Is Corporate Financial Performance Associated with Corporate Social
Responsibility in a Crisis?: Focusing on March 11 Disaster

Masumi Nakashima
Chiba University of Commerce
Saburo Ota
Chiba University of Commerce, Japan

masumink@cuc.ac.jp
October 27, 2015

ABSTRACT: This study discusses how firms damaged by the Great East Japan Earthquake andTsunami of 2011 (March 11 Disaster) proceeded toward a turnaround by focusing on corporatesocial responsibility (CSR). We define CSR as the responsibility a firm has to pursue as a public
institution for the benefit of the community and its environment. Ota and Nakashima (2015a)
proposed the Ota-Nakashima CSR model, which measures CSR by applying the Ota Turnaroundmodel (2013) to the Kanji-Chopra CSR model. We compute CSR by employing the Ota andNakashima CSR model (2015a) and analyze the association between CSR and corporate financial
performance (CFP). By examining the association between CSR and CFP, we investigate how firms
damaged by the March 11 disaster consider their CSR and plan and implement CSR to proceed
toward a turnaround.
Keywords: corporate social responsibility (CSR), the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami of2011, corporate financial performance (CFP), Ota and Nakashima CSR model (2015a).

1

1

INTRODUCTION

This study discusses how firms damaged by the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami
of 2011 (March 11 Disaster) proceeded toward a turnaround by focusing on corporate social
responsibility (CSR). We define CSR as the responsibility a firm has to pursue as a public institution
for the benefit of the community and its environment. Ota and Nakashima (2015a) proposed the
Ota-Nakashima CSR model, which measures CSR by applying the Ota Turnaround model (2013) tothe Kanji-Chopra CSR model. We compute CSR by employing the Ota and Nakashima CSR model(2015a) and analyze the association between CSR and corporate financial performance (CFP). By
examining the association between CSR and CFP, we investigate how firms damaged by the March
11 disaster consider their CSR and plan and implement CSR to proceed toward a turnaround.
This study makes the following contributions. First, because available data on firms that
suffered from the March 11 disaster are limited, grasping the financial performance and current stateof the internal system of firms affected by the disaster is very difficult. We directly obtain financial
performance and managers’ actual consciousness and attitudes by implementing a survey. Second, afirm facing a crisis provides guidelines or clues for what firms should do to initiate a turnaround,such as discussing socially responsible behavior and its attitudes, which are common actions forfirms affected by the March 11 disaster. Today, when natural disasters are increasing on a global
scale, evaluating whether a disaster is a threat or opportunity is useful. Third, few surveys on a CSR
report have been conducted because CSR reporting is voluntary. This study contributes to theliterature on CSR research by analyzing the association between CFP and CSR using the survey
results.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Chapter 2 describes the outline of a
CSR model. Chapter 3 reviews the previous literature and develops the hypothesis. Chapter 4
discusses the research design. Chapter 5 reports the empirical results, and chapter 6 provides the2conclusion and limitations to this study and describes possible future studies.

2

CSR MODEL

Although grasping the degree to which a firm fulfils its social responsibility is important,actually measuring its social responsibility is difficult. Kanji and Chopra (2010) indicated thenecessity of a framework used to gauge the social responsibility of a firm and developed a model tomeasure CSR using a hierarchical approach. The Kanji-Chopra CSR model (2010) is viewed as a new
system for measuring social responsibility based on a hierarchical modeling approach. In the KanjiChopra CSR model (2010),1 the social responsibility index is measured by dividing it into a social
responsibility index, a social investment index, an environmental protection and sustainability index,
a governance and economical responsibility index, and an ethics and human rights in peacetime index.
We applied the Ota Turnaround model (2009) to the Kanji-Chopra CSR model (2010) to
develop the Ota-Nakashima CSR model for measuring the CSR of firms affected by the March 11
disaster. Figure 1 shows the Ota-Nakashima CSR model. The “organizational strategy” in the left box
reflects a business plan for a firm’s CSR. The corporate social responsibility index (CSRI) in the rightbox reflects the reality of the CSR activity the firm actually fulfills. Social accountability, ethics andhuman resources, economic responsibility, and the environment exist between organizational strategy
and CSRI as components of social responsibility. An arrow points from “organizational strategy” toindicate the social responsibility component a firm emphasizes from social accountability, ethics andhuman resources, economical responsibility, and the environment. The arrow also indicates whether
each CSR component reflects actual CSR activity.
Insert FIGURE 1
1

Kanji and Chopra (2010, p.120) indicated that CSR is a component of business activity and represents a way of thinking thatreflects a firm’s voluntary contribution to society through the economy, the environment, ethics, and social investments. The KanjiChopra CSR model (2010) offers a mechanism to enable social responsibility to be communicated through a system.

3

The Ota-Nakashima CSR model (2015a) differs from the Kanji-Chopra CSR model (2010)
with respect to the environment, which is at the bottom of the pyramid. Although the Kanji-Chopra
CSR model (2010) focuses on environmental protection from a global perspective, the OtaNakashima CSR model focuses on whether small and medium-size firms supported by stakeholders
promote turnarounds. Therefore, the difference between the Kanji-Chopra CSR model and the OtaNakashima CSR model is seen in their focuses on whether a firm has activities that are friendly to theglobal environment or whether firms recognize that they are supported by stakeholders.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Association between CSR and CFP in Peacetime
Orlitzkey et al. (2003) indicated a positive relationship between CSR and CFP through ameta-analysis of empirical research from 1970 through 2000 on the relationship between CSR and
CFP. Suto and Takehara (2008) analyzed hypotheses based on competitive advantage theory, risk
management theory, and overinvestment theory, suggesting that a negative association exists
between CSR and risk. They supported the risk management theory but found mixed results
regarding the association between CSR and profitability. Suto and Takehara (2008) indicated thateach CSR item affects CFP through a different channel related to the relationship with stakeholders.
Using the slack theory of resources and good management theory, Fauzi and Idris (2009)
developed a hypothesis on the relationship between CSR and CFP using an Indonesian firm sample
that suggested a positive association between CSR and CFP. The slack theory states that if financial
performance improves, slack resources are available (Fauzi and Idris 2009). The good management
theory indicates that good management is highly associated with higher CSR because goodmanagement improves the relationship with stakeholders and results in good CSR (Fauzi and Iris
2009). In contrast, Fauzi (2009) analyzed the hypothesis from the same theory using a sample of4

U.S. firms, which did not support the hypothesis. Mittal et al. (2008) also investigated therelationship between CSR and CFP using the Indian firm sample but found no positive association.

Association between CSR and CFP in a Crisis
Firms began to reduce costs after the 2008 financial crisis, and CSR projects decreased(Stoian 2013, p.333; Karabrahimoglu 2010). Yelkikalan and Kose (2012, p.295) indicated that firms
want to survive, maintain profitability, and minimize losses in times of a crisis. A firm may alsoprioritize the satisfaction of economical responsibility when confronted with a threat to ensure thatit survives a crisis (Yelkikalan and Kose 2012, p.297).
In contrast, Arevalo and Aravind (2010) reported that firms that apply the United National
Global Compact (UNGC)2 to a business strategy did not experience financial decline or economic
shocks. They suggested that the CSR standard is an important starting point when improving
businesses. They also showed that the CSR standard improves financial performance in a crisis.
Souto (2009) and Yelkikalan and Kose (2012) indicated that using CSR gives businesses the chance
to remain in a healthy state during a crisis, switch to more profitable states by converting
fundamental values, and overcome serious environments in a crisis (Yelkikalan and Kose 2012,
p.297).
We predict that firms affected by the March 11 disaster can manage a turnaround even in acrisis because their mission is a socially responsible one of maintaining the businesses of small andmedium-size firms. Ota (2013) analyzed firm A, which suffered from the March 11 disaster, andfound that it revived itself because it possessed a strong mission that protected a local lifeline—
maintaining food for a local community and saving the lives of local residents. Firm A also hadstrong support from a client (a financial institution in the same line of business) and the2 This CSR framework was formulated by the United Unions in 2000. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/

5government. Therefore, we predict that firms affected by the March 11 disaster have a strong
mission as local firms that receive support from its stakeholders and management for theirturnaround. Thus, we establish the following hypothesis.

H: A positive association exists between the corporate financial performance and thecorporate social responsibility behavior of firms affected by the March 11 Disaster.

4 RESEARCH DESIGN

4.1 Outline of Survey Research
Tokyo Shoko Research (TSR) investigated the continuing situation and the cooperation of
135 firms that went through a turnaround-type bankruptcy, including 1,570 firms involved in March
11 disaster-related bankruptcies3 (Corporate Rehabilitation Law and Civil Rehabilitation Law).4
We selected 36 firms that currently exist and that cooperated with the TSR in its investigation as oursample in this survey. Table 1 indicates the sample selected.
Insert here TABLE 1
Then, we interviewed the firms in our sample between April 24, 2015 and May 21, 2015
using a questionnaire entitled “Survey Investigation about Social Responsibility.” We received 23

3

TSR defines a “bankruptcy” as “the state in which an enterprise fails to make payments for its debt and continuing economic
activity becomes difficult.” Bankruptcy is divided into “legal bankruptcy” and “private bankruptcy.” Legal bankruptcy is classified
into the turnaround-type—Corporate Rehabilitation Law and Civil Rehabilitation Law—and the settlement type bankruptcy—
closures and special closures. “Private bankruptcy" is divided into “suspension of business transactions with banks” and “windingup.” http://www.tsr-net.co.jp/guide/knowledge/glossary/ta_14.html
4 According to the TSR website, Corporate Rehabilitation Law represents a reconstruction type bankruptcy that involves plans for aturnaround by carrying on with the business. A courthouse-nominated custodian forces a corporation to focus on a turnaround basedon a rehabilitation plan. As a principle, the firm should repay its debt and continue its operations from the support of selectedsponsors. The Civil Rehabilitation Law is a substitute for the conventional peace negotiation law and was enacted in April 2000 as alegal procedure primarily for the reconstruction of small and medium-size firms; its targets are a corporation, a special corporation,
and an individual. A proprietor can continue to operate a bankrupt firm. One of the positive characteristics of the law is that even if a
firm does not currently have excessive debt and impossible payments, it can apply for relief if it faces such a possibility.
http://www.tsr-net.co.jp/guide/knowledge/glossary/ta_14.html

6effective responses (63.8% collection rate). The questionnaire covered the following topics:
organizational strategy, social responsibility, employee ethics, economic responsibility, shareholder
support, and corporate social responsibility index.
The industry distribution, attributes, and location classification of the respondents are shownin Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3. Figure 1 indicates that the service, machine, and constructionindustries have more firms. Figure 2 indicates that 35% of the respondents were presidents, 4%were senior managing directors, 4% were managing directors, and 9% were directors. These figuressuggest that half of the representatives of firms who led their employees to a turnaround answered
our questionnaires. Figure 3 indicates that the northeast had the highest percent of respondents at
35%; however, the firms affected by the March 11 disaster were distributed throughout the country,
including metropolitan areas.
Insert here Figure 1
Insert here Figure 2
Insert here Figure 3
4.2 Survey Results
Organizational strategy, employee morale, economic responsibility, and stakeholder support
by stakeholders are shown in Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively.
Insert here Figure 4
Insert here Figure 5
Insert here Figure 6
Insert here Figure 7

4.3. Observation Variables
An observation variable for each CSR component is shown in Figure 8.
Insert here Figure 87

4.4. Hypothesis Test
The following regression model is used to analyze the hypothesis. Following the OtaNakashima CSR model (2015b), CFP is used as the dependent variable and CSR is used as theindependent variables in the model as follows:

CFP =β0+β1 OSPS_1+β2 OSPS_2+β3 OSPS_3+β4OSPS_4.1+β5OSPS_4.2+β6 OSPS_5 +β7SIZE+β8AGE+ε
CFP =β0+β1 EHR_1+β2EHR_2+β3EHR _3+β4EHR _4+β5EHR _5+β6EHR _6+β7SIZE++ β8AGE+ε
CFP =β0+β1 ES_1+β2 ES_2+β3 ES_3+β4ES_4+β5ES_5+β6 ES_6
+β7 ES_7 +β 8SIZE++ β9AGE+ε

Here, CFP=corporate financial performance: net income/equity; OSPS=organizational strategy
variables; HER=employee ethics; ES= economic responsibility; SIZE = ln (number of employees);and AGE = ln (years the firm was in operation).

5

EMPRICAL RESULTS

5.1. Conformability of the Model
The internal consistency of the CSR linear measure is tested to analyze whether our CSR
model fits. The α coefficient of each CSR item calculated is shown in Table 2. We find that the
Cronbach’s α values are adequate and the corrected items are all positive. Moreover, Cronbach’s α
is shown when an item was eliminated, suggesting that only Question 66 exceeds 0.86, which is the8α coefficient of the whole. The α of each CSR component, including organizational strategy,
employee ethics, social responsibility, economic responsibility, and stakeholder support, were 0.779,
0.807, 0.813, 0.836, 0.797, and 0.875, respectively—all higher than 0.7. This result suggests that
because these latent variables fit with the model as a positive index, this CSR model can be said toconform.
Insert here Table 2

5.2 Descriptive Statistics
The descriptive statistics are shown in Table 3; these statistics indicate that the mean andmedian of the firms affected by the March 11 disaster are generally positive. For some firms, theminimum value is the deficit.
Insert here Table 3

5.3. Correlation
Table 4 shows the correlations between net income and each CSR in 2014 and indicates that,in OSPS Question A141 in HER, disclosure requirements by stakeholders, check of employees’
work environments, in employee ethics, employee involvement in services to the local community
are –732, –513, and –503, respectively. This result suggests a significant negative correlation.
Therefore, firms affected by the March 11 disaster are in the Zone B stage, known as an
emergency turnaround. It seems that firms implement CSR project step by step for turnarounds.
They do not reach to the CSR project, such as checking of employees’ work environments, andemployee involvement of services to the local community in employee ethics .

5.4 Regression Analysis
We provide the results of the association between CFP and CSR for firms affected by the9March 11 disaster using the regression analysis in Table 5. Panel A, Panel B, and Panel C of Table 5
show the results of the regression analysis in which organizational strategy, employee ethics, andeconomic responsibility are inserted as dependent variables and CFP is inserted into the regression
model.
Panel A indicates that the CFP of firms is significantly negatively associated with financial
content and governance disclosure. Panel B indicates that the CFP of the firms is significantly
positively associated with consumer protection and a safe work environment and significantly
negatively associated with employee work-check systems and employee services to the local
community. In addition, CFP is significantly associated with whether stakeholders understandimportant employee-related items, such as employee loyalty, high productivity, and maintaining
employee employment.
Insert here Table 4

According to Ota (2013), firms that suffered from the March 11 disaster experienced three
imbalanced functions: production, distribution, and financing. This imbalance resulted in poor
conditions in organizational financial health, in a stage known as Zone A. The Zone A stage
indicates that the firm is financially impaired, suggesting that its profitability, liquidity, productivity,
growth, and other finances become disproportionate (Ota 2013).5 The first priority for firms in
Zone A is to organize and recover their organization, production, and distribution and tosimultaneously advance their financial functions (Ota 2013). Following Ota (2013), the turnaroundfrom the stage of impairment is referred to as undergoing an “emergency turnaround” (Figure 4).
Insert here Figure 4
5 The Ota-risk response for a turnaround model (2013) is the recycling economic system of a matrix resulting fromthe suffering related to turnaround. The firms affected by the March 11 Disaster faced a crisis related to moving toZone A and moving from impairment to emergency turnaround for a period to maintain their financial health. Ifthey maintain their financial health and increase their corporate value, they move to the formal turnaround stage(Ota 2013).

10

The firms affected by the March 11 disaster are in the Zone B stage, which involves
emergency turnaround. We find that they do not maintain the work-check system and are notengaged with employee involvement in services to the local community. The result does not support
the hypothesis. However, even if they are in the Zone B stage, they focus on providing a safe work
environment and creating an organization that corresponds to the viewpoint of consumer protection.
The results indicate that stakeholders understand the important items for employees and suggest
responsible behavior, which supports the hypothesis. Thus, our results are mixed.

6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCHThis study analyzes the association between CFP and CSR using the survey results. The
following implications are provided.
The correlation results suggest a significant negative correlation, which indicates that thefirms affected by the March 11 disaster are in the Zone B stage, which is called an emergency
turnaround. As mentioned before, the order exists in the process for a turnaround. They did notreach the CSR project, such as checking of employees’ work environment, and employee
involvement of services to the local community in employee ethics.
The firms affected by the March 11 disaster that are in the emergency turnaround stage
carry out their responsibilities in a systematic manner. The most important CSR for them isorganizational culture, which stresses consumer protection, employee safety, and stakeholders’
understanding of significant employee items. We predict that the next step in a real turnaround is toaddress the CSR of financial content and the governance disclosure requirement, implement asystem to check the work environment, and build employees’ understanding of services needed forthe local community.
This study has some limitations. The sample size used is small, and the analytical method11was limited. We need to analyze the association between CSR and CFP using a larger sample in the
future. We would also like to investigate the relationship between the turnaround stage and CSR
using the same questionnaire.

12

REFERENCES
Arevalo, J.A. D. Aravind 2010. The impact at crisis on corporate responsibility: the case of UN global
compact participants in the USA. Corporate Governance, 10(4); 406-420.
Fauzi, H.and K.M Idris. 2009. The relationship of CSR and financial performance: New evidence fromIndonesian Companies, Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting, 3(1): 66-87.
Fauzi, H. 2009. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: Empirical Evidence from American

Companies,

Globsyn Management Journal, Forthcoming.
Kanji.G.K. and Chopra, P.K. 2010. Corporate social responsibility in a global economy, Total Quality
Management, 21(2): 119-143.
Karaibrahimolu, Y.Z. 2010. Corporate social responsibility in times of financial crisis, African Journal ofBusiness Management, 4(4): 382-389, April.
McWilliams, A. and D. S. Siegel. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective.
Academy ofManagement Review, 26:117–127.
Mishra, S. and Suar, D. 2010 Does corporate social responsibility influence firms performance of Indiancompanies,
Journal of Business Ethics, 95:571-601.
Mittal, R.K, Sinha, N. and Singh A. 2008. An analysis of linkage between economic value added and corporatesocialresponsibility, Management Decision, 46(9):1437-1443.
Orlitzky, M. Schmidt, F.L. and Rynes, S.L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A Meta-analysis,
Organization Studies, 24 (3): 403-441.
Ota, S. 2013. The analysis of the turnaround and corresponding to the March 11 Disaster of small and mid-size
firms and the necessity, “Risk Management and Disclosure after Great Disaster,” edited by K. Shiba,
S.Ota, and M.Honma, Dobunkan Publisher.
Ota, S. and M. Nakashima 2015a. Analytical Method of Managerial Finance in Crisis, “An Informational
Analysis of Managerial Finance, edited by J.Miyamoto, S.Ota, and M.Ichimura. Gakubunsha Publisher.
Ota, S. and M. Nakashima 2015b. The results of survey for the firms impacted by March 11 Disaster, TDR Study
Conference, June 5, 2015.
Souto, D B F. 2009. Crisis and corporate social responsibility: threat or opportunity? International Journal of
Economic Sciences and Applied Research, 2 (1): 36-50.
Sriramesh, K., Wee, N.G C. Ting, S.T. and Wanyin, L. 2007. Corporate governance responsibility and Public
Relations: Perceptions and Practices IN Singapore.
Stoian1, C. D. 2013. How to deal with corporate social responsibility in financial crisis, Annales Universitatis
Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 15(1): 333-338
Suto, M. and H. Takehara. 2009. The impact of corporate social responsibility on financial performance-evidence
from Japan. Working Paper.

13

FIGURE 1. Ota-Nakashima CSR model

14

15

16

17

18

FIGURE 4

Note: This figure indicates the process of a firm advances for a turnaround. An X-axis is the corporate value and a Yaxis is the degree of financial healthiness (Ota 2013).

APPENDIX
Survey regarding Corporate Social Responsibility
Organizational Strategic Planning Systems for a Turnaround: OSPST
1.1.Does your firm implement any strategy for corporate social responsibility for a turnaround?
1.2.Does your firm head to a turnaround with a higher mission as a local community member?
1.3.Do you have respect for the human rights of your employees since it is significant for youremployee to be unified for a turnaround?
1.4.1. Does your firm disclose the required level of the financial performance and governance fora turnaround if stakeholders such as banks and lenders request your firm?
1.4.2. Does your firm implement any proper internal reporting system to monitor and control
social accountability for a turnaround?
1.5. Do you have a system for disclosing your policy and the situation of the practice regarding
your social responsibility?
Social Accountability: SA
2.1 Do you care about transparency and openness regarding your business activities?
2.2 Do you have a system for preventing corruption, financial irresponsibility and underhand
19dealing?
2.3. Do you have an activity for services to support local community?
2.4. Do you provide resources and education to support local community?
2.5. Do you have social accountability to meet public expectations that community has ofbusiness?
2.6. Do you provide education of holding businesses responsible for their actions and products?
2.7. Do you consider safety and development of local community is significant for a turnaround?
Ethics and Human Resources: HER
3.1. Do you have training inside the firm to help employees work positively for a turnaround?
3.2. Do you have ethically high corporate culture to protect consumers when the problems of laboror environment occur?
3.3. Do you have a system to examine the firm’s own labor practices and workplaceenvironment?
3.4. Does your firm provide employees with safe work conditions at your workplaces?
3.5. Does your firm have no discrimination on the basis of age, gender or ethnic origin?
3.6. Are your employees involved in activities such as fundraising or community volunteering?
Economic Responsibility: ER
4.1.Do you change in your policies to behave responsibly due to pressure from your stakeholders
such as creditors and banks?
4.2.Do you have a willingness to have a good relationship with your stakeholders to act socially
responsible?
4.3. Do your stakeholders understand the causes that are important to your employees as it
generates business benefits such as more loyalty, higher productivity, and increase retention?
4.4. D you provide respect for the quality of life of the workforces and their families as well as the
local community and society at large?
4.5.Does your firm contribute to economic growth of the local community?
4.6. Does your firm create the employment opportunities for local communities?
Environment Supporting Your Firms for a Turnaround: ES
5.1. Does your firm share controlling risk of events such as natural disasters with yourstakeholders?
5.2.

Does your firm publish a website or a brochure to make the public aware regarding thearrangement for a turnaround?
5.3. Does your firm inform stakeholders such as local community of the activities for yourturnaround?
5.4.1 Do your investors support you seeking a turnaround?
5.4.2 Do your creditors support you seeking a turnaround?
205.4.3 Do your banks support you seeking a turnaround?
5.4.4 Do your suppliers and clients support you seeking a turnaround?
5.4.5 Do the consumers support you seeking a turnaround?
Corporate Social Responsibility Index: CSRI
6.1.Do your respond to local community for its socially responsible behavior?
6.2.Does your firm possess self-regulating mechanisms to monitor your corporate behavior?
6.3.1. Does your firm compensate to the local community for back social and environmental effectsof actions or products?
6.3.2 Does your firms provide the management and employees all the tools and means required
to pursue broader societal goals?
6.4.Does your firm disclose the reports on corporate social responsibility issues?
6.5.Does your firm have community-based development projects such as children’s education, or
new skills for adults?
(Notes: This questionnaire is intended to obtain inner and outer coefficient for Ota-Nakashima
CSR model. The original questionnaire is from Kanji and Chopra (2010) for CSR in normal
economic conditions. Ota-Nakashima CSR model is a modified model in a crisis based on Kanji
and Chopra (2010). Although most of the questions above are based on Kanji and Chopra (2010),
some questions are adjusted following Ota-Nakashima CSR model.)

21

22

23