기업의 사회적 책임 성과와 기업 성과의 관계에 대한 연구

Study of the Relationship between Corporate Social Performance and Firm Performance: The Moderating Roles of Firm Visibility and Political Institution Connections

기업의 사회적 성과(corporate social performance), 또는 기업의 사회적 책임 성과(이하 CSR 성과)와 기업 성과 간의 관계에 대해서는 이미 많은 국내ㆍ외 선행연구가 이루어져 왔다. 그러나 이런 실증연구들은 CSR 성과가 기업 성과에 정확히 어떤 영향을 미치는 지에 대해서 '긍정론', '부정론', 그리고 '무효과론'이라는 각기 다른 입장을 나타내고 있다. 이에 본 연구는 CSR 성과와 기업 성과간의 관계를 보다 명확히 규명하는데 그 목적을 두고 있다. 본 연구는 CSR 성과와 기업 성과 간의 기존 연구들이 합일된 결과를 도출하지 못하고 있는 것은 상당수의 기존 연구들이 단순히 CSR 활동, 또는 CSR 성과와 기업 성과라는 양자 간의 직접적인 관계에만 초점을 두고 연구하였기 때문이라고 보았다. 본 논문은 기업이 처한 상황은 각기 다르며 기업이 어떠한 상황이냐에 따라 CSR 성과가 기업 성과에 미치는 영향은 다를 것이라고 전제하고 상황요인에 초점을 두고 연구하였다. 그 상황요인으로서 기업이 해당 기업환경 내에서 어느 정도 가시성이 있는지, 그리고 그 기업이 정부 및 정치적 기관과 어느 정도의 연계가 있는지에 따라 CSR 성과가 기업성과에 미치는 영향은 달라질 것이라 추론하였다. 2002년부터 2008년까지 유가증권에 등록 된 기업을 대상으로 경제정의지수(KEJI)가 있는 기업을 대상으로 표본을 구성하여 진행한 회귀분석 결과 CSR 성과와 기업 성과는 정의 유의한 관계를 갖는 것으로 나타나 "긍정론"을 지지하는 결과를 얻었다. 그리고 본 연구의 주요 초점인 조절변수 분석에 있어, 광고 집중도와 사외이사의 정부 및 정치적 기관과의 연관성은 CSR 성과와 기업성과의 관계를 정의 방향으로 조절하는 것으로 나타났다. 반면 최고경영자의 정부 및 정치적 기관과의 연관성은 부(-)의 방향으로 CSR 성과와 기업 성과의 관계를 조절하는 것으로 나타났다.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social performance (CSP) have intrigued management scholars for decades and many scholars have continuously studied their implications for firm performance. However, research on the relationship between CSP and firm performance has largely been inconclusive. Some scholars have argued that CSP positively affects firm performance because CSP could enhance a firm's image and reputation while others have argued that CSP or CSR activities negatively impact firm performance because investment in CSR is inconsistent with a firm's theoretical (and practical) goal of maximizing profits. Finally, there are the inefficacy arguments of CSP's impact on firm performance because, in accordance with institutional theory, CSP is a result of pursuing 'legitimacy' rather than 'efficiency.' Therefore, empirical research examining the relationship between CSP and firm performance has generated only mixed results to date. Thus the main purpose of this research is to determine whether and under what conditions CSP is significant. In other words, this paper investigates whether and how CSP influences firm performance. To examine the conditions under which CSP matters more, this study focuses on certain critical contingencies that might moderate the relationship between CSP and firm performance. To determine the contingencies, this study focuses on firm visibility and connections, or requisite connections, to political institutions as contingent factors. To test the hypotheses of this study, data concerning firms listed in KOSPI from 2002 to 2008 were collected, principally from the Korea Economic Justice Institute index (KEJI index), KISVALUE, Korea Listed Companies Association and TS 2000. Firm performance was measured by Tobin's Q. CSP was measured by the KEJI index, annual CSP scores of major Korean corporations. KEJI, a leading CSP assessment institute in Korea, publishes its corporate citizens list in its annual KEJI Index. Firm visibility was measured through firm advertising intensities. Political institution connections were measured through government ownership and the CEO's government and political institution connections. Finally, a firm's need of connections to political institutions was measured through the proportion of outside directors from government or political institutions. We controlled for the previous firm performance were firm age, firm size, board size, and industry ROA, which observably influence CSP and firm performance. The results can be summarized as follows: (1) There is a positive relationship between CSP and firm performance; and (2) The positive CSP-performance relationship is positively moderated by advertising intensity and government-political institution connections of outside directors, and negatively moderated by government-political institution connections of the CEO. This study finds that the effects of CSP on firm performance differ across settings and are contingent on various contextual factors such as firm visibility, and the firm's existing political connections and its need for political connections. This study reports results that are similar to those of Servaes and Tamayo (2013) and also of Wang and Qian (2011), who use advertising intensities and firms' political connections as important moderators of CSR (or corporate philanthropy)-firm performance relationship, and extends their findings as well. Particularly, this study finds that the outside directors' political connections positively moderate the relationship between CSP and firm performance. Organizations are often dependent on a particular resource and political environment that can sometimes impose powerful constraints. In an environment where political and legal forces are strong, outside directors may have to negotiate with authorities such as local and federal governments. Outside directors having powerful outside political contacts can more effectively provide the requisit