Systematic Literature Review of CSR in the GCC: Additional Insights From Social Contract Theory

Abstract

Companies face increasing pressure to address a wider array of social responsibilities beyond legal and environmental obligations. This push prompts them to adopt a more comprehensive approach to their operations. Therefore, the objective of this study is to review the studies on corporate social responsibility (CSR), including empirical and theoretical literature, due to the substantial growth of CSR over the last two decades. This study extracted secondary data regarding CSR published from 2012 to 2023 from the Scopus database within GCC countries. The review revealed the factors that influence CSR overall, mainly in GCC countries, have a limited amount of literature, which thereby suggests further investigation in the region. The practical implications lie in explaining the motivations prompting companies in GCC to adopt CSR, fostering a deeper comprehension of responsible business practices.

Plain Language Summary

CSR in the GCC

Systematic Literature Review of CSR in the GCC

Keywords

corporate Social Responsibility social contract theory Literature Review GCC

Introduction

As firms wield greater influence on society, embracing CSR has become critical for companies aiming to achieve sustainable management. CSR involves fulfilling societal expectations by addressing economic and environmental obligations while aiming to uphold human values alongside maximising profits (Clark, 2000). CSR has the potential to directly influence the development of favourable perceptions among consumers towards companies and their products, enhancing client loyalty and improving company performance (Sen et al., 2006). Consequently, businesses must view CSR as a critical tool for enabling corporate sustainability management and bolstering strategic initiatives that use it (Konrad et al., 2006). Corporate sustainability is becoming a significant concern as social consciousness and sustainable development for humanity gain traction (Lloret, 2016).

Furthermore, with ongoing challenges like the global economic crisis, social conflicts, and the persistent issues of environmental pollution and climate change, the concept of “sustainability” emerged as the paramount objective in business management (Benessia & Funtowicz, 2015). Al Gharaibeh and O’Sullivan (2021) found that Syrian families displaced by violence had compounded traumas due to continued emotional and practical pressures, with persistent sensations of “loss” being the predominant stressor. Providing context to these results underscores the significance and responsibility on the host nations, to sustain their substantial humanitarian initiatives for Syrian families. According to Al Gharaibeh (2011), terrorism arises from the lack of human development in the Middle East. Nevertheless, food scarcity, hunger, disease, instability in politics, inadequate education, and escalating poverty will not provide a secure future for those individuals. The findings advocate that addressing human needs, rather than exerting control over individuals, is the most effective approach to establishing a safe social environment globally. Unilever (2017) claimed that the untapped market of 125 trillion won represents the value of the sustainable market, which has a value of about 3,200 trillion won. Consequently, as an aspect of sustainable management, businesses have used a variety of tactics to increase public awareness of environmental issues.

Corporate Sustainability Management (CSM) refers to management practices that aim for moral, environmentally, and socially sustainable development while securing company economic results and avoiding harm to present or future generations (Benessia & Funtowicz, 2015). The foundation of CSM is environmental responsibility, which includes making environmentally friendly productstaking part in environmental activities, as well as social responsibility (Elkington, 1997). These activities result in ethical, innovative, socially responsible, environmentally conscious, and inventive management practices within the organisation. Externally, these actions augment consumers’ awareness or perceived worth of the company, positively impacting trust, corporate image, and customer loyalty. This, in turn, fortifies the company’s competitive advantage (Forehand & Grier, 2003; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006). Companies are engaging in CSR that fosters social and economic values for sustainable growth in response to the shifting business environment (Matten & Moon, 2008). However, consumers' perception of CSR was that it was a profit-generating exercise for businesses, which led to their negative opinions (Webb & Mohr, 1998). Accordingly, CSR must be genuine and compatible in order to pique customers' attention and encourage their engagement (Becker-Olsen & Hill, 2006). These philosophies significantly impact how customers view corporations and evaluate CSR (Sen et al., 2006). According to Gupta and Pirsch (2006), CSR compatibility is the extent to which customers perceive a relationship between a company’s attributes, such its goods and brand image, and CSR. Customers can build trust in a company if its features and CSR are highly compatible. This will lead to a relationship of commitment and loyalty between the company and its customers (Becker-Olsen & Hill, 2006; Koschate et al., 2012).

Furthermore, strong compatibility enhances a company's and brand's reputation (O’Connor & Meister, 2008). According to Price et al. (1995), a corporation is considered authentic if it engages in CSR with sincere goals. Price et al. (1995) suggest that even if a corporation aligns its actions with CSR ideals, good consequences may not materialise if customers view CSR efforts originally as profit-driven. Authentic CSR initiatives suggest favourable responses from consumers, attitudes toward the company, influencing their trust, and their intention to make purchases (Alhouti et al., 2016). Thus, when consumers perceive CSR as genuine, they tend to positively evaluate a company’s activities, recognising it as an ethical entity, which fosters trust in both the company and its brand (Becker-Olsen and Hill, 2006; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Brand trust signifies consumers’ belief that a brand will serve their best interests and values (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Given that consumer relationships with brands are greatly impacted by brand trust, brand trust is essential to a company’s ability to expand steadily (Erdem & Swait, 2004; Sichtmann, 2007). Therefore, for businesses to build strong relationships with customers, they need to develop brand trust. A business can build strong relationships with customers and increase brand confidence if it engages in suitable and sincere CSR activities.

The impact of CSR on a company’s financial success has been the subject of much discussion in the literature. On the other hand, the incentives that drive businesses to participate in social initiatives have received relatively little attention. Frequently proposed hypotheses involve elements like firm size (Udayasankar, 2008), financial performance (Aupperle et al., 1985; McGuire et al., 1988), regulatory measures, and tax incentives (Campbell, 2007), executive traits, and contractual obligations (Ikram et al., 2018; Manner, 2010), and more recently, media exposure or visibility (Campbell & Slack, 2006; Pérez et al., 2018).

According to the definition of CSR, shareholders may not be the only people to whom a firm must answer. This is supported by the long-standing stakeholder theory (Clarkson, 1995; Cornell & Shapiro, 1987). Any individual or organisation that possesses or asserts ownership, rights, or interests in a company and its operations—past, present, or future—is considered a stakeholder (Clarkson, 1995). Comparing worldwide publications on CSR with those exclusively from GCC countries can provide insights into regional variations in CSR practices, priorities, and research focus.

The volume of CSR publications worldwide is significantly higher than that of published research focusing on GCC countries, as demonstrated in Figure 1. This is due to the global interest and emphasis on CSR practices across industries and regions. While the number of CSR publications from GCC countries has been increasing in recent years, it remains relatively lower than global output. However, there has been a noticeable upward trend in research and publications on CSR within the GCC region. CSR research on a global scale covers a wide range of topics, including sustainability, corporate governance, ethics, environmental responsibility, social impact, and stakeholder engagement. There's a significant emphasis on integrating CSR into business strategies and measuring its impact on various stakeholders. While GCC countries often focus on issues specific to the region such as the role of family businesses, the impact of oil and gas industries on sustainability efforts, cultural influences on CSR practices, and the integration of CSR into Islamic finance principles. There is also a growing interest in sustainability initiatives and social development projects driven by government policies and corporate initiatives. A wide variation in CSR policies and regulations globally were noticed, with some countries mandating CSR reporting for certain industries or setting sustainability targets. In contrast, CSR regulations are relatively less stringent in GCC countries compared to some Western counterparts.

Figure 1.

Trend of CSR publication, worldwide versus GCC.

This study offers a comprehensive and unique analysis of corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature in the context of GCC nations, addressing a significant gap in current studies. Although previous research has examined multiple aspects of CSR, including its effects on corporate performance (Harun et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2016; Platonova et al., 2018), financial stability (El Khoury et al., 2023; Velte, 2017), and governance mechanisms (Buallay & Al-Ajmi, 2020; Garas & ElMassah, 2018), no comprehensive systematic review has been undertaken to synthesise these findings. This analysis synthesises fragmented CSR research in the GCC by using secondary data from the Scopus database from 2012 to 2023, highlighting major topics, trends, and gaps in the literature. The present study enhances the current discussion by explaining the main reasons for CSR adoption in the region, specifically in relation to institutional constraints, stakeholder expectations, and legal frameworks (El-Said et al., 2023; Jamali & Mirshak, 2007). This research provides a comprehensive perspective on the evolution of CSR in the GCC, addressing both theoretical and practical implications, in contrast to previous empirical studies that concentrate on specific aspects of CSR implementation and its financial consequences (D’Amato & Falivena, 2020; Ghardallou & Alessa, 2022).

Literature Review

Corporate Social Responsibility Concept

Researchers investigate CSR to understand how a corporation’s actions and societal obligations are related. Although there isn’t a universal agreement in the literature on what constitutes CSR or its components (Dahlsrud, 2008; Van Marrewijk 2003), it is emphasised that to keep CSR from becoming a burden, the definition of CSR should take into account philosophical, historical, contextual, and practical aspects that are in line with the goals of the company. Furthermore, Dahlsrud (2008) examined different definitions of CSR and identified five dimensions: economic focus, voluntarism grounded on moral principles, social engagement, environmental concern, which focuses on preserving a clean environment, and stakeholder involvement. The social dimension pertains to how companies contribute to the betterment of society, whereas the economic dimension is concerned with money issues and economic expansion. The stakeholder viewpoint ses businesses’ relationships with their clients, staff members, vendors, and local communities. The voluntariness dimension describes CSR projects that are motivated by moral and ethical principles. Moreover, other research (El Khoury et al., 2021; Linnenluecke, 2022; Velte, 2017) defined CSR as participation in governance, societal welfare, and environmental preservation initiatives.

CSR Positive Effect on Business Performance

The social impact hypothesis posits that corporations can bolster financial success by meeting stakeholder needs. For instance, prioritising employee needs can enhance productivity, improve the company's image and public trust, thus bolstering its competitive edge. This yield benefits that outweigh costs, aligning with sustainable development goals and boosting firm value (Jamali & Mirshak, 2007; Parket & Eilbirt, 1975). The social impact hypothesis and stakeholder theory assert that CSR is primarily guided by corporations’ responsibilities to society (Carroll, 1999). Consequently, these companies’ strategies typically consider various stakeholders’ interests and prioritise prioritising their benefits. As a result, the diverse CSR initiatives and philanthropic actions undertaken by corporations reflect their principles and influence how stakeholders perceive them (Zhu et al, 2014). This underscores that corporations' dedication to CSR stems from moral, ethical, and social commitments rather than mere legal obligations. CSR endeavours to foster robust relationships between corporations and stakeholders by investing in social or environmental endeavours and enhancing transparency in information. Consequently, stakeholders often concentrate on a firm’s CSR practices. For instance, some studies argue that involvement in corporate philanthropy positively affects market returns and profitability (Blasi et al, 2018; Orlitzky et al., 2003). Azeem et al. (2024) examine the mechanisms by which environmental performance influences financial performance across a multi-country sample. The study indicates that companies’ environmental performance favourably influences financial performance, and the findings remain consistent across multiple measurements. The findings indicate that competitive advantage mediates the connection between environmental performance and financial performance. Ali et al. (2024) assess the influence of governance on per capita income. The analysis reveals that efficient governance fosters prosperity, but foreign direct investment, exports, and urbanisation contribute positively to governance outcomes, using both homogeneity and heterogeneity panel techniques. Conversely, household expenditures demonstrate a multifaceted connection requiring a blend of saving strategies and consumption to enhance per capita income.

Furthermore, embracing CSR practices has been linked to reduced financial risk (Blasi et al, 2018), improved reputation leading to increased market returns (Broadstock et al., 2020), and gaining a competitive edge (Maqbool & Zameer, 2018). Furthermore, firms adopting CSR through increased transparency and stakeholder engagement encounter fewer capital limitations and better financial prospects (Cheng et al., 2014). The relationship between CSR and business performance has been the subject of numerous empirical research. As an example, a second-order meta-analysis based on 25 prior meta-analyses by Busch and Friede (2018) found a positive and reciprocal association between financial performance and corporate social performance. Furthermore, Servaes and Tamayo (2013) discovered that, in contrast to insignificance or negative in other organisations, there was a positive relationship between CSR and company value in businesses with strong customer awareness. Additionally, Khan et al. (2016) found that companies prioritising prioritising sustainability saw increases in margins, stock returns, and sales growth through calendar-time portfolio stock return regressions and firm-level panel regressions.

Kim et al. (2018) found a favourable correlation between CSR initiatives and financial performance, especially in businesses with fierce competition, and saw CSR as a dependent factor influencing financial performance in 113 U.S. software enterprises. Furthermore, in 34 publicly-traded Saudi companies, Ghardallou (2022) studied the influence of CEO traits on the association between CSR and business performance. The results showed that CEO tenure and education positively impacted the relationship between CSR and firm performance, particularly for CEOs with long tenures with an MBA or scientific degree. Following the COVID-19 epidemic, a new line of inquiry examined the pandemic's effects on the relationship between CSR and firm performance. The impact of sustainable investments on G20 corporations during the pandemic was examined by El Khoury et al. (2021), who found benefits in the ESG performance during times of crisis. This result showed a positive association between ESG and accounting performance indicators but a negligible or negative correlation between ESG and market performance measures; nevertheless, it was dependent on firm-specific characteristics, income levels, and ESG pillars.

El Khoury et al. (2021) stated that integrating sustainability reporting, environmental duties, and required or voluntary rules particular to a country are all necessary for the contextual dependency of ESG activities. According to Broadstock et al. (2020), portfolios with a significant emphasis on environmental, social, and governance factors in a Chinese setting performed better during the COVID-19 pandemic than those with a weaker focus on these factors since their performance decreased financial risks. Their analysis revealed a favorable relationship between short-term stock gains during the epidemic and environmental, social, and governance performance. Similarly, Albuquerque et al. (2020) used Thomson Reuters’ ESG Database to assess the environmental and social policies of U.S. companies and found that stocks with high environmental and social ratings showed higher operational profit margins and returns coupled with lower return volatility. Similarly, in the beginning of 2020, Ding et al. (2021) conducted a cross-country analysis encompassing 6,700 enterprises across 61 economies, investigating the relationship between CSR initiatives and stock prices following the COVID-19 epidemic. Their results suggested that companies with a high level of CSR prior to the pandemic had better stock performance following the outbreak, suggesting that CSR encourages shareholder loyalty and support in times of crisis. Furthermore, in the Taiwanese stock market, companies who practiced CSR showed less damage from the epidemic than companies that did not Lee and Lu (2021). As a result, the previously cited research points to a favorable relationship between CSR and business performance.

CSR Negative Effect on Business Performance

In contrast to the social impact hypothesis, the shift of focus theory asserts that a company’s participation in CSR initiatives directs it toward pursuits like environmental conservation, employee relations, or societal welfare. By taking focus away from projects that increase shareholder value, these efforts may end up driving up expenses. As a result, CSR is thought to negatively affect a company's competitive advantage and performance (Becchetti et al., 2009; Galant & Cadez, 2017). Some claim that managers use CSR to hide the company’s failings (Preston & O’Bannon, 1997). Thus, satisfying the demands of the many stakeholders may negatively affect the company’s performance, in accordance with the shift of emphasis theory (Stuebs & Sun, 2015).

Additionally, proponents of the trade-off hypothesis or the traditionalist perspective assert that CSR has a negative link with firm performance because of the high costs involved in social and environmental initiatives. These expenses could reduce a company’s ability to compete and profitability. Furthermore, according to Du and Vieira (2012), a company’s social legitimacy and control strategy may include CSR. Studies that provide empirical evidence in favour of this viewpoint have demonstrated unfavourable results, sing that investments in CSR result in additional costs and expenses that eventually negatively impact corporate performance (Lin et al., 2019; Makni et al., 2009). Hirigoyen and Poulain-Rehm (2014) looked into 329 publicly traded companies in the United States, Europe, and Asia-Pacific to determine whether there was a connection between CSR and financial success between 2009 and 2010. They concluded that participating in CSR does not always result in good financial performance and that, in fact, financial performance may have a negative impact on CSR activities using the Granger causality test and linear regression analysis.

Likewise, D’Amato and Falivena (2020) investigated firm-level variables including age and company size in order to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between CSR and firm performance across publicly traded Western European enterprises. Their analysis of smaller or younger enterprises showed a negative link between CSR and firm performance. This may be due to a lack of resources, experience, or a well-established reputation in these specific firms. Similar to this, Lin et al. (2019) evaluated the link between CSR and firm performance using the panel vector autoregression approach. According to their findings, better financial performance leads to more CSR commitment, but excellent CSR practices may not always translate into better financial performance. Remarkably, a significant negative correlation was found between financial performance metrics—that is, return on invested capital, return on assets, and return on equity—and CSR. With respect to the macro variables, Mehmood et al. (2024), found that the ecological footprint has a significantly negative impact on IPO variability.

Similarly, Makni et al. (2009) used the Granger causality approach to study 179 Canadian companies and found that, aside from market returns, there was no significant correlation between corporate social performance and business performance. The environmental factor and three financial performance metrics (market returns, return on equity, and return on assets) were found to have a considerable detrimental impact. As so, the results of the empirical study that came before them support the trade-off hypothesis.

Corporate Social Responsibility on GCC Overview

The Middle East is made up of many different countries, each with its own institutional order logics. Each institutional order—the state, market, corporate, religious, and family—serves a particular purpose. While certain developmental obstacles, such as labor rights and gender equality, are shared by all in the region, there is a notable degree of variation in other socio-economic factors. As a result, every nation is expected to exhibit a different blend of these reasoning, creating a particular environment for CSR that includes dialogues and actions. For example, these considerations significantly impact the CSR landscape 63 in the GCC region, which together possess roughly half of the world’s oil reserves and 65.5% of OPEC total.

In addition, compared to other Middle Eastern regions, they have a wider range of environmental concerns because of their greatest per capita carbon emissions. It is projected that there will be a variety of CSR logics, exhibiting a fusion of Western and local institutional logic, due to the diverse contexts found within the GCC region. This rationale will probably show itself differently in each country due to its distinct meaning systems and customs. How CSR is understood and applied in this region is highly influenced by the interplay of global influences—such as the spread of best practices in social responsibility among multinational corporations—and local influences resulting from the unique social, cultural, and historical dynamics (Jamali & El Safadi, 2019).

The study conducted by Ghardallou and Alessa (2022) looked at a dataset that included 70 publicly traded companies in the GCC countries from 2015 to 2020. The results indicate a nonlinear pattern in the relationship between business performance and social responsibility. The findings imply that though the initial costs of engaging in CSR activities can be high, these costs tend to decrease with continued investments. Companies initially lacking expertise or a positive reputation in CSR may observe minimal early advantages. However, as their CSR initiatives grow and gain public attention, their intangible assets like reputation improve, leading to increased benefits. When the benefits surpass the costs, CSR investment begins to impact corporate value positively. Musleh Alsartawi (2020) conducted another study that aims to investigate the relationship between CSR and the financial performance (profitability and market value) of companies listed on the stock markets of the GCC countries. All of the companies listed on the GCC stock markets between 2010 and 2017 were included in the study’s sample. The study found that the UAE had the greatest level of CSR among the GCC countries.

Additionally, it revealed a notable inverse relationship between CSR and ROA and an affirmative relationship between CSR and Tobin’s Q. Numerous studies have also looked into how corporate governance affects CSR in the GCC. In the case of the chosen Islamic banks in the GCC, for instance, the research by Harun et al. (2020) revealed a noticeably low level of CSR disclosure (CSRD). Based on an analysis of the variables influencing this disclosure, the study finds a strong positive correlation between board size and CSR disclosure in Islamic banks. Additionally, it finds that chief executive officer (CEO) duality and CSRD are predicted to be negatively correlated. While variables like board size, composition, and CEO duality demonstrate notable positive effects on firm value, the study finds that the economic impact of CSRD has the opposite effect on performance.

Social Contract Theory Lens to Justify CSR

The theory of Social Contract, which has its foundations in the intellectual contributions of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, first sought to explain the origins and legitimacy of state authory. Thomas Donaldson and Lee E. Preston have used this idea within the realm of CSR, proposing that firms establish a social contract with the society in which they conduct their operations. Donaldson and Preston (1995) believe that enterprises are bestowed with legitimacy and certain rights, contingent upon the condition that their activities contribute to the betterment of society or, at the very least, refrain from causing damage to it.

The notion of CSR has seen substantial development over the years, indicating an increasing acknowledgment of corporate operations’ wider societal and environmental consequences. Social Contract Theory presents a persuasive viewpoint among the theoretical frameworks used to comprehend and justify CSR. The present idea postulates that there exists an implicit agreement between companies and society whereby corporations acquire legitimacy and the privilege to conduct operations by meeting certain community expectations and responsibilities. The Social Contract Theory is a fundamental principle in political philosophy, which asserts that individuals willingly agree, either explicitly or implicitly, to give up certain liberties and accept the authority of a ruler (or the majority’s decision) in return for safeguarding their remaining rights. The theoretical framework clarifies the origins and objective of society and governance by emphasising the reciprocal advantages received from this societal consensus. The CSR Social Contract Theory classification by Garriga and Melé (2004) encompasses instrumental, political, integrative, and ethical elements. This classification highlights the need for a new theory that effectively combines these characteristics. This categorisation aids in navigating the intricate landscape of CSR and emphasises the diverse and intricate nature of corporate obligations towards society (Garriga & Melé, 2004).

Social Contract Theory offers a theoretical framework for comprehending the reasons and methods by which firms participate in socially responsible actions within the realm of CSR. CSR may be seen as expanding the social compact inside the corporate realm. In this context, corporations function according to a wider range of obligations beyond profit generation, including ethical responsibility towards all stakeholders, including workers, consumers, communities, and the environment. This proposition posits that companies, like individuals within a given society, consent (either tacitly or overtly) to conduct themselves in socially responsible ways in return for legitimacy, trust, and the social authorisation to function within a community and society.

According to Sacconi (2006), CSR may be seen as an expanded corporate governance framework grounded on the fiduciary obligations towards all stakeholders of a business. According to Sacconi (2006), the theory posits that CSR’s rationale stems from incomplete contracts and the possibility of authority abuse. This gives rise to a multi-stakeholder corporate governance framework based on a constitutional contract that adheres to the principles of impartial justification and social justice. Byerly (2013) explores the progression of the social contract within contemporary settings, advocating for a greater understanding of company purpose and leadership in effectively tackling societal issues. The statement made by Byerly (2013) highlights the ever-changing nature of social expectations and emphasises the need for firms to adjust their strategy in response.

The use of Social Contract Theory in the context of CSR has evolved across several aspects. First and foremost, it establishes a normative basis for the anticipation that enterprises must go beyond basic adherence to legal requirements to tackle ethical, social, and environmental issues. The assertion posits that corporations are responsible for several stakeholders, including workers, consumers, communities, and the environment, exemplifying a more comprehensive understanding of accountability. Keeble et al. (2003) further elaborated on this concept by establishing a connection between the theory and stakeholder management. They underscored the significance of comprehending and effectively handling the expectations of diverse stakeholder groups to uphold the social contract. This perspective is consistent with the stakeholder theory, indicating a convergence between two theoretical frameworks within the CSR discourse.

Although Social Contract Theory is attractive, it encounters several criticisms and obstacles when used to CSR. Detractors contend that the metaphorical essence of the social contract poses challenges in defining precise responsibilities and anticipations between companies and society. In addition, Waddock (2004) emphasises the difficulty of extrapolating a theory based on the interplay between people and states to the intricate and ever-changing interactions between enterprises and society. Applying Social Contract Theory to CSR encounters several criticisms and hurdles despite its inherent attraction. Identifying concrete responsibilities and expectations between companies and society is challenging due to the metaphorical character of the social contract, as argued by critics. Moreover, Waddock (2004) emphasises the difficulty of using a theory based on the connection between persons and governments to the intricate and ever-changing connections between enterprises and society.

Method

To accomplish the research goals, this study utilised a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) methodology, entailing a comprehensive review of prior studies to explore the effect of CSR mechanisms on entities within GCC. The adopted methodology is divided into three sections. First, the review protocol (PRISMA), the systematic search strategy, and finally, data abstraction and analysis.

The Review Protocol

The systematic literature review search strategy adheres to the PRISMA protocol (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), which was introduced in 2012. This protocol was designed to help systematic reviewers clearly outline the rationale for their review, the methodologies employed, and the outcomes derived from their research. According to Glass (1976), a systematic literature review is “the analysis of analysis.” Systematic reviews serve several vital functions. They provide comprehensive summaries of existing knowledge within a particular field, aiding in identifying future research priorities. Furthermore, systematic reviews can address questions that individual studies may not effectively resolve, highlight issues in primary research that need further attention, and contribute to developing or evaluating theories explaining various phenomena. Consequently, systematic reviews offer a range of knowledge that serves the needs of different stakeholders in the review process, including researchers and policymakers. Sierra-Correa and Cantera Kintz (2015) note several advantages of the PRISMA protocol: 1) it facilitates a literary analysis of large databases in a short amount of time; 2) it establishes clear inclusion and exclusion criteria; and 3) it can generate precise research topics (Ikram & Kenayathulla, 2023). The details are available in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Flow diagram of the study.

Identification of Keywords

The initial step in conducting a literature review via the SLR method involved identifying pertinent keywords that aligned with the research objectives. The selected keywords include “Corporate Social Responsibility,”“Corporate Social Responsibility in GCC.”

Resources

The review methods in this study were implemented using a primary database, Scopus, chosen for its comprehensiveness spanning over 27 disciplines. Scopus has a specific index of total of 100 Business Management Accounting which has a focus on CSR. It’s important to note that no database, including Scopus, is without flaws or entirely comprehensive. Consequently, the study also incorporated manual searches within the Scopus database to ensure a thorough examination.

Systematic Search Strategies

The three major stages in a systematic search technique are identification, screening, and eligibility.

Identification

A subset of papers pertinent to the ongoing inquiry was chosen as a representative sample. The selection process involved three phases. The initial stage involved identifying keywords, following which the authors developed a search string tailored for Scopus, a widely used global database known for its interdisciplinary perspective and rigorous quality-control methodology, making it well-suited for systematic literature reviews. The Scopus search string was employed to establish a publication database using the most relevant term, as outlined in Table 1. The initial step of the systematic literature review (SLR) method involved collecting 40 articles published between 2012 and 2023 from the Scopus database. In the first phase of the process, we excluded conference papers, book chapters, irrelevant papers, and duplicates. As a result, a total of 29 papers were included for review.

Table 1.

Search String.

Database	Search string
Scopus	Title, Abstract, Keywords “Corporate Social Responsibility and GCC”

Screening

The main objective of the initial screening process was to remove unnecessary content. The first criteria for screening pertained to the kind of investigation. The authors only focused on scholarly articles, including empirical research and original data sources. The exclusion criteria included a range of documents, including conference papers, book chapters, reviews, notes, editorials, retraction notices, erratum letters, data articles, and books. Furthermore, the present study assessment just took into account publications written in the English language. The present analysis specifically targeted a 14-year timeframe (2012–2023) to extract information from the Scopus database. According to the criteria outlined in Table 2, 21 articles were identified as unsuitable for inclusion.

Table 2.

The Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

Criterion	Inclusion	Exclusion
Document Type	Article	Conference paper, book chapter, review, note, editorial, retracted, erratum, letter, data paper, book.
Language	English	Non-English
Timeline	2012 until 2023	< 21

Eligibility

During the third stage of the selection process, the remaining 21 studies underwent additional refinement. The titles, abstracts, and content were evaluated to ascertain their adherence to research criteria and alignment with the study’s objectives. A total of 21 more articles were excluded from the analysis, including just the 29 most significant papers for the qualitative evaluation. A total of 29 articles were included in the screening process. Following the preliminary round of eligibility screening, a total of 29 articles were selected and kept for further review.

Results

Background of the Chosen Articles

Twenty Nine papers were selected for this evaluation from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait. Seven papers are from United Arab Emirates, six from Bahrain, five from Saudi Arabia and five from Saudi Arabia. However, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait have three, two, and one studies (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Countries of selected articles.

Regarding the publishing years of the studies chosen for this analysis, eight papers were released in the year 2023, which is highest from 2012 to 2023. However, the lowest published papers are in 2010 and 2011. The figure shows that the trend of CSR studies is increasing, suggesting the importance of CSR in literature (see Figure 4). CSR research in the GCC that comprises six member states: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) region, has seen significant development and interest between 2012 and 2023. Figure 4 shows that from 2012 to 2013 CSR in the GCC was in its nascent stages, with a minimal number of publications. There was a growing awareness among businesses about the importance of CSR, primarily driven by international trends and pressure for more responsible corporate behavior. Research during this time primarily focused on understanding the concept of CSR, its relevance in the GCC context, and initial attempts to measure CSR practices among companies in the region. A significant development was during (2013–2017) which was considered to be the introduction of various regulatory frameworks and guidelines by GCC governments to promote CSR practices among businesses. For instance, countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia issued CSR guidelines and regulations, making CSR a more structured and mandated aspect of corporate operations. During this time, research shifted towards evaluating these regulations' effectiveness, compliance levels among companies, and their impact on business practices and society.

Figure 4.

Year of publication.

Between (2017–2020) CSR became more ingrained in corporate strategies, there was a growing emphasis on integrating CSR into core business functions rather than treating it as a separate activity. Companies started to focus on incorporating CSR principles into their operations, supply chains, and stakeholder engagement strategies. Research during this phase explored best practices for CSR integration, challenges faced by companies, and the role of CSR in enhancing competitiveness and reputation. Further it was noticed that CSR practices are becoming more entrenched between the years (2020–2023), there was an increased emphasis on measuring the impact of CSR initiatives on both business performance and societal outcomes. Researchers in the GCC started to delve deeper into methodologies for assessing CSR impact, including financial metrics, social indicators, and environmental benchmarks. Additionally, there was a growing focus on CSR innovation, with companies exploring new ways to address social and environmental challenges while also creating value for their businesses. Overall, CSR research in the GCC between 2012 and 2023 evolved from a phase of awareness and regulatory development to one of integration, impact measurement, and innovation. Keeping in mind that challenges such as cultural perceptions of CSR, resource constraints, and the need for greater transparency and accountability continue to shape the CSR landscape in the region.

Main Findings

In order to perform a study of the pertinent literature, a search of the Scopus database was conducted. In search of the relevant literature, the term “Corporate Social Responsibility in GCC” served as a keyword. Only English-language articles were considered for this search, including the article as a document type. Also, this literature review covers articles published between 2009 and 2023. After the initial search, 50 items were uncovered. Following the exclusion of 21 articles that were both out of date and irrelevant to the aims of this study, the final scope and breadth of this literature review were determined to be 29 articles. Finally, 29 highly cited papers were selected for this systematic literature review. Table 3 thoroughly examines research on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) disclosure and its influencing factors within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region, covering different time frames, methods, and theoretical approaches. In summary, the table underscores the growing focus on CSR disclosures in the GCC, the important role of corporate governance structures, and the necessity for additional research to grasp the changing CSR environment in the region.

Table 3.

Detailed Review of CSR Studies in GCC.

Authors	Country, sample, period	Theories	Methodology	Findings	Future recommendation
Khasharmeh and Suwaidan (2010)	GCC - 60 - 2006	stakeholder theory & Legitimacy theory	Quantitative	The findings showed that two important factors influencing the difference in the level of social responsibility disclosure among the sample organisations are the size of the company and the auditing firm (local or multinational).	Notable variation was observed in the social responsibility information disclosed by the corporations, suggesting significant room for improvement in terms of disclosure, particularly with regard to environmental and community involvement aspects.
Abdulla AlNaimi et al. (2012)	Qatar - 42 - 2007	Legitimacy theory	Qualitative	According to the report, the majority of businesses released data on their product development and human resources, then their involvement in the community. Nevertheless, no businesses included environmental concerns in their yearly reports.	It would be helpful to conduct additional research to investigate the causes of this by speaking with business executives in Qatar.
Raman and Bukair (2013)	GCC- 53 -2008	Theory of Cultural Influence	Multiple regression	The findings demonstrate how the Shariah Supervisory Board's (SSB) attributes work together to greatly enhance CSR transparency. This suggests that the degree of CSR disclosure is determined in large part by SSB traits.	Extend the research to other countries and use longitudinal data to look into CSR reporting practices and SSB's effect on CSR disclosure patterns.
Kemp and Dunlop (2014)	GCC- 2014	NA	Qualitative -Case study	The PI approaches this goal by creating a network of business leaders in the GCC, particularly those from family-owned private enterprises.	The PI will continue to highlight the need for private sector businesses to advance CSR in GCC countries for the foreseeable future.
Musibah and Alfattani (2014)	GCC - 36 - 2007-2011	Resource based theory & stakeholder theory	Multiple regression	The Shariah Supervisory Board Effectiveness (SSBE), Capital Employee Efficiency (CEE), and Structure Capital Efficiency (SCE) of Islamic banks have a beneficial effect on CSR. However, human capital efficiency (HCE) has little effect on CSR. Furthermore, it was found that financial performance (ROA, ROE) strongly moderated the relationships between SSBE, CEE, SCE, and CSR in Islamic banks.	To incorporate a larger sample comprising companies offering Islamic services, such as those offering Islamic insurance. Furthermore, consider combining multiple sources to lessen the influence of common-method bias.
Bukair and Rahman (2015)	GCC - 40 -2008 - 2011	stakeholder theory	Quantitative	The bank's performance is negatively impacted by the board's size and makeup. On the other hand, the chairman's independence has a beneficial effect, while the separation of the CEO and chairman responsibilities and the IAHs have no effect. Regarding the control variables, leverage has a negative impact on bank performance whereas bank size has a beneficial influence. Gross domestic GDP and zakah have no appreciable impact on bank performance.	To expand the sample size, Islamic banks that operate in all Middle Eastern nations should be added.
Mousa et al. (2018)	GCC - 246-2016	Agency theory	Regression Model	Board size and non-executive directors are determinants of CSR disclosure; conversely, no significant association is found between CSR disclosure and the other three CG variables.	Expanding the sample size; increasing number of items included in the CSR disclosure index; and undertaking a comparative study between GCC nations and other nations in the region.
Pillai and Al-Malkawi (2018)	GCC -349 -2005- 2012	Resource dependency theory	Quantitative	In most GCC nations, the governance variables—government shareholdings, audit type, board size, CSR, and leverage—greatly impact the firm performance.	Further research is necessary in this field since emerging markets have considerable information asymmetry, which hinders cross-border investments.
Platonova et al. (2018)	GCC24 - 2000 - 2014	stakeholder theory	Quantitative	The results of this study show a strong positive correlation between Islamic banks' financial performance in the GCC and their CSR disclosure. Additionally, it was shown that CSR disclosure and the future financial success of Islamic banks in the GCC would be positively correlated.	Increasing the sample size and suggesting the inclusion of additional factors.
Garas and ElMassah (2018)	GCC - 147 - 2007-2012	Shareholder theory	Quantitative	Positive ownership concentration and increased managerial ownership have an impact on CSR filings. CSR disclosures are also improved by internal corporate governance practices such as independent audit committees, CEO-Chairman power separation, and independent board members. Leverage ratio, return on assets, age, and firm size are important factors in CSR disclosures; nevertheless, the study found that age and company size were not statistically significant.	Further changes to the GCC countries' CG models are necessary regarding the division of the chairman and CEO roles, particularly in cases where they are related.
Al-Marri et al. (2019)	UAE - 29 - 2011- 2016	CSR theory	Quantitative	The information showing that businesses with a track record of overseeing CSR initiatives are in a good position to develop capabilities for strategic CSR.	Subsequent research will examine project management approaches' role in enhancing CSR capability..
Harun et al. (2020)	GCC - 39 -2010-2014	stakeholder theory & Agency theory	Regression analysis	The findings indicate that the sample Islamic banks in the GCC had very low levels of CSRD. The analysis shows that while board size, composition, and CEO duality significantly benefit business value, CSRD has an opposite performance effect on the economy.	Future studies can provide more precise details about the practices and trends of CSR disclosure among Islamic banks in the GCC.
Al-Sartawi (2020)	GCC - 94 - 2017	Social contract theory & Agency theory	Quantitative	The results demonstrate a strong and unfavorable correlation between social performance and Shariah disclosure. Additionally, they have a favorable and negligible correlation with Tobin's Q.	Future research could empirically expand this analysis to Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa, regions where IFIs are prevalent.
Buallay and Al-Ajmi (2020)	GCC - 59 -2013 - 2017	Legitimacy theory	Quantitative	There is a negative correlation between reporting on sustainability and financial skill. The degree of disclosure is positively influenced by the independence of the members and the frequency of meetings. Reports on corporate sustainability are favorably correlated with the control factors (bank size, age, and auditor type).	Further studies with a wider range of characteristics will provide further understanding of the function of audit committees in financial institutions' disclosure of sustainability.
Musleh Alsartawi (2020)	GCC - 522 - 2010-2017	stakeholder theory	Quantitative	According to this report, the UAE outperformed the other GCC nations in terms of CSR. Furthermore, a positive and significant association was found between CSR and Tobin's Q, while a negative and significant relationship was found between CSR and ROA.	According to the findings, the GCC nations should imitate the UAE by offering financial and social incentives to businesses that engage in CSR.
Arayssi et al. (2020)	GCC -688 - 2008 - 2017	Agency theory	Quantitative	Increased female participation and board independence improve social responsibility, which helps a company's good reputation spread. Moreover, boards led by chief executive officers tend to be less supportive of social agenda implementation and, as a result, ESG reporting.	Future studies could examine how politically related directors affect disclosures to see if having politically connected directors on board lowers a company's transparency and disclosures in the GCC.
Ouakouak et al. (2020)	Kuwait - 664 - 2018	social exchange theory	Quantitative	The findings show that OCB is adversely correlated with intention to quit and that OCB is positively correlated with both internal and external CSR efforts. According to the results, the association between OCB and intention to leave is also moderated by distributive justice.	In order to comprehend how national and cultural differences affect CSR engagement, future study may examine the CSR initiatives in the GCC nations.
Ani (2021)	GCC - 1845 -2008 - 2016	Shareholder theory	Panal data regression	The study's conclusions show that in three of the six GCC countries, there is a positive and substantial correlation between CSR disclosure (CSRD) and earnings quality (EQ) in terms of value relevance (VR).	More research is needed to examine CSRD and other EQ indicators.
Gerged et al. (2021)	GCC - 405 -2010–2014	Neoinstitutional theory	Quantitative	The environmental disclosure from corporations Tobin's Q (TBQ) indicates a significant and positive relationship between CED and firm value FV. Additionally, there is some proof that CED and return on assets have a beneficial relationship.	To focus more on market-based proxies when examining the value relevance of CED in both wealthy and developing nations.
Jizi et al. (2022)	GCC - 234 -2009 - 2018	stakeholder theory & Agency theory	Panal data regression	The percentage of female members on GCC corporate boards is gradually increasing. Based on the available evidence, it can be inferred that the presence of women on boards of directors can positively impact companies' social responsibility and sustainability reporting.	expanding the sample's size. A separate analysis of how national and international female directors affect corporate social performance would be intriguing.
Ghardallou and Alessa (2022)	GCC - 70 - 2015 - 2020	stakeholder theory	Quantitative	The results show that investing in CSR does not increase its value until a company's value is beyond the value transition threshold. Nonetheless, corporate performance benefits from CSR investment when the marginal benefit outweighs the cost. An intriguing discovery demonstrates that the highest threshold level is connected to the social CSR factor.	In order to investigate the relationship between these conceptions, future research may focus at certain industries and evaluate the effect of CSR on business performance across those industries. It may also include economic cycle changes brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ben Douissa and Azrak (2022)	GCC – 2i 8 - 2009 - 2019	stakeholder theory	Quantitative	Results demonstrate that CFP and CSP have a long-run equilibrium relationship, and they also show that panel Granger causality flows favorably from CSP to CFP.	To take into account a sampling of several conventional and Islamic banks from various nations. Secondly, taking into account a multi-sector setting.
AlDhaen (2022)	Bahrain - 441 - 2022	Social Identity Theory	Quantitative	It was discovered that a strong correlation exists between organisational social sustainability and micro-level CSR. The environmental dimension of MCSR was found to have a greater influence on SOS than the ethical dimensions. The statistical significance of the links between philanthropic and economic MCSR and SOS was observed, but at a low intensity.	According to the study, other stakeholders should be involved in future research to obtain more thorough results and to gather longitudinal data to observe temporal effects. To add control variables as well for improved outcomes
Sallemi and Zouari (2023)	SEA and GCC - 30 - 2010–2020	Agency theory	PLS	Based on the GCC and SEA countries, CSR has a partial mediating effect between Takaful performance and Shariah board size, qualification, and full mediating effect between cross-membership and Takaful performance in the GCC and partial mediating effect between cross-membership and Takaful performance in the SEA. Furthermore, in both SEA and GCC nations, reputation and Takaful performance are somewhat mediated by CSR.	Increasing the size of the sample and investigating the additional factors that could influence performance is essential.
Khémiri and Alsulami (2023)	GCC - 43 -2012 to 2020	stakeholder theory & Agency theory	System GMM method	The association between CSR and IBS is moderated by governance standards (Islamic bank stability). Results show that IBS is improved when CSR and governance measures are combined.	Future research should cover more ground and look into other active Islamic banks abroad.
Alsalami et al. (2023)	GCC - 23 - 2011 - 2020	stakeholder theory	Quantitative	Over the course of the study period, a strong positive correlation was found between the application of ERM and CSR policies for listed Islamic banks.	While keeping the same variable, increasing the sample size and research scope to include other Islamic financial institutions or comparing two countries from two distinct areas is possible.
Kukrejaet al. (2022)	GCC - 84 - 2016 - 2020	Finance theory & theory of the firm	Quantitative	The findings show a favorable correlation between CSR disclosures and financial parameters, firm-specific characteristics, and corporate governance features (the size of the board). Furthermore, a negative correlation was found between CSR disclosures and corporate governance traits, such as the participation of female board members.	To increase the sample size and incorporate other variables thought to have an impact on CSR.
El-Said et al. (2023)	GCC - 88 - 2012 - 2021	Institutional theory	Qualitative - SLR	According to the results, most of the instruments are designed to promote socioeconomic development, internal and external social responsibility, ethical expectations, and awareness-raising. arguing that the GCC's CSR governance is between the stages of objectification and habitualization, reflects Islamic identity, national development goals, and corporate responsibility, and is primarily driven by normative constraints. It also suggests that the amount of bureaucratisation of CSR governance in the region is moderate to high.	Future scholars ought to keep employing different approaches to examine CSR governance in the GCC.
Kolsi et al. (2023)	GCC - 90 - 2009-2019	stakeholder's theory	Qualitative	In most ESG performance pillars, Islamic banks outperform conventional banks on average. The results demonstrate how the sustainability practices of Islamic banks and conventional banks vary when the individual pillars are broken down into their constituent parts: the environmental pillar's emission score, environmental innovation, and resource use; the social pillar's human rights, workforce, community, and product responsibility scores; and the governance pillar's management, CSR strategy, and shareholders scores.	To address the factors that influence Islamic banks' unique ESG sub-score reporting, which are determined by the bank governance structures (product innovation, emissions, and CSR strategy scores).

Source. Author computations.

Conclusion

The above discussion summarises the primary characteristics of the reviewed research articles. Overall, CSR in GCC was evaluated using systematic literature review. The importance of CSR increased overall, including in GCC countries. Following the financial crisis of 2008 to 2009, public interest companies have shown significant engagement in the implementation of CSR initiatives, aligning with the triple bottom line framework, including economic, social, and environmental objectives. Given the existence of different international frameworks, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards, and their voluntary nature in numerous countries, stakeholders’ express concerns regarding the dependability of CSR reports and the inclusion of CSR performance measures. This criticism stems from concerns related to greenwashing policies and the overwhelming amount of information available (Huang & Watson, 2015). To mitigate the occurrence of greenwashing and information overload (Ortas et al., 2017) and enhance firm reputation, it is essential to establish an effective corporate governance framework. Therefore, the current study puts forward important research questions derived from the suggestions made in previous studies, which have the potential to identify CSR remedies (refer to Table 3).

Impediments to Current Research

The systematic literature review and content analysis revealed that many issues impede the advancement of CSR discipline, notwithstanding its ongoing improvement.

Lack of Systematic Theory Development

Although there is a substantial body of empirical research on CSR, there is a need for further conceptual studies that provide robust theoretical frameworks. These studies would serve as valuable guidelines for future research endeavours. Given the absence of a universally applicable theoretical paradigm, further research is required to construct a more robust framework.

Lack of Data

The issue regarding CSR initiatives has special significance for developing nations, namely those in the GCC region, since their challenges in implementing CSR differ from those faced by developed countries. Globally, countries exhibit varying levels of CSR. The causes that drive these differences are influenced by listing exchange regulations, underwriter involvement, government intervention, economic conditions, and methodological considerations. For instance, the GCC countries have unique characteristics regarding their stock market size, institutional system, regulatory framework, and market efficiency. Therefore, it is essential to have an extensive database to facilitate worldwide study.

Lack of Academic Collaborations

Academic collaborations are necessary to streamline the exchange of information, prevent research costs, and improve the productivity of researchers (Cisneros et al., 2018). Enhanced international collaborations have the potential to expedite the development of a comprehensive CSR framework.

Lack of Focus on Industry Specific and Cross Industry Comparisons

Certain researchers use multi-industry data-sets to extrapolate the sector-wide impact of CSR. Nevertheless, CSR initiatives exhibit variations throughout nations globally as a result of varied listing requirements, underwriter involvement, governmental intervention, and economic circumstances. Given the variability of CSR activities across various sectors, future research needs to prioritise the examination of cross-industry variances in order to enhance comprehension of CSR.

Lack of Focus on Smaller Firms

Not surprisingly, the study focus in this topic is mostly on bigger firms and organisations since they have easier access to data and are subject to public investigation. Smaller enterprises exhibit intriguing CSR concerns that hold potential for future scholarly investigation. These concerns include insufficient financial resources, degradation of reputation, and hazards that impact the whole organisational framework.

Avenues for Future Research

Conceptual Studies

A more comprehensive study framework is required for CSR, as previously stated. Despite the existence of several conceptual studies, more studies are required to ascertain the impact of CSR on the development of national and international firms and develop comprehensive conceptual frameworks. While previous theoretical models have effectively addressed certain areas, such as CSR reputation and its related costs, strategic choices, performance results, efficacy, and monitoring, there is still a need for more comprehensive research on CSR.

Cross Country and Multi Country Studies

The majority of CSR studies focus only on a single nation. Nevertheless, research on developed nations cannot be applied to GCC countries due to disparities in institutions and socio-economic conditions. Numerous international endeavours aimed at examining CSR and its impact on business performance are expected to foster academic cooperation and enhance the development of comprehensive frameworks for the effective implementation of improved CSR strategies.

Sector Specific and Cross Sector Comparisons

Most CSR studies primarily rely on primary datasets. However, there is a lack of research examining the effect of CSR across various sectors and providing cross-industry generalisations. This is because these generalisations are not feasible owing to the unique features of each company. Hence, it is important to conduct research that are particular to the sector. Moreover, the approach of implementing industry-specific CSR may not be appropriate for other sectors, necessitating adjustments. Conducting cross-sector comparative studies has the potential to enhance decision-making processes related to modifications and eventually enhance CSR programmes.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Fakir Al Gharaibeh

Ethical Considerations

I declared as corresponding authors, on behalf of all the submission authors, that this research is our original work and is not under review anywhere for publication. No any human involvement during the research process.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Abdulla AlNaimi

Hossain

Ahmed Momin

. (2012). Corporate social responsibility reporting in Qatar: A descriptive analysis. Social Responsibility Journal, 8(4), 511–526.

Al Gharaibeh

. (2011). Human security, terrorism and human rights in the Middle East: Implications for social work practice. European Journal of Social Sciences, 20(2), 228–239.

Al Gharaibeh

O’Sullivan

. (2021). The impact of war followed by forced displacement on women and children: How Syrian mothers perceive their experiences. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 41(11/12), 1290–1305.

Albuquerque

Koskinen

Yang

Zhang

(2020). Resiliency of environmental and social stocks: An analysis of the exogenous COVID-19 market crash. The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 9(3), 593–621.

AlDhaen

(2022). Micro-level CSR as a new organisational value for social sustainability formation: A study of healthcare sector in GCC region. Sustainability, 14(19), 12256.

Alhouti

Chang

Eid

(2016). Consumer skepticism of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives: The influence of brand credibility, brand value, and CSR perceived motivation. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4269–4275.

Ali

Azeem

Xiaohong

Naseem

M. A.

Haider

S. W.

(2024). Validity of governance-prosperity: Fresh evidence under homogeneous and heterogeneous methods. SAGE Open, 14(4), 21582440241297090.

Al-Marri

Pinnington

A. H.

Karatas-Ozkan

Nicolopoulou

(2019). The management of corporate social responsibility through projects: A more economically developed country perspective. Business Strategy & Development, 2(4), 358–371.

Alsalami

Low

S. W.

Nor

S. M.

Alsheikh

A. H.

(2023). Corporate social responsibility practices and enterprise risk management of the GCC Islamic banks. International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 12(4), 619–634.

10.

Al-Sartawi

A. M. M.

(2020). Shariah disclosure and the performance of Islamic financial institutions. Asian Journal of Business and Accounting, 13(1).

11.

Ani

M. K. A.

(2021). Corporate social responsibility disclosure and financial reporting quality: Evidence from Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Borsa Istanbul Review, 21, S25–S37.

12.

Arayssi

Jizi

Tabaja

H. H.

(2020). The impact of board composition on the level of ESG disclosures in GCC countries. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(1), 137–161.

13.

Aupperle

K. E.

Carroll

A. B.

Hatfield

J. D.

(1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 446–463.

14.

Azeem

Naseem

M. A.

Ali

(2024). How does environmental performance contribute to firm financial performance in a multi-country study? Mediating role of competitive advantage and moderating role of voluntary environmental initiatives. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 16, 7688–7721.

15.

Becchetti

Ciciretti

Hasan

(2009). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder’s value: An event study analysis (Working Paper No. 2007-6). Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanda, Atlanda, GA.

16.

Becker-Olsen

K. L.

Hill

R. P.

(2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46–53.

17.

Ben Douissa

Azrak

. (2022). Long-run dynamics between CFP and CSP in the GCC banking sector: estimation of non-stationary heterogeneous panels allowing for cross-sectional dependence. Social Responsibility Journal, 18(3), 518–533.

18.

Benessia

Funtowicz

(2015). The concept of sustainable development in the European Union. European Commission Joint Research Centre.

19.

Blasi

Caporin

Fontini

(2018). A multidimensional analysis of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and firms’ economic performance. Ecological Economics, 147, 218–229.

20.

Broadstock

D. C.

Chan

Cheng

L. T.

Wang

(2020). The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 in China. Finance Research Letters, 38, 101716.

21.

Buallay

Al-Ajmi

(2020). The role of audit committee attributes in corporate sustainability reporting: Evidence from banks in the Gulf Cooperation Council. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 21(2), 249–264.

22.

Bukair

A. A.

Rahman

A. A.

(2015). Bank performance and board of directors attributes by Islamic banks. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 8(3), 291–309.

23.

Busch

Friede

(2018). The robustness of the corporate social and financial performance relation: A second-order meta-analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(4), 583–608.

24.

Byerly

R. T.

(2013). Business in society: The social contract revisited. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, 10(1), 4–20.

25.

Campbell

J. L.

(2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 946–967.

26.

Campbell

Slack

(2006). Public visibility as a determinant of corporate charitable donations. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15, 19–29.

27.

Carroll

A. B.

(1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295.

28.

Chaudhuri

Holbrook

M. B.

(2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–93.

29.

Cheng

Ioannou

Serafeim

(2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1–23.

30.

Cisneros

Ibanescu

Keen

Lobato-Calleros

Niebla-Zatarain

(2018). Bibliometric study of family business succession between 1939 and 2017: mapping and analyzing authors' networks. Scientometrics, 117(2), 919–951.

31.

Clark

(2000). Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 4(3), 12–28.

32.

Clarkson

M. B.

(1995). A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.

33.

Cornell

Shapiro

(1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management, 16, 5–14.

34.

Dahlsrud

(2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13.

35.

D’Amato

Falivena

(2020). Corporate social responsibility and firm value: Do firm size and age matter? Empirical evidence from European listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 909–924.

36.

Ding

Levine

Lin

Xie

(2021). Corporate immunity to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Financial Economics, 141(2), 802–830.

37.

Vieira

E. T.

(2012). Striving for legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: Insights from oil companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 413–427.

38.

El Khoury

Nasrallah

Alareeni

. (2023). ESG and financial performance of banks in the MENAT region: Concavity–convexity patterns. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 13(1), 406–430.

39.

El Khoury

Nasrallah

Harb

Hussainey

. (2021). Exploring the performance of responsible companies in G20 during the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Cleaner Production, 354, 1–22.

40.

Elkington

(1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publishing Ltd.

41.

El-Said

O. A.

Aziz

Mirzaei

Smith

(2023). Investigating the role of the state in regulating corporate social responsibility: Evidence from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Business and Society Review, 128(3), 459–487.

42.

Erdem

Swait

(2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 191–198.

43.

Forehand

M. R.

Grier

(2003). When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 349–356.

44.

Galant

Cadez

(2017). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance relationship: A review of measurement approaches. Economic Research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 30(1), 676–693.

45.

Garas

ElMassah

(2018). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: The case of GCC countries. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 14(1), 2–26.

46.

Garriga

Melé

(2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1), 51–71.

47.

Gerged

A. M.

Beddewela

Cowton

C. J.

(2021). Is corporate environmental disclosure associated with firm value? A multicountry study of Gulf Cooperation Council firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 185–203.

48.

Ghardallou

(2022). Corporate sustainability and firm performance: The moderating role of CEO education and tenure. Sustainability, 14(6), 3513.

49.

Ghardallou

Alessa

(2022). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance in GCC countries: A panel smooth transition regression model. Sustainability, 14(13), 7908.

50.

Glass

G. V.

(1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3–8.

51.

Gupta

Pirsch

(2006). The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(6), 314–326.

52.

Harun

M. S.

Hussainey

Mohd Kharuddin

K. A.

Farooque

O. A.

(2020). CSR disclosure, corporate governance and firm value: A study on GCC Islamic banks. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 28(4), 607–638.

53.

Hirigoyen

Poulain-Rehm

(2014). Relationships between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: What is the causality?. Available at SSRN 2531631.

54.

Ikram

Kenayathulla

H. B.

(2023). Unlocking the potential of education quality: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Business and Technology Management, 5(1), 146–174.

55.

Huang

X. B.

Watson

(2015). Corporate social responsibility research in accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature, 34(1), 1–16.

56.

Ikram

Minor

(2018). CSR-contingent executive compensation contracts. Retrieved April 20, 2018 from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3019985

57.

Jamali

El Safadi

(2019). Adaptations of CSR in the context of globalisation the case of the GCC. In Globalisation. IntechOpen.

58.

Jamali

Mirshak

(2007). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Theory and practice in a developing country context. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 243–262.

59.

Jizi

Nehme

Melhem

(2022). Board gender diversity and firms’ social engagement in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 41(2), 186–206.

60.

Keeble

J. J.

Topiol

Berkeley

(2003). Using indicators to measure sustainability performance at a corporate and project level. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 149–158.

61.

Kemp

L. J.

Dunlop

(2014). Socio-business responsibility in the Gulf Arab states: The case of the Pearl Initiative. Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies, 4(8), 1–10.

62.

Khan

Serafeim

Yoon

(2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697–1724.

63.

Khasharmeh

Suwaidan

M. S.

(2010). Social responsibility disclosure in corporate annual reports: evidence from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 6(4), 327–345.

64.

Khémiri

Alsulami

(2023). Corporate social responsibility disclosure and Islamic bank stability in GCC countries: Do governance practices matter?. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), 2260559.

65.

Kim

K. H.

Kim

Qian

(2018). Effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance: A competitive-action perspective. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1097–1118.

66.

Kolsi

M. C.

Al-Hiyari

(2023). Comparison of sustainability performance reporting practices in islamic versus conventional banks: Evidence from the GCC Region. In Islamic Accounting and Finance: A Handbook (pp. 345–365). World Scientific.

67.

Konrad

A. M.

Kramer

Erkut

(2006). Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organisational Dynamics, 35(2), 145–164.

68.

Koschate-Fischer

Diamantopoulos

Oldenkotte

(2012). Are consumers really willing to pay more for a favorable corporate reputation? A study of the role of CSR in the formation of consumer willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 1–18.

69.

Kukreja

Sharma

R. B.

Habib

S. K. H.

Bansal

(2022). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence from insurance companies of GCC Countries. In International Conference on Business and Technology (pp. 490–503). Springer International Publishing.

70.

Lee

K. J.

S. L.

(2021). The impact of COVID-19 on the stock price of socially responsible enterprises: An empirical study in Taiwan stock market. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1398.

71.

Lin

W. L.

Law

S. H.

J. A.

Sambasivan

(2019). The causality direction of the corporate social responsibility–Corporate financial performance Nexus: Application of Panel Vector Autoregression approach. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 48, 401–418.

72.

Linnenluecke

M. K.

(2022). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance in the context of multinational business research. Multinational Business Review, 30(1), 1–16.

73.

Lloret

(2016). Modeling corporate sustainability strategy. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 418–425.

74.

Luo

Bhattacharya

C. B.

(2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.

75.

Makni

Francoeur

Bellavance

(2009). Causality between corporate social performance and financial performance: Evidence from Canadian firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 409–422.

76.

Manner

M. H.

(2010). The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 53–72.

77.

Maqbool

Zameer

M. N.

(2018). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: An empirical analysis of Indian banks. Future Business Journal, 4(1), 84–93.

78.

Matten

Moon

(2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.

79.

McGuire

J. B.

Sundgren

Schneeweis

(1988). Corporate social responsiblity and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854–872.

80.

Mehmood

Gharaibeh

F. A.

Rizvi

Mehmood

(2024). Towards a sustainable future: examining the symmetric and asymmetric effect of unstable macroeconomic factors on initial public offerings variability. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 14(5), 664–677.

81.

Mousa

G. A.

Desoky

A. M.

Khan

G. U.

(2018). The association between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure-evidence from gulf cooperation council countries. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 22(4), 1–19.

82.

Musibah

A. S.

Alfattani

W. S. B. W. Y

. (2014). The mediating effect of financial performance on the relationship between Shariah supervisory board effectiveness, intellectual capital and corporate social responsibility, of Islamic banks in Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Asian Social Science, 10(17), 139.

83.

Musleh Alsartawi

. (2020). Does it pay to be socially responsible? Empirical evidence from the GCC countries. International Journal of Law and Management, 62(5), 381–394.

84.

O’Connor

Meister

D. B.

(2008). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organisational justice framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 265–283.

85.

Orlitzky

Schmidt

F. L.

Rynes

S. L.

(2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organisation Studies, 24(3), 403–441.

86.

Ortas

Álvarez

Zubeltzu

(2017). Firms' board independence and corporate social performance: A meta-analysis. Sustainability, 9(6), 1006.

87.

Ouakouak

M. L.

Arya

Zaitouni

(2020). Corporate social responsibility and intention to quit: Mediating role of organisational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 69(3), 447–465.

88.

Parket

I. R.

Eilbirt

(1975). The practice of business social responsibility: The underlying factors. Business Horizons, 18(4), 5–10.

89.

Pérez

García De Los Salmones

M. D. M.

López-Gutiérrez

(2018). Corporate social responsibility in the media: A content analysis of business news in Spain. Journal of Media Ethics, 33, 66–79.

90.

Pillai

Al-Malkawi

H. A. N.

(2018). On the relationship between corporate governance and firm performance: Evidence from GCC countries. Research in International Business and Finance, 44, 394–410.

91.

Platonova

Asutay

Dixon

Mohammad

(2018). The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure on financial performance: Evidence from the GCC Islamic banking sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 451–471.

92.

Preston

L. E.

O’bannon

D. P.

(1997). The corporate social-financial performance relationship: A typology and analysis. Business & Society, 36(4), 419–429.

93.

Price

L. L.

Feick

L. F.

Higie

R. A.

(1995). The impact of interpersonal and impersonal information on choice: The role of content and source. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 673–689.

94.

Raman

A. A.

Bukair

A. A.

(2013). The influence of the Shariah supervision board on corporate social responsibility disclosure by Islamic banks of Gulf Co-operation Council countries. Asian Journal of Business and Accounting, 6(2), 1–40.

95.

Sacconi

(2006). Contractarianism and personalisms in a dialogue on the ethical foundation of CSR. SSRN.

96.

Sallemi

Zouari

(2023). Shariah board and takaful performance: Mediating role of corporate social responsibility. International Review of Economics, 71, 175–204.

97.

Sen

Bhattacharya

C. B.

(2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.

98.

Sen

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Korschun

(2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166.

99.

Servaes

Tamayo

(2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59(5), 1045–1061.

100.

Sichtmann

(2007). Corporate brand trust as a mediator in the relationship between consumer-company-identification and brand loyalty. Journal of Psychology, 215(2), 157–162.

101.

Sierra-Correa

P. C.

Kintz

J. R. C.

(2015). Ecosystem-based adaptation for improving coastal planning for sea-level rise: A systematic review for mangrove coasts. Marine Policy, 51, 385–393.

102.

Stuebs

Sun

(2015). Corporate governance and social responsibility. International Journal of Law and Management, 57(1), 38–52.

103.

Udayasankar

(2008). Corporate social responsibility and firm size. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 167–175.

104.

Unilever. (2017). Sustainable Living Brands 2017: Driving sustainable growth.

105.

Van Marrewijk

. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 95–105.

106.

Velte

(2017). Does ESG performance have an impact on financial performance? Evidence from Germany. Journal of Global Responsibility, 8(2), 169–178.

107.

Waddock

(2004). Creating corporate accountability: Foundational principles to make corporate citizenship real. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(4), 313–327.

108.

Webb

D. J.

Mohr

L. A.

(1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(2), 226–238.

109.

Zhu

Sun

L. Y.

Leung

A. S.

(2014). Corporate social responsibility, firm reputation, and firm performance: The role of ethical leadership. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31, 925–947.