Financial Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility and Information Transparency: Research in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

This article presents an evaluation of the usefulness of information disclosed in the reports of pharmaceutical companies. The main purposes of this research is to assess the transparency of the proposed metric, assess the inter-firm comparability of non-financial reporting data, and to identify the practical usefulness of the disclosed information for international pharmaceutical companies.

The methodological basis of the research is the harmonisation of the requirements of business practice standards with financial reporting standards. This paper utilises an analytical method based around the proportional-typical selection of stable structured performance indicators for companies. The authors were not limited to information requests from investors in one country, individual companies, or the priority areas of interests of relevant persons or entities. Rather, the study approach was implemented and designed with the multilateral considerations of a plurality of stakeholders in mind. The research database was compiled with data from the reports of five companies (Johnson & Johnson, Novartis AG, Merck KGaA, Sanofi, and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.) retrieved from the Global Reporting Initiative Database. Data from the financial reports of 20 pharmaceutical companies, retrieved from the Access To Medicine Index System, was utilised, with the sample data spanning the years from 2014 and 2016.

 

The results of the study indicate that the total position of the 5 companies studied has increased from 8th to 6th place. The result of the ratio of growth rates as concerns their total revenue, capitalisation, and long-term capital is positive when compared with the growth rate of the quality of their disclosure of non-financial indicators. The strongest such relationship is in the area of attracting long-term capital, followed by the growth in capitalization, and the smallest relationship is in the area of revenue growth. The format presented here, of the minimum required set of harmonised indicators, helps to increase the confidence of stakeholders in the financial and non-financial information of socially responsible companies.

 

The novelty of the results obtained in this study consists in using a metric expression of the quality of reporting indicators to assess their usefulness in the business practice of companies with a production profile. The results obtained allow us to make a generalised conclusion that useful information, generated on the basis of the harmonisation of structured data from financial and non-financial statements, contributes to increasing the level of business activity and its comprehensive performance for all parties involved in the company's affairs.

About the authors

A. Khorin

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Economic faculty

Email: anhorin@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2056-6178

Doctor of economic sciences, professor of the “Accounting, analysis and audit” Department

Russian Federation, Moscow

A. Bulgakov

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Economic faculty

Email: z3900207@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6999-4515

PhD in economics, Senior Researcher

Russian Federation, Moscow

A. Krikunov

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Economic faculty

Author for correspondence.
Email: s.krikunof@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5924-0963

PhD student of the “Accounting, analysis and audit” Department

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Lev B., Gu F. The End of Accounting and the Path Forward for Investors and Managers. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016. ISBN 9781119190998. URL: http://lccn.loc.gov/2016007850.
  2. Perez A., Rodriguez del Bosque I. Corporate social responsibility and customer loyalty: Exploring the role of identification, satisfaction and type of company. Journal of Services Marketing. 2015; 29(1): 15–25. doi: 10.1108/JSM-10-2013-0272.
  3. Moisescu O.-I. From CSR to Customer Loyalty: An Empirical Investigation in the Retail Banking Industry of a Developing Country. Scientific Annals of Economics and Business. 2017; 64(3): 307–323. doi: 10.1515/saeb-2017-0020.
  4. Ailawadi K. L., Neslin S. A., Luan Y. J., Taylor G. A. Does retailer CSR enhance behavioral loyalty? A case for benefit segmentation. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2014; 31(2): 156–167. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2013.09.003.
  5. Strenitzerová M., Gaňa J. Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty as a Part of Customer-Based Corporate Sustainability in the Sector of Mobile Communications Services. Sustainability. 2018; 10(5): 1–17. doi: 10.3390/su10051657.
  6. Shu-Ling Hsu. The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Corporate Image, Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty: An Empirical Study on the Telecommunication Industry. The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention. 2018; 5(5): 4693–4703. doi: 10.18535/ijsshi/v5i5.08.
  7. Lee C.-Y. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Influence Customer Loyalty in the Taiwan Insurance Sector? The Role of Corporate Image and Customer Satisfaction. Journal of Promotion Management. 2018; 0(0): 1–22. doi: 10.1080/10496491.2018.1427651.
  8. Rensberg R., Botha E. Is integrated reporting the silver bullet of financial communication? A stakeholder perspective from South Africa. Public Relations Review. 2014; 40: 144–152. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.11.016.
  9. Integrated Reporting (IR). The International Integrated Reporting Framework. 2014. URL: http://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/13-12-08-THE-INTERNATIONAL-IR-FRAMEWORK.docx_en-US_ru-RU.pdf.
  10. On approval of the Concept of development of public non-financial reporting and action plan for its implementation. Order of the Government of Russian Federation No. 876-R of 5 May 2017.
  11. Turcsanyi J., Sisaye S. Corporate Social Responsibility and its Link to Financial Performance: Application to Johnson & Johnson, a Pharmaceutical Company. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development. 2013; 10(1): 4–18. doi: 10.1108/20425941311313065.
  12. Eccles R. G., Ioannou I., Serafeim G. The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance. Management Science. 2017; 60(11): 2835–2857. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1964011.
  13. Cheng B., Ioannou I., Serafeim G. Corporate Social Responsibility and Access to Finance. Strategic Management Journal. 2014; 35(1): 1–23. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1847085.
  14. Sirsly T., Lvina E. From Doing Good to Looking Even Better: The Dynamics of CSR and Reputation. Business & Society. 2016; 0(0): 1–33. doi: 10.1177/0007650315627996.
  15. McWilliams A., Siegel D. Creating and Capturing Value: Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility, Resource-Based Theory, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management. 2011; 37(5): 1480–1495.
  16. Slager R., Chapple W. Carrot and Stick? The Role of Financial Market Intermediaries in Corporate Social Performance. Business & Society. 2016; 55(3): 398–426. doi: 10.1177/0007650315575291.
  17. Droppert H., Bennett S. Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Health: An Exploratory Study of Multinational Pharmaceutical Firms. Globalization and Health. 2015; 11(1): 1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12992-015-0100-5.
  18. Salton R., Jones S. The Corporate Social Responsibility Reports of Global Pharmaceutical Firms. British Journal of Healthcare Management. 2015; 21(1): 21–25.
  19. Kalabikhina I. E., Krikunov A. S. A New Method of Assessing the Quality of Non-Financial Reporting (on the Example of Energy Companies). Vestnik of St. Petersburg University. Section: Management. 2018; 3(17): 297–322.
  20. Svetunkov S. G., Smolkin V. P. Approach to the Assessment of Sustainable Development of Industrial Enterprises. Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2014; 2(30): 89–94.
  21. Sheremet A. D. Comprehensive Analysis of Indicators of Sustainable Development of the Enterprise. Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice. 2014; 45(396): 2–10.
  22. GRI G4. Guidance on Reporting in the Field of Sustainable Development G4. 2013. URL: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Russian-G4-Part-One.pdf.
  23. GRI Standards. Global Reporting Initiative Standards. 2016. URL: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/.
  24. SASB. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board. 2013. URL: https://www.sasb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SASB_Standard_Pharma.pdf.
  25. EFFAS KPIs for ESG. A Guideline for the Integration of ESG into Financial Analysis and Corporate Valuation. 2010. URL: http://www.effas-esg.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/KPIs_for_ESG_3_0_Final.pdf.
  26. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Guidance on Corporate Responsibility Indicators in Annual Reports (ISAR). United Nations, New York and Geneva. 2008. ISBN 978-92-1-112740-9. URL: http://unctad.org/en/Docs/iteteb20076_en.pdf.
  27. Access to Medicine Index Database. Overall Ranking. URL: https://accesstomedicineindex.org/.
  28. GRI Sustainability Disclosure Database. Sustainability Reports GRI G4. URL: http://database.globalreporting.org/.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2020 Khorin A., Bulgakov A., Krikunov A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.