This study examines the relationship between institutional ownership and the corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance of companies in India. Referring to social market theory, the free cash flow theory of agency costs and the institutional theory of CSR, this study hypothesized a positive association between institutional ownership and CSR performance (CSP). It empirically tested the hypothesis on a sample of 814 firm-years from 2010 to 2019. The findings reveal a significantly positive association between institutional ownership persistence and CSP. The robustness of the findings is tested against the heterogeneity of institutional ownership, namely, domestic and foreign institutional ownership, with reference to the ‘hometown advantage hypothesis’ and ‘global investor hypothesis’. Domestic institutional ownership significantly impacts CSP in line with the ‘hometown advantage hypothesis’; meanwhile, the significant influence of foreign institutional ownership on CSR aligns with the ‘global investor hypothesis’.
AggarwalR., ErelI., FerreiraM., & MatosP. (2011). Does governance travel around the world? Evidence from institutional investors. Journal of Financial Economics, 100(1), 154–181.
2.
AguinisH., & GlavasA. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.
3.
AhmedS. U., IslamZ., & MahtabH. (2014). Institutional investment and corporate social performance: Linkage towards sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(1), 1–13.
4.
ArmourJ., DeakinS., & KonzelmannS. J. (2003). Shareholder primacy and the trajectory of U.K. corporate governance. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(3), 531–555.
5.
AryaB., & ZhangG. (2009). Institutional reforms and investor reactions to CSR announcements: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Management Studies, 46(7), 1089–1112.
6.
AyersB. C., RamalingegowdaS., & YeungP. E. (2011). Hometown advantage: The effects of monitoring institution location on financial reporting discretion. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 52(1), 41–61.
7.
BaronD. P., Agus HarjotoM., & JoH. (2011). The economics and politics of corporate social performance. Business and Politics, 13(2), 1–46.
8.
BrennanM. J., & CaoH. (1997). International portfolio investment flows. The Journal of Finance, 52(5), 1851–1880.
9.
BrickleyJ. A., LeaseR. C., & SmithC. W.Jr(1988). Ownership structure and voting on antitakeover amendments. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 267–291.
10.
BrockmanP., MartinX., & UnluE. (2010). Executive compensation and the maturity structure of corporate debt. The Journal of Finance, 65(3), 1123–1161.
11.
BusheeB. J. (1998). The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. The Accounting Review, 73(3), 305–333.
12.
CarrollA. B., & ShabanaK. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.
13.
ChappleW., & MoonJ. (2005). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia a seven-country study of CSR Web site reporting. Business and Society, 44(4), 415–441.
14.
CovalJ. D., & MoskowitzT. J. (1999). Home bias at home: Local equity preference in domestic portfolios. The Journal of Finance, 54(6), 2045–2073.
15.
DamL., & ScholtensB. (2015). Toward a theory of responsible investing: On the economic foundations of corporate social responsibility. Resource and Energy Economics, 41, 103–121.
16.
DavisG. F., & McAdamD. (2000). Corporations, classes, and social movements after managerialism. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 193–236.
17.
DavisG. F., ThompsonT. A., QuarterlyA. S., & MarN. (2007). A social movement corporate control. Science, 39(1), 141–173.
18.
DuQ., YuF., & YuX. (2017). Cultural proximity and the processing of financial information. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 52(6), 2703–2726.
19.
FerreiraM. A., & MatosP. (2008). The colors of investors’ money: The role of institutional investors around the world. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(3), 499–533.
20.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
21.
GulF. A., & AnthonyC. N. (2017). Agency costs of free cash flows and investments in business sustainability. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3003629
22.
GuptaA. D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and strategy: A bird’s eye view. Global Business Review, 13(1), 153–165.
23.
HarfordJ., KecskésA., & MansiS. (2018). Do long-term investors improve corporate decision making?. Journal of Corporate Finance, 50, 424–452.
24.
HongH., & KacperczykM. (2009). The price of sin: The effects of social norms on markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 93(1), 15–36.
25.
HuangW., & ZhuT. (2015). Foreign institutional investors and corporate governance in emerging markets: Evidence of a split-share structure reform in China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 32, 312–326.
26.
JarrellG. A., & PoulsenA. B. (1987). Shark repellents and stock prices. The effects of antitakeover amendments since 1980. Journal of Financial Economics, 19(1), 127–168.
27.
KałdońskiM., JewartowskiT., & MizerkaJ. (2020). Capital market pressure, real earnings management, and institutional ownership stability—Evidence from Poland. International Review of Financial Analysis, 71(January), 1–20.
28.
KarimS., ManabN. A., & IsmailR. B. (2020). Assessing the governance mechanisms, corporate social responsibility, and performance: The moderating effect of board independence. Global Business Review, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150920917773
29.
LiangH., MarquisC., RenneboogL., SunS. L. (2014March19). Speaking of corporate social responsibility [TILEC Discussion Paper No. 2014-018, CentER Discussion Paper Series No. 2014-023]. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2411482
30.
LiuC., ChungC. Y., SulH. K., & WangK. (2018). Does hometown advantage matter? The case of institutional blockholder monitoring on earnings management in Korea. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(2), 196–221.
31.
MackeyA., MackeyT. B., & BarneyJ. B. (2007). corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 817–835.
32.
MaignanI., & RalstonD. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497–514.
33.
ManognaR. L., & MishraA. K. (2021). Does institutional ownership and internationalization affect corporate social responsibility in emerging economy firms? An empirical evidence from India. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 15(2), 345–358.
34.
MoussuC., & OhanaS. (2016). Do leveraged firms underinvest in corporate social responsibility? Evidence from health and safety programs in U.S. firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(4), 715–729.
35.
NuvaidV., SardarS., & ChakravartyS. (2017). CSR as investment: An analysis of ownership structure and firm performance. In KamaiahB., ShylajanC., SeshaiahS., ArunaM., & MukherjeeS. (Eds.), Current Issues in Economics and Finance (pp. 113–123). Springer.
36.
PanickerV. S. (2017). Ownership and corporate social responsibility in Indian firms. Social Responsibility Journal, 13(4), 714–727.
37.
PorterM. E. (1992). Capital disadvantage: America’s failing capital investment system. Harvard Business Review, 70(5), 65–82.
38.
PradhanA. K., & NibeditaB. (2021). The determinants of corporate social responsibility: Evidence from Indian firms. Global Business Review, 22(3), 753–766.
39.
RichardsonS. (2006). Over-investment of free cash flow. Review of Accounting Studies, 11(2–3), 159–189.
40.
SalehM., ZulkifliN., & MuhamadR. (2010). Corporate social responsibility disclosure and its relation on institutional ownership: Evidence from public listed companies in Malaysia. Managerial Auditing Journal, 25(July), 591–613.
41.
SametM., & JarbouiA. (2017). CSR, agency costs and investment-cash flow sensitivity: A mediated moderation analysis. Managerial Finance, 43(3), 299–312.
42.
SinghA., & VermaP. (2018). Driving brand value through CSR initiatives: An empirical study in Indian perspective. Global Business Review, 19(1), 85–98.
43.
SmallA. A., & ZivinJ. G. (2005 January). A Modigliani–Miller theory of corporate social responsibility. SSRN Electronic Journal, 5(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.325921
44.
TokasK., & YadavK. (2020). Foreign ownership and corporate social responsibility: The case of an emerging market. Global Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150920920444
45.
TsangA., XieF., & XinX. (2019). Foreign institutional investors and corporate voluntary disclosure around the world. The Accounting Review, 94(5), 319–348.
46.
Van DuurenE., PlantingaA., & ScholtensB. (2016). ESG integration and the investment management process: Fundamental investing reinvented. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(3), 525–533.
47.
WaddockS. A., & GravesS. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.
48.
ZhangR., ZhuJ., YueH., & ZhuC. (2010). Corporate philanthropic giving, advertising intensity, and industry competition level. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 39–52.
