiao, 2010, Fatemi et al., 2015). Belasri et 

al. (2020) measure bank efficiency as a microeconomic variable of productivity that evaluates the 

production process considering the volume of both inputs and outputs. Fund utilization efficiency is 

reflected by the ability of the bank to generate market value based on its assets. For our study, the 

following hypothesis is framed: 

 

H1: CSR commitment, increases the market value of banks. 

 

The hypothesis tests the market value potential of CSR investment by banks. 

 

CSR and Operating Performance (Value Sustenance) 

CSR commitment today impacts the future operating performance of a bank. CSR contribute to the 

operating performance by improving resource utilization process. The implementation of CSR practices 

helps in increasing productivity and minimize wastage (He et al., 2020). Activities like board governance 

get stakeholder's support, improve management abilities which help in effective resource deployment. 

Investors also believe that socially and environmentally responsible firms use their resources efficiently. 

Second hypothesis framed as: 

 

H2: CSR commitment has a positive impact on bank's future operating performance. 

 

The testing of this hypothesis addresses the sustainability of CSR activities of banks for future 

performance. 

 

CSR and Social Value  

CSR activities are usually divided into internal and external categories. Internal CSR are the internal 

policies and practices of the firm which are related to employees like human rights, employee-well-

being, work-life balance, diversity, etc. External CSR activities can be defined as volunteerism, 

philanthropy, etc. (environmental and social practices) mainly cater to external stakeholders (Brammer 

et al., 2007). 

Investors pay attention to the social performance of the firm as pointed out by various scholars in 

the past. They reported that it has relationship with return on assets (ROA). For instance, McGuire et al. 

(1988), Luo and Bhattacharya (2019) and Lin et al. (2009) demonstrated that firms which have low 

social responsibility also experience lower return on assets (ROA) than firms which have high social 

responsibility. All CSR activities didn't increase the value of the bank, only core activities which were 

a part of bank's operating mission increased their value (Bolton, 2013). ROA of a bank indicates the 

efficiency of a bank management through its ability to convert bank assets (customer loans) into net 

earnings. As banks are dominated by customer centric loans, ROA captures the positive impact of social 

value. ROA reflects systematic market trends that is not influenced by the differential degree of leverage 

present in a firm (Mishra & Suar, 2010). Researchers reported positive relationship between CSR and 

ROA (Bodhanwala & Bodhanwala, 2018; Garcia-Castro et al., 2010, Giuli & Kostovetsky, 2014). In 

contrast, Hafez (2015) reported negative and no relationship between CSR and ROA. The third 

hypothesis is framed as: 

 

H3: Bank's CSR scores increases its return on assets. 

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X08000687?casa_token=4t99oWyYZRsAAAAA:EUyXxdx6xLFChXkAvoVMRzi_Ryf2Kvwu8l3Ck6vxVfeP3VeAUhATGKn5wj-DXbZrPlfSzOhdgg#!


https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

144  

This hypothesis tests how social activities of banks enables bank customers to have a positive impact, 

thus increasing the return on assets for the banks 

 

Earnings Quality and Persistence 

Over the years, earnings manipulation has been observed in banks particularly during financial crisis in 

2008. During the crisis, shareholder's perception of manipulated earnings of a bank had led to immediate 

stock market losses. This type of financial meltdown has erode confidence in the integrity of the top 

management; that may have serious consequences for the society as a whole. This problem can be 

mitigated by having a certain set of structures, rules and systems internally and externally to align the 

interests of the managers of a bank with various stakeholders. This system can be embedded in a bank 

through good CSR performance which will improve market confidence in the long run. In addition, 

transparency in CSR reporting reduces the chances of earnings manipulation that leads to bank stability.  

Earnings persistence suggests the stability of our earnings and how well the present earnings can 

help banks to predict future earnings. If earnings are persistent, then there are less chances of earning 

manipulation i.e., management. Beneish (2001) states that earnings management (EM) occurs when 

managers seek to either deceive stakeholder perception or provide private information on the firm's 

future performance. Kim et al. (2012) showed that CSR firms are less likely to engage in aggressive EM 

through discretionary accruals or real activities manipulation. Grougiou et al. (2014) examined US's 

banks and established that low accounting earnings and high investment in intangibles are associated 

with intensive investment in CSR activities.  

Earnings persistence reflects the quality of the profit of a firm and shows that the firm can retain 

earnings over time instead of an event of a particular activity. It imply sustainable profit stream and 

thereby are good evidence for earnings quality (García-Sánchez & García-Meca, 2017). Accruals play 

a matching role by reflecting transitionary special items adjustments that reduce earnings persistence 

(Dechow & Ge, 2003). Accrual adjustments in firms that have positive accruals improves earnings 

persistence. On the other hand, firms which have negative accruals in their balance sheets, made efforts 

to write down assets to their fair value. However, earnings persistence may represent earnings 

smoothness through loan loss provisions implying lower reporting quality. 

Research also reported that CSR has more effect in countries where there is more investor 

protection and regulation in banks (García-Sánchez & García-Meca, 2017; Chih et al., 2008, Kim et al., 

2012, Prior et al., 2008, Hong & Anderson, 2011). Kanagretnam et al. (2014) used a sample of banks 

from 35 countries indicating stronger legal and political institutions are associated with higher levels of 

earnings persistence cash flow predictability and greater ability of current periods loan loss provisions 

to predict next period's loan charge offs.  

Literature reveals that managers enhance a firm's financial position by building a profitable 

business with all the stakeholders (Greening & Turban, 2000; Mishra & Suar, 2010). Being committed 

to CSR implies good governance practices and earnings quality thereby leading to enhanced operating 

performance of the firm and thereby creating sustainable value. These studies motivated us to frame the 

following hypothesis: 

 

H4: CSR commitment and earnings quality have a positive impact on performance. 

 

Bank Specific Characteristics 

Bank Liquidity and Market Value 

There are many theoretical reasons which support the fact that market liquidity enhances market value 

positively. Liquidity stimulates the entry of informed investors who makes prices more informative to 

other investors. Khanna and Sonti (2004) and Nguyen (2016) reported that higher prices signal good 

prospects to managers which affects their investment decisions and firm value. They further stated that 

‘the effect of liquidity is proportional to the sensitivity of firm's operations and the information content 

of stock prices. The effect of trades on managerial behaviour is factored in the trading strategies by 

informed traders which helps in making the price more informative. Liquidity improves the operating 

performance and market value. Therefore, we formed the next hypothesis as: 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

145  

 

H5: Bank liquidity has a positive impact on its market value. 

 

Banks and Risk Management 

Reputation theory assumes a restrictive lending process as banks with low risk are characterized by 

rigorous credit assessment and with less risky assets than their competitors (Nandy & Lodh, 2013). 

While risk mitigation theory states that CSR creates a moral capital which increases value if it aids 

stakeholders in attributing the negative event to managerial unskilfulness rather than enmity and temper 

their reactions accordingly (Godfrey et al., 2005). The stakeholders will impose less strict rules on those 

banks which has high CSR due to higher moral capital. The Merton (1987) model is also consistent with 

this argument that risk management and socially responsible activities are valued. Management knows 

the value of a bank's reputation as banks with good reputation attracts more value that allows them to 

charge a premium. Since, the market believes that such banks will deliver sustained earnings and future 

growth due to having high price to earnings ratio and lower cost of capital. Kayode et al. (2015) reported 

that increased credit risk disrepute and lowers bank profit margins. Wood and Mc-Conney (2018) 

examined the effect of risk factors on the financial performance of the selected banks and reported that 

credit risk has a negative effect on their financial performance. Most of the existing literatures reported 

a negative relationship between CSR and risk. Firms who want to stay in the market must change 

dynamically their exposure to risk. Banks with low risk usually focus on saving costs as investment in 

banking requires fixed costs and compliance costs. Banks are also interlinked with the capital markets 

as they have to manage their exposure in off-balance sheet products like forex, forward and swaps 

contracts. High exposure can be a worry as there can be huge market fluctuations that's why banks should 

continuously measure their exposures to evaluate the impact of market changes on counterparty 

positions. Therefore, the last hypothesis is framed as: 

 

H6: Business risk has a negative impact on market value. 

 

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 

The conceptual framework links dependent variables: market value, social value and sustenance value 

with the independent variables (Figure 1). CSR commitment, CSR scores, earnings persistence, 

liquidity, operating performance and business risk. Literature on CSR disclosure has applied various 

classes of information categories and measurement units. To assess the extent of CSR disclosures in 

annual reports, a checklist containing 14 items is constructed (Appendix A). Krippendorff (1980) defines 

content analysis as 'a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from data according 

to their context'. Researchers apply a dichotomous coding procedure where a bank is scored as '1' if an 

activity included in the checklist is reported and ‘0’ if it is not reported (Rashid & Lodh, 2008).The CSR 

scores are derived by computing the ratio of number of items disclosed to the maximum expected items 

of disclosure by each bank (Mohd Ghazali, 2007). The maximum score is 14 implying that the banks in 

the sample have deployed their funds in 14 socially beneficial CSR activities (Appendix B). The 

approach to scoring is additive and equally weighted (Haniffa & Cooke, 2002). A larger score suggests 

diversified CSR deployment by a bank. 

 

 𝐶𝑆𝑅 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑗 =  (∑ 𝑋𝑖𝑗
𝑛
𝑡=1 )/𝑁𝑗       

CSR Score = Corporate social disclosure scores for the jth bank 

Nj = number of activities expected for the jth bank, where 𝑁 ≤14  

Xij =1, if ith CSR activity is disclosed for firm j year i, otherwise 0;   

 0≤ CSR Score ≤1. 

 

Empirical Models  

Multivariate regression analysis is used to test the formulated hypotheses.  

(Model 1): PTB =
CSR

TA
+

EBIT

TA
+ NPA + CDR + EQ + e   



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

146  

(𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 2): 
EBIT

TA
(t + 1) =

CSR

TA
+ EQ + e      

(𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 3): ROA = CSR scores + EQ + 𝑒     
 

Where:  PTB: log-…… e 

 

The hypotheses are modelled to capture the value creation for a bank through its CSR.  

Model 1 examines the market value creation process of CSR commitment along with operating 

performance, business risk, earnings persistence and bank liquidity. 

Model 2 examines the bank's ability to sustain its future operating profits with CSR investment and 

earnings persistence.  

Model 3 captures the social value to a bank from CSR activities.  

 
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

Source of Data, Study Period and Sample 

The study used secondary data for empirical analysis. Of the total 40 banks including public banks (18) 

and private banks (22) as reported by RBI's statistical tables of liabilities and assets of banks 

(https://dbie.rbi.org.in/DBIE/dbie.rbi?site=publications#!4), we have selected the sample of 20 banks 

(10 public and 10 private) who  published CSR data from 2014-15 to 2018-19 (Appendix B). Data of 

the selected banks was collected from various sources i.e., annual reports, CSR reports, and National 

CSR Portal. We collected information from various sources to eliminate any deficiency from only one 

source (Oxibar, 2005). All these 20 banks listed in BSE together represent 52.63 % market share of the 

Indian banking sector and exhibit high visibility to stakeholders.  

In our empirical research analysis, OLS and random effect regression models are used to test the 

hypotheses. A bank's CSR score, CSR commitment, earnings persistence, financial performance, 

business risk and bank liquidity are (Table 1) considered for model testing with STATA software tool.  

 

Measurement of Variables 

Table1. Measurement of Variables 

Dependent Variables 

Variables  Measurement  

Market Performance (Market Value) Log of Price to Book Value 

It tells us about the expectation of the investors of how much 

shareholder value the bank's management will be able to 

create from a given stock of assets and liabilities (BIS, 2021) 

 

https://dbie.rbi.org.in/DBIE/dbie.rbi?site=publications#!4


https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

147  

Source: The Author’s 

 

EMPIRICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

OLS and panel regression models after checking for heteroskedasticity and Hausman test are applied to 

test the hypothesis. Banks have an average of six CSR activities (0.45 CSR score) among the 14 activities 

in the checklist during 2014 to 2019 (Appendix A). Maximum CSR score is 0.93 in year 2017 indicating 

participation in almost all 14 activities. The average CSR expenditure spent by the banks scaled by total 

assets is 7.46 %per million crore asset value (Table 2). 

 

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics 

 

Variable Observations Mean SD Min Max 

CSR Obligation (%) 100 1.29 2.38 0.09 20.89 

CSR Score 100 0.45 0.16 3.00 0.93 

CSR Commitment (% per 

million asset value) 

100 7.64 8.04 0.00 0.03 

Market Value (times) 100 1.63 1.56 0.32 7.17 

Social Value (%) 

(ROA) 

100 -0.64 1.13 -4.68 2.46 

Sustenance Value (%) 

(Expected Operating 

Performance) 

100 5.17 2.90 -3.84 14.83 

Earnings Persistence 

(Coefficient) 

100 -0.24 3.55 -14.87 12.51 

Business risk (%) 100 3.94 3.36 0.12 16.69 

 Liquidity (%) 

(Credit deposit ratio) 

100 78.34 9.89 54.45 105.08 

  

The CSR obligation is way below the 2 % regulatory requirement for a few private banks. Average 

CSR obligation is 1.29 % and the maximum of 20.89 % for a public bank in 2018. The average PTB 

value is 1.63 times, with the maximum of 7.17 in 2015. The average ROA (Social value) is negative (-

0.64 %). However, it varies between the minimum value of -4.68 % (2019) and the maximum of 2.46 

Expected operating performance 

(Sustainable Value) 

EBIT/TA(t+1) 

Financial Performance (Social Value) Return on Assets 

The dominant asset category of a bank in India is the 

customer centric loan portfolio. This ratio thus indicates the 

ability of banks to generate returns from its (customers) 

implying social value 

Independent variables 

CSR Commitment CSR Expenses

Total Assets
 

 

Diversified CSR Scores CSR Scores 

Control Variables 

Bank Liquidity Credit Deposit Ratio 

Operating Performance EBIT Scaled by Total Assets 

Earnings Persistence Coefficient in a Regression of Future Earnings on Current 

Earnings Kanagaretnam et al. (2014). 

Business Risk NPA to Net Advances (%)  (Caiazza et al., 2018). 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

148  

% (public bank in 2018). Expected operating performance (Sustenance value) on an average is 5.17 % 

and varied between a minimum values of -3.84 % in 2019 and a maximum value of 14.83 % in 2019 

indicating moderate core profit for the banks. Business risk measured through the NPA to net advances 

ranged from a minimum of 0.12 % recorded in 2015 and a maximum of 16.69 % recorded in 2018.  

Earnings persistence of banks in our sample has a negative coefficient of -0.24. Negative 

coefficients imply the low reporting quality for banks. This is a coefficient between prior earnings and 

current earnings. A negative coefficient implies that if prior earnings increases, then current earnings 

decreases. The earning persistence was fluctuating for all the selected banks during the period under 

study.  

The average credit deposit ratio for the selected banks is 78.34 %. This level peaked at 105.08 % 

in 2016 indicating a tight liquidity position for a bank and reached 54.45 % for another bank in 2019 

implying relaxed liquidity. The liquidity was more for private banks i.e., 81.1% in comparison to public 

banks (72.53 %). 

Table 3 show that the correlation between market value with CSR commitment and liquidity is 

significant and positive. There is a negative and significant relationship between business risk and CSR 

commitment, market value and liquidity. There is also a negative relationship between expected 

operating performance and business risk. These correlations are below the 0.80 multicollinearity threat 

threshold.  

 

Table 3. Correlation Matrix 

Notes: **p<0.05; *p<0.1 

  

Table 4 indicates that private sector banks in the sample have high CSR scores and CSR 

commitment than public sector banks and the difference is strongly significant at 5% level. 

 

 

 

Variables  Correlation among Variables 

 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 

(1) CSR score 1.00        

(2) CSR 

commitment 

0.30** 1.00       

(3) Market 

Value 

0.14 0.55** 1.00      

(4) Social 

Value 

0.29** 0.15 0.12 1.00    0.13 

(5) Expected 

operating 

performance 

(5) Earnings 

persistence 

-0.01 0.14 0.17* 0.22** 1.00   0.27** 

(6) Expected 

operating 

performance 

0.14 0.29** 0.21** 0.12 0.24** 1.00 -0.58** 0.31** 

(7) Business 

risk 

0.23** -

0.51** 

-

0.52** 

-0.12 -0.14  1.00  

(8) Liquidity 0.15 0.56** 0.59**     1.00 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

149  

 

Table 4. Comparison across Private and Public Banks 

 

 T-test 

Variable Mean P -Value  

 Private Banks Public Banks  

CSR Commitment 55.36 19.03 0.006 

CSR Score 0.52 0.38 0.000 

 

Table 5. Regression Models  

 

Variables (Model 1) (Model 2) (Model 3) 

 Market Value 

(Log Price to 

Book Ratio) 

Sustainable 

Value 

(Expected 

operating 

performance) 

Social Value 

(Return on Assets) 

 OLS OLS OLS Fixed Random 

CSR 

commitment 

2265.668*** 

(820.4412) 

92.52** 

(34.65) 

- - - 

CSR score - - 

- 

0.204** 

(0.0639) 

0.400 

(0.123)*** 

.24188 

(.06583)*** 

Earnings 

persistence 

0.083277 

(0.016038) 

0.00168* 

(0.000785) 

0.00693* 

(0.00292) 

0.00169 

(.003) 

.004065 

(.0032) 

EBIT scaled by 

total assets 

-17.3483*** 

(4.865) 

- - - - 

Business risk -0.1239*** 

(0.0285) 

- - - - 

Liquidity 0.02590*** 

(0.00727) 

- - - - 

Constant -0.7051 

(0.7358) 

0.0450*** 

(0.00384) 

-

0.0971** 

(0.0307) 

-.1495 

(.0537) 

-.0872 

(.0346) 

Observations 100 100 100 100 100 

R sq 0.6101 0.123 0.139 - - 

Year effect - - - No No 

R sq - - - - - 

Within - - - 19.43 17.83 

Between - - - 22.59 25.01 

Overall - - - 17.32 18.68 

Rho - - - 21.65 2.41 

Notes: Standard errors in parentheses; ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05 

Source: The author's 

 

  The regression analysis results of the three models (Table 5), are indicated by the beta   

coefficient   and the standard errors in parentheses of each variable under investigation.  

 

Market Value Creation by CSR 

Breusch-Pagan test (BP test) for Model 1 was non-significant implying that OLS regression results are 

consistent (Chi square= 0.02). The model is significant with an explanatory power of 61.01%. The 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

150  

positive effect of CSR on the bank's market value is confirmed by the beta coefficient (2265.66); an 

increase of one unit of the CSR commitment leads to an increase in the log of price to book ratio thus 

improving the market value of the bank many folds (Belasri et al., 2020). The high coefficient indicates 

a strong relationship between the CSR commitment and market multiplier in relation to its book value. 

For UCO Bank, which is having very high CSR commitment, if we increase commitment towards CSR 

by 1 %, then market price will increase from INR 19.2 to INR 42.75 in 2019 while for a bank which has 

low commitment towards CSR if we increase CSR commitment by 1%, then CSR commitment increases 

from INR 1839.45 to INR 1839.59 in 2019 (HDFC Bank). Besides CSR, the value creation for banks is 

also significantly supported by the liquidity position of the banks. Value creation is also supported from 

reduced business risk and operating profit. The results are in line with Dhaliwal et al. (2011) and Alsaid 

(2016). The negative coefficient of the operating profit indicates the negative value additive component 

of core financial functions such as the interest rate spreads for a bank to its market value. In India, the 

spread from operations does not significantly differentiate competitive operating performance. Rather 

fund and fee-based services are considered by the shareholders as value creation activities of a bank. 

The negative coefficient of business risk implies the value addition to the bank through reduced business 

risk exposure. 

Banks which commit more to CSR are rewarded better than banks which have low commitment 

towards CSR which leads to the acceptance of hypothesis 1. If the operating profit is increased by 1 % 

for a bank, then the market value is negatively affected (accept hypothesis 4). For an increase in liquidity 

position of a bank by 1%, the market value will increase by 2.623 % accepting hypothesis 5 and if there 

is an increase in business risk by 1%, then market value of the banks decrease by 11.65 % accepting 

hypothesis 6. 

 

Sustenance of Value Creation by CSR 

In Model 2, the Breusch–Pagan test (BP test) for expected operating performance is not significant as 

the chi-squared was 2.86 with p-value 9 %. The result implies that panel data is rejected. As a result, 

OLS regression is good for the model with expected operating performance. Model 2 results indicates 

that each unit increase of CSR commitment lead to a rise in expected operating performance by 92.52, 

as confirmed by the positive and significant coefficient (p<0.01). Earnings persistence is also significant 

and positively related to expected performance in line with Greening and Turban (2000) and Mishra and 

Suar (2010). If a bank has larger commitment to CSR, it has a positive impact on its operating 

performance and earnings persistence of the firm. The activities in which a firm commits for CSR are 

value adding activities. Thus, these value adding activities through their business models transform 

various inputs to produce output like loans, deposits, etc. They act as an operating profit sustenance 

strategy for the firm. Sustainable value creation is a long-term process which requires management 

orientation for persistent and stable earnings with continuous commitment to CSR and improves firm's 

stability and resilience. Firms which give attention to CSR, balance their interests with multiple 

stakeholders. Balancing such interests and allocation of resources to all the stakeholders reduces 

excessive risk taking and excessive risk avoidance which increases their sustainability in the long term. 

The behaviours of the firm which balance financial and non-financial dimensions to manage risks and 

opportunities with economic, environmental and social development leads to sustainable value creation. 

The biggest challenge faced by the banking sector is to take more long-term and integrated approach 

which is resolved by sustainable value creation. Sustainability requires balancing long-term and short-

term objectives for the firm. Therefore, we accept hypothesis 2 that the sustainability of CSR activities 

is evident for banks. 

 

Social Value Creation by CSR 

Model 3 is significant with an explanatory power of 13.9 % using the OLS regression. The explanatory 

variables CSR score and earnings quality are (1 % and 5 %) significant (Table 5). For a unit increase in 

CSR score, holding all other factors constant, return on assets (ROA) will increase by 20.4 % at 1% 

significance level. The model also establishes a positive significant impact of earnings persistence in 

line with stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984 & Waddock & Graves, 1997). BP test for the 3rd Model 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

151  

with the chi-squared value (443.66) is highly significant at 5% level. It means the OLS regression is not 

consistent for this model and possible model which can be applied are fixed or random effects model. 

The hausman test was applied to determine a good model. The chi square value (2.81) is not significant 

implying that random effects (REM) regression is consistent for the 3rd model. The results of the 

specification tests attested that the random effects model is best for understanding the CSR and ROA 

relationship. The relationship between CSR and financial performance measured through ROA is strong 

(p=0.000). The R square for the REM regression of model is 18.68 %. As anticipated, the CSR score is 

highly significant, which confirms that CSR diversified activities create social value in line with the 

results of Mitra et al. (2018) and Bodhanwala and Bodhanwala (2018). Disclosure of CSR investment 

in different diversified areas helps to create a long-term social value for banks. Consumers, government 

and other stakeholders view banks as a catalyst for value creation. By disclosing CSR efforts in 

education, healthcare, etc., a bank increases its financial performance. The positive relationship between 

CSR and financial performance is in line with the stakeholder theory representing shared values leading 

to collective social intention. We accept our hypothesis 3 that banks CSR scores increases its return of 

assets. 

 

Robustness Checks 

The structural validity of Model 1 is well established as the explanatory variable significantly influences 

all the dependant variables formulated in the study. Moreover, the tested hypotheses have literature 

support and are backed by stakeholder theory. We dropped variables other than CSR from all the models 

l, the results for the dependent variables were unchanged and were significant. We also computed 

variance inflation factor (VIF) when estimating our regression models to test signs for multi-collinearity 

between the explanatory variables. As no VIF exceeded ten, we concluded that multi-collinearity is not 

a major concern in the study.  

 

DISCUSSION 

Banking sector is a very important part of an economy. Its activities affect people since its services are 

linked to other organisations. This study is a modest attempt to identify the impact of CSR disclosure to 

create value for the Indian listed banks during the period 2014-15 to 2019-20. The prior studies do not 

extensively study the banking sector as an individual sector especially in India. The research attempts 

to reconcile the conflicting understanding of the nexus between CSR, business risk, earnings quality, 

financial performance and value.  

The present study provides evidence that CSR investments have impact on their market value, 

social value and sustenance value. For banking sector, CSR is a great opportunity to utilize their 

strengths to benefit the local community. 

Banks can enhance their long-term value by carefully scrutinizing the project proposals for 

financing those projects that do not harm the environment. The results indicate importance of CSR 

activities and governance factors like earnings persistence in enhancing the value of banks. The 

relationship between CSR commitment and value of banks has huge policy implications. Investment in 

diversified CSR activities gives competitive advantage. Commitment to CSR activities in diversified 

areas along with improved earnings persistence helps in both sustainable and social value creation 

respectively. The investment in CSR activities is related to the moral and ethical behaviour of banks 

which improves the satisfaction of the stakeholders. There has been a huge debate on efficiency of banks 

regarding their investment towards CSR activities to be more responsible towards the need of the 

stakeholders. The present study establishes the fact that investment in diversified CSR activities and 

continuous CSR commitment create tangible values for the banks. It enhances the long-term value for 

them as the mutual relationship between banks and the society.  Demonstrating social value also means 

differentiating from the competition. Various stakeholder's expectations are met by investing in 

diversified activities. By spending on different areas of CSR, local communities are also benefitted 

which enhances the social value of the bank. During recent years, the social value has garnered attention 

as all the stakeholders like government, media, etc. are interested in knowing whether the investments 

are reflecting genuine value to the society.  



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

152  

The study establishes three value creation functions of CSR for banks in India. First positive CSR 

commitment, liquidity and earnings quality leads to market value creation, while business risk has a 

negative impact. If the markets are efficient, a positive CSR engagement will be embedded in the stock 

prices. Investors perceive how CSR is articulated and its quality, consistency, effectiveness and take 

these factors into account for decision making which increases the market value. Second, there is a 

positive relationship between CSR, earnings quality and expected operating performance confirming the 

sustenance of CSR value creation for banks. Third, diversified CSR activities enhances the social value 

of the banks through its asset returns.  

 

CONCLUSION 

The present study results are subject to several limitations, which could lead to further research both 

empirical and theoretical. First, the current study is limited to examining banking sector in India, while 

this study can be extended further with an international sample of banks. Second, the generalizability of 

the results in this paper is subject to data collected from public disclosure of banks. It can be pointed out 

that several banks contribute to CSR that may not be reported and thus hidden value creation by such 

CSR activities needs to be brought out in the future. Different results may be obtained when different 

firms in other sectors are used. The question of CSR contribution by specific industries also needs to be 

dealt with in the future. We can compare the firms that are legally required to carry out CSR with those 

firms that willingly commit to CSR. Further research may evaluate if CSR hedge interest rate risk, 

market risk (beta) and tax risk (effective tax rate). In the present study, we have only used a few proxies 

for measuring value of the firm. The future studies can explore more indicators along with panel dataset 

among various countries. To conclude: our results will be useful to policy makers, academicians, top 

management while making sustainable strategies. 

 

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS 

Conceptualization: Nitika Gaba, R.Madhumathi 

Data Curation: Nitika Gaba, R.Madhumathi 

Formal Analysis: Nitika Gaba, R.Madhumathi 

Funding Acquisition: Nitika Gaba, R.Madhumathi 

Investigation: Nitika Gaba, R.Madhumathi 

Methodology: Nitika Gaba, R.Madhumathi 

Project Administration: Nitika Gaba 

Resources: Nitika Gaba, R.Madhumathi 

Software: Nitika Gaba, R.Madhumathi 

Supervision: Nitika Gaba, R.Madhumathi 

Validation: Nitika Gaba, R.Madhumathi 

Visualization: Nitika Gaba, R.Madhumathi 

Writing – Original Draft: Nitika Gaba 

Writing – Review & Editing: Nitika Gaba, R.Madhumathi 

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT 

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.  

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. 

 

 

 

 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

153  

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Checklist of Items for CSR Score 

  
Checklist of 14 Items for CSR scores Average Score (Max: 5) 

S.No Items 
 

1 Education / Livelihood enhancement 4.85 

2 Skill Development 3.25 

3 Rural Development 3.35 

4 Healthcare/Sanitation/Safe Drinking water 4.5 

5 Environmental sustainability 3.6 

6 Swachh Bharat Abhiyan 1.8 

7 Prime minister relief fund/ Chief Minister Relief Fund 0.9 

8 Arm Forces Veterans 0.5 

9 Women empowerment 2.3 

10 Poverty, malnutrition and hunger 2.2 

11 Sports 1.9 

12 Art and Culture 1.75 

13 Senior citizens welfare 0.35 

14 Technology incubators funding 0.2 

 

Appendix B: Ranking based on Average CSR scores (14 items) for five years 2014-2015 to 2018-

19 

Note: Pr (Private); Pu (Public) 

 

 

 

Banks Average CSR scores for five years 2014-2019 Ranking 

Federal Bank (Pr) 0.8143 1 

South Indian Bank(Pr) 0.6143 2 

Karnataka Bank Ltd (Pr) 0.5714 3 

SBI (Pu) 0.5143 4 

ICICI Bank(Pr) 0.5143 4 

IndusInd Bank (Pr) 0.5000 5 

Kotak Mahindra Bank (Pr) 0.4857 6 

Bank of India (Pu) 0.4857 6 

PNB (Pu) 0.4572 7 

Canara Bank (Pu) 0.4572 7 

IDBI(Pu) 0.4571 8 

Yes Bank (Pr) 0.4571 8 

HDFC Bank(Pr) 0.4428 9 

Karur Vysya Bank (Pr) 0.4428 9 

Union Bank of India(Pu) 0.4000 10 

Syndicate Bank(Pu) 0.3714 11 

RBL Bank Ltd(Pr) 0.3428 12 

Bank of Baroda(Pu) 0.2571 13 

UCO Bank(Pu) 0.2429 14 

Andhra Bank(Pu) 0.2143 15 



https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

154  

REFERENCES 
Alotaibi, K., & Hussainey, K. (2016). Quantity versus quality: the value relevance of CSR disclosure 

of Saudi companies. Corporate Ownership and Control, 13(2), 167–179. 

https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv13i2p15 

 

Alsaid, L. (2016). Do consistent CSR activities matter for firm value? Corporate Ownership and 

Control, 14(1), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv14i1c2p6 

 

Belasri, S., Gomes, M., & Pijourlet, G. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and bank 

efficiency. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 54(C). 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mulfin.2020.100612. 

 

Beneish, M.D. (2001). Earning management: a perspective. Managerial Finance, 27(12), 3-17. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/03074350110767411 

 

BIS. (2021). Bureau of Indian Standards. Retrieved from https://bis.gov.in  

 

Bodhanwala, S., & Bodhanwala, R. (2018). Does corporate sustainability impact firm profitability? 

Evidence from India. Management Decision, 56(8), 1734–1747. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-

04-2017-0381 

 

Bolton, B. J. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and bank performance. SSRN Electronic Journal.  

 

Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility 

to organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource 

Management, 18(10), 1701-1719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701570866 

 

Caby, J., Ziane, Y., & Lamarque, E. (2020). The determinants of voluntary climate change disclosure 

commitment and quality in the banking industry. Technological Forecasting and Social 

Change, 161(C). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120282 

 

Caiazza, S., Cotugno, M., Fiordelisi, F., & Stefanelli, V. (2018). The spillover effect of enforcement 

actions on bank risk-taking. Journal of Banking and Finance, 91, 146-159. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2018.04.008 

 

Carbo-Valverde, S., Degryse, H., & Rodríguez-Fernández, F. (2015). The impact of securitization on 

credit rationing: Empirical evidence. Journal of financial stability, 20, 36-50. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2015.06.004 

 

Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and access to 

finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2131 

 

Chih, H. L., Shen, C. H., & Kang, F. C. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, investor protection, and 

earnings management: Some international evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 179–198. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9383-7 

 

Dechow, Patricia M., & Ge, W. (2003). Earnings, cash flows, persistence and growth. Working Papers. 

University of Michigan.  

 

Deniz, M. & Suarez, M. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and family business in Spain, Journal 

of Business Ethics, 56(1), 27-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-004-3237-3 

 

https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv13i2p15
https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv14i1c2p6
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mulfin.2020.100612
https://doi.org/10.1108/03074350110767411
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701570866
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120282
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2018.04.008
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2015.06.004
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2131


https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

155  

Dhaliwal, D. S., Radhakrishnan, S., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Non-financial disclosure and 

analyst forecast accuracy: International evidence on corporate social responsibility disclosure. 

The Accounting review, 87(3), 723-759. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-10218 

 

Ding, D. K., Ferreira, C., & Wongchoti, U. (2016). Does it pay to be different? Relative CSR and its 

impact on firm value. International Review of Financial Analysis, 47, 86–98. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2016.06.013 

 

Fatemi, A., Fooladi, I; & Tehranian, H. (2015), Valuation effects of corporate social responsibility, 

Journal of Banking & Finance, 59, 182-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.04.028 

 

Ferrell, A., Liang, H., & Renneboog, L. (2016). Socially responsible firms. Journal of Financial 

Economics, 122(3), 585-606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2015.12.003 

 

Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press. 

 

Giuli, A.D, & Kostovetsky, L. (2014). Are red or blue companies more likely to go green? Politics and 

corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 111(1), 158-180. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.10.002 

 

Garcia-Castro, R., Ariño, M. A., & Canela, M. A. (2010). Does social performance really lead to 

financial performance? Accounting for Endogeneity. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(1), 

https://doi.org/107-126. 10.1007/s10551-009-0143-8 

 

García-Sánchez, I., & García-Meca, E. (2017). CSR engagement and earnings quality in banks. The 

moderating role of institutional factors. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental 

Management, 24(2), 45-158. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1405 

 

Godfrey, P. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk 

management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777-798. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/20159168 

 

Greening, D; & Turban, D. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in 

attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39(3), 254-280. 

https://doi.org/0.1177/000765030003900302 

 

Grougiou, V., Leventis, S., Dedoulis, E; & Owusu-Ansah, S. (2014). Corporate social responsibility 

and earnings management in U.S. banks. Accounting Forum, 38(3), 155-169. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2014.05.003 

 

Hafez, H. M. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: An empirical study on 

Egyptian banks. Corporate Ownership and Control, 12(2), 107-127. 

https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv12i2p9 

 

Haniffa, R., & Cooke, T. (2002). Culture, Corporate Governance and disclosure in Malaysian 

Corporations, Abacus, 38(3), 317-329. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6281.00112 

 

He, F., Miao, X., Wong, C.W.Y., & Tang, Y. (2020). Corporate Social Responsibility and Operating 

Performance: The role of local character in emerging economies. Sustainability, 12(12), 4874. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124874. 

 

https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%252Fj.irfa.2016.06.013;h=repec:eee:finana:v:47:y:2016:i:c:p:86-98
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.04.028
https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%252Fj.jfineco.2015.12.003;h=repec:eee:jfinec:v:122:y:2016:i:3:p:585-606
https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%252Fj.jfineco.2013.10.002;h=repec:eee:jfinec:v:111:y:2014:i:1:p:158-180
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0143-8
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1405
https://doi.org/10.2307/20159168
https://doi.org/0.1177/000765030003900302
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2014.05.003
https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv12i2p9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6281.00112
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124874


https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

156  

Hong, Y., & Andersen, M. (2011). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and 

earnings management: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 461-471. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0921-y 

 

Iannotta, G., Nocera, G., & Sironi, A. (2013). The impact of government ownership on bank risk. 

Journal of Financial Intermediation, 22(2), 152-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2012.11.002 

 

Jiao, Y. (2010). Stakeholder welfare and firm value. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(10), 2549-2561. 

 

Kanagaretnam, K., Lim, C., & Lobo, G. (2014). Effects of international institutional factors on earnings 

quality of banks. Journal of Banking & Finance, 39, 87-106. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.11.005 

 

Kayode, O. F., Obamuyi, T. M., Owoputi, J. A., & Adeyefa, F. A. (2015). Credit risk and bank 

performance in Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Economics and Finance, 6(2), 21-28. 

 

Khanna, N., & Sonti, R. (2004). Value creating stock manipulation: feedback effect of stock prices on 

firm value. Journal of Financial Markets, 7(3), 237-270. https://doi.org/10.12691/jfe-4-5-5 

 

Kim, Y., Park, M., & Wier, B. (2012). Is earnings quality associated with Corporate Social 

Responsibility? The Accounting Review, 87(3), 761-796. https://doi.org/0.3390/su11154116 

 

Kothari, S., Leone, A., & Wasley, C. (2005), Performance matched discretionary accrual measures, 

Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39(1), 163-197. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2004.11.002 

 

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. (1st ed.). SAGE 

Publications, pp.21. 

 

Kroeger, A., & Weber, C. (2014). Developing a conceptual framework for comparing social value 

creation. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 513-540. 

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0344 

 

Levine, R. (2005). Finance and growth: Theory and evidence. Handbook of economic growth, 1(A), 

865-934. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01012-9 

 

Lin, C., Yang, H., & Liou, D. (2009). The impact of corporate social responsibility on financial 

performance: Evidence from business in Taiwan. Technology in Society, 31(1), 56-63. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2008.10.004 

 

Lotto, J. (2019). Evaluation of factors influencing bank operating efficiency in Tanzanian banking 

sector. Cogent Economics & Finance, 7(1), 166-192. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1664192 

 

Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. (2009). The debate over doing good: Corporate social performance and 

firm-idiosyncratic Risk, Journal of marketing, 73, 198-213. 

https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.6.198 

 

Lys, T., Naughton, J. P., & Wang, C. (2015). Signalling through corporate accountability reporting. 

Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(1), 56–72. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2015.03.001 

 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0921-y
https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%252Fj.jfi.2012.11.002;h=repec:eee:jfinin:v:22:y:2013:i:2:p:152-176
https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%252Fj.jbankfin.2013.11.005;h=repec:eee:jbfina:v:39:y:2014:i:c:p:87-106
https://doi.org/10.12691/jfe-4-5-5
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11154116
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2004.11.002
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0344
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01012-9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2008.10.004
https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1664192
http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.6.198
https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%252Fj.jacceco.2015.03.001;h=repec:eee:jaecon:v:60:y:2015:i:1:p:56-72


https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

157  

MCA. (2021). Ministry of corporate affairs, Acts and rule. Retrieved from 

https://www.mca.gov.in/content/mca/global/en/acts-rules/ebooks.html 

 

McGuire, J.,   Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial 

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854–972. 

https://doi.org/10.5465/256342. 

 

Merton, R. C. (1987). A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information. The 

Journal of Finance, 42(3), 483-510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1987.tb04565.x 

 

Mishra, S., & Suar, D. (2010). Does corporate social responsibility influence firm performance of 

Indian companies? Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 571-601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-

010-0441-1 

 

Mitra, N., Akhtar, A., & Gupta, A. (2018). Communicating corporate social responsibility in the post 

mandate period: Evidence from India. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 

3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018-0033-4 

 

Mittal, R., Sinha, N., & Singh, A. (2008). An analysis of linkage between economic value added and 

corporate social responsibility. Management Decision, 46(9), 1437-1443. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740810912037 

 

Mohd Ghazali, N. (2007). Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure: some 

Malaysian evidence. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 

7(3), 251-266. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700710756535 

 

Nandy, M., & Lodh, S. (2012). Do banks value the eco-friendliness of firms in their corporate lending 

decision? Some empirical evidence. International Review of Financial Analysis, 25, 83-93. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2012.06.008 

 

Nekhili, M., Nagati, H., Chtioui, T., & Rebolledo, C. (2017). Corporate social responsibility disclosure 

and market value: Family versus non-family firms.  Journal of Business Research, 77, 41-52. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.04.001 

 

Nguyen, T., Duong, H. N., & Singh, H. (2016). Stock market liquidity and firm value: An empirical 

examination of the Australian market. International Review of Finance, 16(4), 639-646. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/irfi.12082 

 

Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J.D. (2001). Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic 

review. Business and Society, 40(4), 369-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765030104000402 

 

Oxibar, B. (2005). La diffusion d’information sociétale: outils de mesure et déterminants: une 

comparaison multi supports. Working Papers, Paris Dauphine University. 

 

Palazzo, M., Vollero, A., & Siano, A. (2020). From strategic corporate social responsibility to value 

creation: an analysis of corporate website communication in the banking sector. International 

Journal of Bank Marketing, 38(7), 1529-1552. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-04-2020-0168 

 

Paul, C. J., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and economic performance. Journal 

of Productivity Analysis, 26(3), 207-211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-006-0016-4 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.5465/256342
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1987.tb04565.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0441-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0441-1
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018-0033-4
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740810912037
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720700710756535
https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%252Fj.irfa.2012.06.008;h=repec:eee:finana:v:25:y:2012:i:c:p:83-93
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.04.001
https://doi.org/10.1111/irfi.12082
https://doi.org/10.1177/000765030104000402
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-04-2020-0168
https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1007%252Fs11123-006-0016-4;h=repec:kap:jproda:v:26:y:2006:i:3:p:207-211


https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb                       Indian Journal of Finance and Banking                            Vol. 9, No. 1; 2022 
 

158  

Prior, D., Surroca, J., & Tribó, J. (2008). Are socially responsible managers really ethical? Exploring 

the relationship between earnings management and corporate social responsibility. Corporate 

Governance: An International Review, 16(3), 160-177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

8683.2008.00678.x 

 

Rashid, A., & Lodh, S.C. (2008). The influence of ownership structures and board practices on 

corporate social disclosures in Bangladesh. Research in Accounting in Emerging Economies, 8, 

211-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3563(08)08008-0 

 

Scholtens, B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in the international banking industry. Journal of 

Business Ethics, 86(2), 159-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9841-x 

 

Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The 

role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59(5), 1045-1061. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1630 

 

Sharfman, M.P., & Fernando, C.S. (2008). Environmental risk management and the cost of capital, 

Strategic Management Journal, 29(6), 569-592. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.678 

 

Thome, F. (2020). Corporate responsibility in the age of irresponsibility: A symbiotic relationship 

between CSR and the financial crisis. IISD Commentary. Retrieved from 

https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2009/csr_financial_crisis.pdf.  

 

Thompson, P., & Cowton, C. (2004). Bringing the environment into bank lending: implications for 

environmental reporting. The British Accounting Review, 36(2), 197-218. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2003.11.005 

 

Van Beurden, P., & Gössling, T. (2008). The worth of values – A literature review on the relation 

between corporate social and financial performance. Journal of business ethics, 82(2), 407-424. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9894-x 

 

Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance 

link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-

0266(199704)18:4<303::AID-SMJ869>3.0.CO;2-G 

 

Wood, A., & Mc Conney, S. (2018). The impact of risk factors on the financial performance of the 

commercial banking sector in Barbados. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 7(1), 76-93. 

 

Zeng, T. (2016). Corporate social responsibility, tax aggressiveness, and firm market value. Accounting 

Perspectives, 15(1), 7-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12090 

 

 

Copyrights 

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. 

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons 

Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). 

 

                                                                  

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00678.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00678.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3563(08)08008-0
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9841-x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1630
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.678
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2003.11.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9894-x
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199704)18:4%3c303::AID-SMJ869%3e3.0.CO;2-G
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199704)18:4%3c303::AID-SMJ869%3e3.0.CO;2-G
https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12090
about:blank

