Firm Performance, Disclosure of Corporate Social Responsibility and the Effect of
Corporate Reputation and Corporate Governance:
A Cross Country Analysis
ALMUATASIM MUSABAH SAIF AL MUTAIRI1, SUZAIDA BTE. BAKAR2
1College of Graduate Studies,
Universiti Tenaga Nasional,
Jalan Ikram-Uniten 43000 Kajang, Selangor,
MALAYSIA
2College of Business Management and Accounting,
Universiti Tenaga Nasional,
Jalan Ikram-Uniten 43000 Kajang, Selangor,
MALAYSIA
Abstract: - This study examines the impact of corporate governance and corporate reputation on firm
performance and corporate social responsibility disclosure. For this purpose, we use a moderating-mediation
approach, utilizing data from 4255 observations across 732 enterprises from 2009 to 2021. The research findings
reveal that corporate social responsibility disclosure significantly influences corporate reputation, particularly in
enhancing business performance. The findings also demonstrate a moderate association between corporate
governance, corporate social responsibility, and corporate reputation. Moreover, the investigation highlights the
critical role of corporate reputation, ownership concentration, and CEO integrity in promoting corporate social
responsibility disclosure and improving business performance. Finally, the paper discusses the practical and
theoretical contributions of the research.
Key-Words: - Corporate reputation, CEO integrity, Ownership concentration, Firm performance, and Corporate
social responsibility disclosure
Received: February 17, 2023. Revised: May 29, 2023. Accepted: June 28, 2023. Published: July 26, 2023.
1 Introduction
Under ISO 26000 corporate social responsibility
(CSR) rules, most businesses must provide annual
statements detailing their CSR activities. [1],
presents three reasons for disclosing CSR data: first,
it enhances a company's financial and economic
performance; second, it improves its reputation and
credibility; and third, it strengthens social ties. A
correlation between organizational performance and
corporate social responsibility disclosure may
develop when businesses proactively disseminate
CSR-associated data that encounter or exceeds
stakeholder expectations, [2], [3], (Figure 1).
However, stakeholders have increasingly
criticized certain companies' CSR practices,
suspecting insincere motivations behind some CSR
programs. They view some CSR initiatives as
"greenwashing," where businesses consistently
display their CSR commitment while concealing
questionable commercial practices. [4], [5], found
that when corporate social responsibility disclosure
is voluntary, firms tend to disclose only positive
commercial data that reflects favorably on business
performance. Some concerns announced that CSR
initiatives might not be genuinely implemented,
leading to doubts about their authenticity.
Consequently, CSR reporting by companies has
suffered credibility loss and started to work against
them, [6], [7], [8]. If CSR efforts are communicated
carelessly, it could tarnish a firm's image as
individuals may prioritize superficial attributes over
actual benefits, adversely impacting the
organization's performance. Therefore, management
procedures must thoroughly understand how CSR
reporting influences organizational performance.
Several empirical studies on the relationship
between Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure
(CSRD) and business performance have reported
conflicting results, [9]. Given the considerable
variation in this relationship, further research is
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
740
Volume 19, 2023
necessary to ascertain the direct link's significance
and determine whether it is beneficial or detrimental,
[9], [10], [11]. Various literature reviews on the
subject, [12], [13], [14], suggest that additional
complicating factors influence the direct link
between the two. These variables warrant further
empirical exploration. It is crucial to acknowledge
that CSR programs offer a means for companies to
comply with societal norms, [15], [16], [17], [18]
[19]. Rating agencies frequently compile lists of
companies ranked by their adherence to legal
requirements, which are then reported by the media.
Using this publicly existing data, stakeholders can
weigh a firm's commitment to social responsibility.
Consequently, companies are striving harder to
distinguish themselves by launching CSR initiatives
to maintain a favorable societal reputation, [19],
[20], [21]. Nonetheless, a comprehensive
examination of the factors influencing this
relationship and its outcomes is lacking.
Firms offer social, political, and economic
benefits to the entities that support them to thrive
and grow, [22], [23], [24]. As such, the necessity for
companies to act in ethically, ecologically, and
socially responsible ways is progressively
recognized in the corporate world, [25], [26]. As
companies become more aware of stakeholder
expectations, the importance of corporate social
responsibility reporting grows in order to uphold
their dedicated responsibilities, [27], [28]. The
theoretical framework proposed by Ullmann has
been supported by several empirical studies, except
for the impact of shareholders, who are considered
key stakeholders, [27]. Since the study focused on a
specific subset of shareholders with concentrated
ownership, the conclusions regarding the targeted
stakeholder group were unclear. This observation is
based on the premise that the priorities of numerous
shareholders may not align with corporate social
responsibility practices and exposures, potentially
explaining the insignificance of the findings.
As such, it is common in many Western
Continental European nations for a dominant
shareholder to retain control over a firm while
possessing only a minor portion of its revenue.
Various strategies, including share classes, pyramid
structures, and cross-holdings, are often used to
maintain this control, [6], [22], [29], [30], [31].
Companies implementing ethical practices will
likely discover untapped economic opportunities and
benefits that may not immediately favor investors,
[32], [33]. Moreover, companies must clearly
articulate their conduct to the market to protect their
reputation. According to, [34], [35], and [36],
shareholders' active involvement in corporate
governance processes significantly affects corporate
governance's ethical, social, and environmental
aspects. In line with this, our research aims to
investigate the influence of dispersed ownership and
shareholder control on the decision to disclose
corporate social responsibility reports, considering
other factors proposed by Ullmann. Previous studies
have identified the key stakeholders in the Spanish
and European frameworks as financial institutions,
shareholders, and central shareholders, [37], [38],
[39]. Additionally, earlier research has revealed
conflicting objectives regarding CSR and its
disclosure.
The present research seeks to explore the role of
CSR disclosure (CSRD) in moderating the
relationship between corporate performance and
corporate reputation (CR), given empirical and
theoretical evidence that CR can be enhanced
through CSR-related initiatives and that the impact
of CSR performance on corporate performance
varies when mediated by CR, [40], [41]. The
findings of, [42], [43], [44], which examined the
relationship between managerial decisions and
ethical executives linked to CSR, also form the basis
for this research. It intends to fill a research gap
regarding the primary mechanism that links
executives' integrity to a company's CSR approach,
as highlighted in earlier studies, [41], [45]. The study
also investigates whether the integrity of the
executive team and ownership concentration,
especially that of the chief executive officer, chief
financial officer, and chief marketing officer, could
lessen the CSR disclosure’s influence on a firm's
reputation.
This investigation contributes several significant
novel perspectives to existing knowledge. First and
foremost, it enhances our understanding of
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives,
corporate reputation, CEO characteristics, and
corporate performance by highlighting the
significance of CSR disclosure (CSRD) in attaining
a competitive advantage for enterprises. Secondly, it
examines the impact of corporate reputation and
CEO integrity, providing a novel lens through which
to study the relationship between CSR disclosure
and business performance. Thirdly, the research
considers potential factors like corporate reputation
and ownership concentration to ascertain the indirect
and direct associations between CSR disclosure and
business performance. Therefore, this study
supplements corporate reputation, executive
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
741
Volume 19, 2023
characteristics, corporate performance, and CSR
disclosure information. The study's conclusions are
drawn from analyzing data collected from 830 of
Fortune's top-ranked global corporations, spanning
31 countries from 2005 to 2011. The data were
analyzed using the Generalized Method of Moments
(GMM) methodology, implemented through Stata
13. The remainder of the article is structured as
follows: The second section discusses relevant
theories and presents related empirical evidence. The
methodology adopted is detailed in segments 3, 4,
and 5, presenting the research findings and fostering
an argument around them. Following this, an
analysis of the practical and theoretical contributions
of the study is conducted, leading to the conclusion
of the research.
Fig. 1: Conceptual Structure
2 Theoretical Evidence & Development
of Hypotheses
2.1 Firm Performance and Corporate Social
Responsibility Disclosure (CSRD)
"CSRD" refers to an organization's disclosure or
public discussion of its societal actions,
encompassing aspects of society, the environment,
and employees. There are two potential strategies for
CSRD. Firstly, it can be mandated by law,
necessitating businesses to provide information
about their societal actions. Secondly, Corporate
Social Responsibility disclosure can be voluntary,
permitting companies to decide whether or not to
reveal specific details, [46]. In this latter case, the
quantity and nature of the information disclosed
would differ from company to company, [6]. Over
time, many countries have adopted mandatory CSR
reporting, viewing it as a requirement for
transparency, [3]. A company may take a proactive
stance by deliberately exceeding minimum
shareholder expectations in managing CSR-related
information or reporting, or it may adopt a reactive
stance by yielding to public pressure, [46], [47],
[48], [49], [50]. Regardless of the strategy used, a
company's CSRD provides insights into its CSR-
related activities and initiatives, thereby revealing
the extent of its involvement in CSR projects.
Current research focuses on stakeholder
engagement to explore the relationship between
corporate social responsibility and company
performance. According to stakeholder theory,
various stakeholders in a company, including
suppliers, customers, and employees, can influence
the implementation of initiatives, [51], [52], [53]. By
meeting their expectations and addressing their
concerns, a company can avoid behaviors that could
lead stakeholders to resist or obstruct the company's
objectives. [54], legitimacy theory posits that a
group seeks to conform to societal norms and be
recognized as a valuable member of society. From
this perspective, a company's reputation could be at
risk if it fails to uphold societal values. Hence,
shareholders and the public tend to perceive
companies with a good track record in CSR activities
as credible. This perceived credibility can
significantly influence the company's financial
outcomes. Conversely, companies involved in
negative CSR practices risk their legitimacy being
questioned. In light of these perspectives, several
researchers have demonstrated that CSR initiatives
positively influence corporate performance.
Companies that actively disclose positive CSR
data that meets or surpasses stakeholder expectations
could enhance the relationship between Corporate
Social Responsibility Disclosure (CSRD) and
company performance. Supporting this viewpoint,
various researchers have provided evidence that
CSRD positively impacts company performance,
[55], [56], [57]. However, [41], argues that empirical
studies relating CSRD to corporate performance
have yielded contradictory results. Given this
preceding discussion, we propose the following
hypothesis:
H1: Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure
(CSRD) significantly influences firm performance.
2.2 Corporate Reputation (CR) Like a
Mediator
Corporate Reputation (CR) serves as a measure of an
entity's overall performance. It represents the
evaluation of stakeholders—clients, employees,
investors, and vendors—of the company's behavior
compared to other businesses and their objective
expectations for business practices, [58]. [59],
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
742
Volume 19, 2023
emphasized three facets of a company's reputation in
their review: 1) recognition, 2) acknowledgment of a
specific quality, and 3) widespread acclaim. This
research focuses on the third facet, defining
corporate reputation as the holistic view that
encapsulates public opinions about a company.
According to, [60], a corporation can enhance its
reputation by engaging in CSR activities. Therefore,
ethical actions by a company can positively impact
the public's perception and evaluation of that
company. From the public's perspective,
transparency and publicity about a firm's CSR efforts
are necessary to increase their awareness. The
positive societal influence of CSR programs hinges
on efficient disclosure and communication.
Regardless of the financial investment in CSR
initiatives, they are considered ineffective if not
publicly disclosed. Therefore, through CSRD, a
company can gain vital insights into the aspects
contributing to an enhanced reputation. Numerous
scholars support that corporate reputation (CR)
positively impacts business performance. Following
the resource-based perspective theory. [52], [61],
found that the firm's reputation substantially
influences its effectiveness, [62], [63]. Aligning with
this, [64], [65], and, [66], examined 230 companies
featured in Fortune's list of America's Most Admired
Companies and demonstrated a company's
reputation's crucial role in its success.
Within the realm of existing research, few
scholars have explored and advocated for the
mediating role of corporate reputation (CR) in the
relationship between company performance and CSR
disclosure, such as, [67], conducted a study on a
sample of ninety-six industrial firms in Taiwan,
revealing that corporate reputation partially mediates
the relationship between CSR and brand
performance. A comparative study of 280 Australian
businesses, [35], [48], and, [68], found that corporate
reputation fully mediates the link between CSR and
company performance. Echoing these findings, [69],
analyzed 205 Iranian firms and found that corporate
reputation and customer satisfaction are
intermediaries between corporate social
responsibility and organizational performance.
Further, concentrating exclusively on SMEs of
Ghana, [40], underscored the significant mediating
effect of business reputation between CSR and firm
performance. Limited research investigates the
mediating role of corporate reputation (CR) in the
relationship between CSRD and company
performance. Drawing from the above discussion,
we propose the following hypothesis:
H2: Corporate reputation mediates the relationship
between corporate social responsibility disclosure
and firm performance.
2.3 CEO (Chief Executive Officer) Integrity
Like a Moderator
Integrity is often understood as adherence to strong
ethical values and transparency. However, there
remains a lack of consensus among scholars
studying ethical governance over the precise
interpretation and definition of integrity. Current
literature often associates integrity with honesty,
ethical conduct, consistency, and fairness, [45].
Despite limited scholarly attention, [70], [71].
Existing studies have identified common integrity-
related features. We adopt the concepts of integrity
outlined by, [70], [71], defining a chief executive
officer's integrity as loyalty, honesty, and ethical
courage.
In the context of ethical leadership, a CEO or top
executive with ethical discernment is presumed to
avoid engaging in unethical practices. Furthermore,
their behavior would promote ethical courage, honor,
and integrity among followers. A CEO with high
integrity is likely to stick to steadfast values and
beliefs, hence recognizing ethical implications
during decision-making processes, carefully
weighing these factors, and prioritizing ethical
considerations in business decisions for success,
[72]. Through this approach, the company could
implement tangible corporate social responsibility
(CSR) strategies. From this perspective, when the
public perceives a company's genuine commitment
to CSR, they are likelier to trust the information
related to CSR disclosure (CSRD), [71].
CEOs with high integrity are inclined to provide
accurate and transparent information about CSR
activities and the actual performance of their
business. It, in turn, enhances the community and
stakeholders' trust in the company's sincere
commitment to CSR, thereby improving its
reputation and benefiting from positive public
perceptions. Essentially, a CEO's high integrity
amplifies the influence of CSR disclosure (CSRD)
on a company's reputation (CR). In light of the
preceding discussion, we propose the following
hypothesis:
H3: The integrity of the chief executive officer
moderates the relationship between corporate social
responsibility disclosure and corporate reputation.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
743
Volume 19, 2023
2.4 Ownership Concentration, Like a
Moderator
Within existing corporations, potential conflicts of
interest between shareholders and management may
arise, potentially leading to a decrease in the
organization's value if managers prioritize their
interests over enhancing the company's reputation.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) may be seen
as a principal-agent problem if managers overly
emphasize spending on CSR initiatives to bolster the
company's reputation as a responsible entity, [73].
This enhanced reputation might boost executives'
overconfidence, leading to decisions that could
ultimately diminish value, [74]. Thus, it is essential
to consider the aspect of ownership concentration
when examining the association between a
company's reputation and corporate social
responsibility.
The entrenchment theory proposes that managers
use this technique to retain their power, preserve
their positions, and increase their financial benefits
instead of focusing on augmenting the firm's overall
value, [75]. This theory suggests that concentrated
ownership structures exacerbate agency problems. A
key motivation for shareholders is acquiring
knowledge to influence corporate policy, which can
lead to information asymmetries. These asymmetries
can, in turn, impact CSR decisions, [76]. Due to
information inequality, managers might obscure the
true intentions behind their CSR decisions. It often
results in the privileging of managers' interests over
the firm's well-being, which could adversely affect
the company's financial performance.
On the other hand, stakeholder theory asserts
that organizations should treat all their stakeholders
equitably and that investment in corporate social
responsibility can ramblingly enhance a company's,
[77]. The resource-based view further suggests that
CSR can improve financial performance by helping
companies develop internal assets like managerial
expertise, technological know-how, and
organizational culture whereas simultaneously
boosting the company's reputation and reaping
external benefits, [78]. This view is supported by
several empirical studies, like those of, [79], [80],
who found that investments containing the highest
CSR-performing businesses yielded positive
abnormal returns. However, some studies have failed
to establish a strong link between CSR and corporate
reputation, [81]. In light of the above discussion, we
propose the following hypothesis:
H4: Ownership concentration moderates the
relationship between corporate social responsibility
disclosure and the company's reputation.
3 Data & Methodology
3.1 Sample Selection & Data
Our research relied on the World's Most Admired
Firms (WFMA) list, published by Fortune, to select
firms. We conducted data collection in three stages.
First, we manually extracted data from Fortune's
website, gathering information such as the names of
WFMA firms, their industries, and the location of
their headquarters. This data covered the period from
March 2009 to March 2021. Our final list was
confined to publicly listed companies operating as of
March 2021.
In the second stage, we utilized data from
Fortune's rankings, which evaluate a firm's economic
resilience and global reputation. These rankings,
ranging from 1 to 17, are fundamentally based on a
company's reputation. Simultaneously, we
dynamically retrieved financial data from
Bloomberg. It included net income, sales revenue,
return on equity (ROE), return on assets (ROA), the
proportion of independent board members, the debt-
to-equity ratio, CEO remuneration, expenditures,
total assets, and various economic indicators. We
calculated Tobin's Q ratio for 2009 to 2021 using this
information. It was instrumental in exploring the
dichotomy of the CEO using financial information.
Bloomberg also provided a CSRD (Corporate
Social Responsibility Disclosure) transparency rating
from 2009 to 2021. This rating assessed corporate
performance in governance, environment, and social
responsibility. Our data set comprised 4255
observations from 732 companies in 30 distinct
industries, per Fortune's WFMA classification. We
excluded any data with erroneous values. These
observations were collected over seven fiscal years,
from March 2009 to March 2021. Furthermore, we
utilized data from the World Economic Forum's
Global Competitive Report, which includes annual
business turnover and the standard of auditing and
reporting criteria for each nation.
Since 2009, the Global Competitive Report has
been published annually to examine the unique and
innovative characteristics of 125 countries. This
report evaluates public and private organizations
within each nation by applying 22 variables. The
scores included in our study are derived from an
annual executive survey conducted in each
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
744
Volume 19, 2023
respective country. The constituent parts of the
organization's pillar were rated using a Likert scale,
with 1 being the minimum score and 7 denoting the
maximum. The aggregate score for the organization
is derived from the weighted scores assigned to each
component of the organization's pillar.
3.2 Control Variables
3.2.1 CEO (Chief Executive Officer) Duality
A strong and transparent governance structure can be
established when a company's CEO also serves as its
board chairperson. However, this dual role can also
result in an overreliance on the CEO, potentially
damaging the company's image and financial
performance. To quantify CEO duality, we utilize a
dummy variable; a value of 1 denotes that the CEO
is also the board chairperson, and a value of 0
signifies that they are not, [82].
3.2.2 Firm Size
Historically, a firm's financial strength has been
correlated with its performance and reputation. [83],
[84], combined total assets and the number of
employees to calculate a firm's size in their previous
studies.
3.2.3 Leverage
Financial performance is a critical determinant of a
company's debt level and a potential solution for
agency issues in publicly listed firms. Following
previous studies by, [85], [86], we use the debt-to-
equity ratio to measure financial leverage.
3.2.4 Institutions
Institutions significantly shape the evolving patterns
of social, political, and economic relations, [87]. One
form of an institution, the legal system, can influence
how financial actors operate within an economy.
Therefore, the presence and characteristics of a legal
institution can influence an organization's
performance and reputation. We utilize an
assessment method that accounts for the institutions'
effects. Additionally, we examine if the institutions
in the home countries of the selected firms, as
identified by the Global Competitive Report of the
World Economic Forum, significantly influence their
business practices.
3.2.5 COVID-19 Period
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in December
2019 and its rapid spread in 2020 harmed the public
image and performance of the companies under
investigation. Our data set includes the COVID-19
period, such as 2020 and 2021. We use a dummy
variable named COVID-19 to account for the
pandemic effect on our results, assigning a value of 0
to data before the pandemic and 1 in 2020 and 2021.
3.2.6 Industry Performance
The effect of the industry in which a company
operates is often taken into account in previous
studies on firm performance. We incorporate this
element in our study to fully represent the
organization's impact on performance. This approach
to understanding an organization's influence is
informed by the research conducted by, [88], [89].
We can evaluate the average performance within
specific industries by examining every organization's
mean return on assets.
3.2.7 Dummy Year
We counteract the impact of the yearly influence
because some factors that were not accounted for in
our methods significantly affect a company's
operations and performance.
3.2.8 Dummy Country
Numerous elements related to a company's home
country can influence its performance. It can be due
to the diversification of demand and capital
expenditure across different countries. Country-
specific factors can also significantly impact the
competitive appeal of companies in global markets,
thereby influencing their performance and
reputation. These elements underscore the
importance of considering the local context when
evaluating a company's performance and reputation.
3.3 Empirical Approach
To test Hypothesis H1, which suggests that company
performance (the dependent variable) is influenced
by CSRD (Corporate Social Responsibility
Disclosure, the independent variable), we use
equation (1). This equation incorporates several
control variables to consider potential impacts on
business performance. These models are constructed
using explanatory and control variables with a one-
year lag based on the premise that the previous year's
actions influence the current year's success, [90],
[91]. Therefore, we incorporate lagged explanatory
and control variables into these models.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
745
Volume 19, 2023
Following the recommendations of, [92], for
using structural equation modeling (SEM) to
evaluate indirect links, we construct two equations.
In equation (2), Corporate Reputation (CR) is the
dependent variable, and corporate social
responsibility disclosure is the independent variable.
In equation (3), company performance is the
dependent variable, and Corporate Reputation (CR)
is the independent variable. This approach also
accounts for various control factors affecting CR and
company performance. In our study, these control
variables are represented by the to , including
leverage, industry influence, CEO duality, board
independence, performance, COVID-19, country,
size, and year.
Table 1. Estimations of Descriptive Statistic
To explore the moderating impact of H3, we use
the sequential regression method proposed, [92],
[93]. This method assesses the moderating
(interaction) effect of the chief executive officer's
integrity on the connection between corporate social
responsibility disclosure (CSRD) and corporate
reputation (CR). In equations (4) and (5), corporate
reputation is depicted as the dependent (endogenous)
variable. At the same time, Corporate Social
Responsibility Disclosure, chief executive officer
integrity, and ownership concentration are portrayed
as independent (exogenous) variables.
Furthermore, equation (4) incorporates control
variables to account for their potential influence on
Corporate Reputation. Additionally, our study
assumes a one-year lag for the forecaster variables,
postulating that activities performed in the prior year
influence the current year's Corporate Reputation.
Given the limited existing research on chief
executive officer (CEO) integrity, there is a need for
an enhanced scale to measure its influence. Previous
studies, such as, [72], [71], have utilized surveys of
employees to gauge CEO integrity. These studies
have indicated that CEOs often perform their duties
to enhance their organization. However, our research
is grounded in agency theory (particularly as
outlined by, [73], and posits that impulsive decisions
by CEOs could result in agency costs for
shareholders.
4 Analysis
In this investigation, we applied the variance
inflation factor (VIF) to confirm that no
multicollinearity issues were present in the data. The
VIF values of all estimators were below 3,
significantly lower than the acceptable threshold of
5, [94], indicating multicollinearity was not a
concern. Our investigation examined potential
endogeneity in corporate social responsibility
disclosure (CSRD). The pooled OLS approaches,
which utilized Return on Assets, Return on Equity,
and Tobin's Q as dependent variables, respectively
yielded residuals C_1, C_2, and C_3. To address
endogeneity related to CSRD, where cyclical
causation occurs between the dependent and
independent variables, we adopted the Generalized
Method of Moments (GMM) strategy suggested by,
[95]. In line with, [41] recommendations, we also
Variables
Mean
SD.
Min
Max
CSR-disclose
21.05
20.58
5.19
69.28
Firm reputation
19.38
41.48
-161.56
601.98
Institutions
1.05
2.47
1
2
Ownership
concentration
19
12.47
-16.48
71.34
ROE
1.23
1.01
-71.38
41.23
ROA
3.11
2.48
-1.23
16.18
CEO-duality
5.98
1.21
3.29
9.45
Tobin’s Q
21.34
31.23
-9.11
11.2
CEOintegrity1
23.59
19.96
2.47
81.05
CEOintegrity2
-1.39
1.29
-59.28
17.45
CEOintegrity3
2.49
1.43
-12.576
21.36
Industry
21.48
5.29
3
20.49
Employee
40.19
190.38
3
5100.32
Asset
7.001
4.29
-4.32
13.59
Leverage
52.49
20.482
2
150
COVID-19
5.1
2.34
2.49
11.49
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
746
Volume 19, 2023
employed lagged variables to evaluate corporate
social responsibility disclosure. The comprehensive
data from the Sargan test indicates the independent
variable’s substantial influence on the outcome.
Besides, the Sargan (score) test results show no over-
identifying restrictions in our method (p >.05). Thus,
endogeneity is not considered a significant issue in
this study. The insignificant AR2 results also suggest
that our approach is autocorrelation-free, [96].
The dependent variables for Equations (1) and
(3) in this research are Return on Assets, Return on
Equity, and Tobin's Q. CR is the dependent variable
for equations (2) and (4). CEO integrity-1, 2, and 3
are employed to estimate Equations (4) and (5).
Equations (1) and (5) are estimated using the GMM
technique. Equations (2) and (4) are estimated
concurrently using the Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) method, specifically the bootstrapping
methodology. The bootstrapping method also
assesses indirect effects, [97].
5 Findings
Table 1 presents the dependent and independent
variables' means, medians, standard deviations, and
minimum and maximum values. The table does not
include the sector, country, or year dummy variables.
The results of equation (1) are displayed in Table 2,
revealing a significant and positive correlation
between corporate social responsibility disclosure
and ROA and ROE. It also demonstrates that
corporate social responsibility disclosure
significantly influences Tobin's Q. Given that Return
on Assets, Return on Equity (financial performance),
and Tobin's Q (market effectiveness) are all
indicators of firm performance, we found evidence
supporting hypothesis H1. This hypothesis suggested
that corporate social responsibility disclosure
directly impacts these metrics. These findings are in
line with, [23], [25], [56].
Table 3 presents the results of equation (2),
derived using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM),
particularly the bootstrapping method. The findings
indicate that corporate social responsibility
disclosure has a significant and positive effect on
Corporate Reputation's performance, specifically its
financial and market performance (α = 1.393, with a
p-value of 0.001 for ROE; α = 1.482, with a p-value
of 0.006 for ROA; α = 1.893, with a p-value of 0.008
for Tobin's Q). These results were obtained from
methods 4, 5, and 6, which use Tobin's Q, ROE, and
ROA as indicators of firm performance. These
findings are in line with, [45], [66], [76], however
are different from, [71], [75], [87].
The results of equation (3) are presented in Table
4, indicating a significant and favorable association
between Corporate Reputation (CR) and company
performance. Specifically, ROE has α = 1.393 and a
p-value of 0.006, ROA has α = 1.592, and a p-value
of 0.001, and Tobin's Q has α = 1.382 and a p-value
of 0.002.
Table 5 displays the indirect impact of CR on the
relationship between corporate social responsibility
disclosure and firm performance, as determined by
structural equation modeling (SEM). The results
demonstrate that CR facilitates the expected
association between corporate social responsibility
disclosure and company performance in a significant
and favorable manner. Specifically, Tobin's Q has α
= 1.303, p = 0.039, CI = [0.21981: 0.488281]; ROE
has α = 1.349, p = 0.029, CI = [0.38329: 0.84984];
and ROA has α = 1.243, p = 0.039, CI = [0.343232:
0.536372]. These findings support hypothesis 2 and
suggest that CR mediates between corporate social
responsibility disclosure and company performance.
These findings are in line with, [35], [46], [99],
however are different from, [34], [36], [74].
Table 6 demonstrates that CEO integrity
significantly and positively moderated the
association between CR and company performance.
When Chief Executive Officer-integrity 1 is
represented by the sale-to-asset ratio, α = 41.393
with a p-value of 0.021. Similarly, Chief Executive
Officer-integrity2, represented by the sale-to-
expense proportion, has α = 1.853 with a p-value of
0.031. Chief Executive Officer-integrity3,
represented by the income to Chief Executive
Officer ratio, has α = 1.494 with a p-value of 0.035.
These results, obtained through three distinct proxies
of CEO integrity, provide further validation for the
relationship and support hypothesis 3. Table 6 also
shows the substantial moderating influence of
ownership concentration (OC) on the association
between CR and company reputation (α = 41.393, p-
value = 0.021 when Chief Executive Officer-
integrity1 is assessed using the sale-to-asset ratio; α
= 1.853, p-value = 0.031). These findings suggest
that investigating the moderating influence of OC
using proxies strengthens the relationship and
supports hypothesis 4 (Table 7).
To confirm the hypothesized influence of CEO
integrity, the researchers employed the Generalized
Method of Moments (GMM) technique and the
Generalized Least Squares (GLS) methodology. The
outcomes presented in Table 6 align with those
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
747
Volume 19, 2023
obtained using the GMM approach (Table 5),
providing robust evidence for the hypothesized
moderating impact.
6 Discussion and Conclusion
The findings of this study demonstrate a reciprocal
relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility
Disclosure (CSRD) and corporate performance.
Specifically, we found that corporate social
responsibility disclosure negatively impacts
corporate reputation (CR), which, in turn, negatively
impacts business performance. Previous research has
produced conflicting results when examining the
direct influence of corporate social responsibility
disclosure on organizational performance, with
discrepancies arising from excluding the mediating
role of Corporate Reputation. Our findings align
with the research conducted by, [69], and, [98], who
also investigated CR’s mediating function in the
association between corporate social responsibility
and company performance. However, unlike prior
research that predominantly utilized cross-sectional
data, this investigation relies on longitudinal data
collected from a diverse international business
sample. Consequently, our research unequivocally
demonstrates that corporate social responsibility
disclosure enhances CR, which, in turn, enhances
firm performance.
According to the research results, Corporate
Social Responsibility Disclosure (CSRD)
demonstrably influences company performance.
However, the favorable influences of corporate
social responsibility disclosure on organizational
performance may be overshadowed by other
variables, resulting in an insignificant impact.
Previous research has produced contradictory
findings due to the inadequate evaluation of
intervening factors that might affect the link between
corporate social responsibility disclosure and
organizational output. In contrast, our research
solves this issue by integrating intervening factors
and experimentally examining their influence on the
relationship between corporate social responsibility
disclosure and organizational performance. This
research highlights the importance of the chief
executive officer's integrity as a key element that
moderates the effect of Corporate Social
Responsibility Disclosure (CSRD) on Corporate
Reputation (CR).
The concept, [12], presented in their empirical
study, emphasizing the significance of the chief
executive officer's integrity in enhancing the
legitimacy of Corporate Social Responsibility
Disclosure, aligns with this conclusion. Furthermore,
we observed that ownership concentration has a
favorable impact on the link between corporate
social responsibility and CR, indicating the existence
of efficient regulatory mechanisms in this
association. In companies with concentrated
ownership structures, the interests of minority
stockholders must be safeguarded. Investing in
corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs can
enhance performance in these companies, [99],
[100], [101]. The results of our research also help to
clarify the managerial decisions made in connection
with CSR that may result in the exploitation of
minority stockholders in companies with
concentrated ownership, [102], [103].
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
748
Volume 19, 2023
Table 2. Direct Influence on Firm Performance by Corporate Social Responsibility
Disclosure
Constructs
Approach-1 Tobin Q
Approach-2 Return
on Equity
Approach-3 Return
on Asset
L. CSRD
.621***
(.000)
.809***
(.004)
.899***
(.000)
L. CEO duality
5.291***
(.007)
8.381***
(.000)
.591***
(.000)
L. Industry average
8.218***
(.000)
1.819***
(.000)
2.491***
(.000)
L. Institutions
− 3.192**
(0.031)
− 8.193**
(0.039)
1.392
(0.581)
L. Employee
1.394
(0.819)
1.394
(0.349)
− 1.309
(0.338)
L. Asset
− 1.439***
(0.003)
− 2.493*
(0.082)
− 1.945
(0.501)
L. Leverage
3.191***
(0.001)
− 8.299***
(0.002)
− 1.393***
(0.003)
COVID-19
− 3.459
(0.892)
− 1.394
(0.498)
1.359
(0.592)
AR 2
1.349
1.483
1.291
SUGAN ESTIMATION
1.682
1.492
1.953
Dummy Country
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dummy Year
Yes
Yes
Yes
Note: The parentheses indicate the P-value, where ***,**, and * illustrate the significance level of 1%, 5%, and 10%.
Table 3. Direct Influence on Corporate Reputation by CSRD
Constructs
Approach 4 Tobin’s Q
Approach 5 Return on
Equity
Approach 6 Return on
Assets
CSRD
1.893***
(0.008)
1.393***
(0.001)
1.482***
(0.006)
Asset
1.339***
(0.002)
1.911***
(0.002)
2.391***
(0.001)
Employee
5.291***
(0.003)
5.201***
(0.001)
5.219***
(0.002)
Industry average
1.329**
(0.021)
8.232***
(0.003)
8.329**
(0.021)
Institutions
− 3.191
(.657)
− 3.101
(0.321)
− 3.232
(0.321)
6.1 Practical Implications
According to the study, businesses should embrace
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and integrate it
into their daily activities, as it contributes to building a
company's reputation and enhancing overall
performance. The findings of this research hold
significance for investors, managers, and
governments. It is encouraged to allocate funds for
CSR projects and include them in company reports.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
749
Volume 19, 2023
Table 4. Direct Impact on Firm Performance by Corporate Reputation
Constructs
Tobin Q
Return on Equity
Return on Asset
CR
1.382***
(0.002)
1.393***
(0.006)
1.592***
(0.001)
Asset
− 1.001*
(0.081)
− 1.595***
(0.008)
− 1.320**
(0.031)
Employee
− 1.394**
(0.038)
1.493
(0.521)
1.393
(0.583)
CEO DUALITY
1.491***
(0.001)
9.329*
(0.081)
9.443***
(0.008)
LEVERAGE
− 1.430***
(0.004)
8.320
(0.312)
− 8.291***
(0.001)
INDUSTRY AVERAGE
1.301***
(0.001)
8.942***
(0.001)
1.432***
(0.002)
Institutions
1.304
(0.320)
− 8.329
(0.385)
− 1.304
(0.321)
COVID-19
1.910
(0.472)
1.403
(0.843)
1.458
(0.551)
Table 5. The Corporate Reputation’s mediating role in the Association between Firm Performance and CSRD
Constructs
APPROACH
7
CI [LL 2.5%; UL 97.5%]
APPROACH
8
CI [LL 2.5%; UL
97.5%]
APPROACH
9
CI [LL 2.5%; UL 97.5%]
CSRD→FR→DV
1.303**
(0.039)
0.21981 0.488281
1.349**
(0.029)
0.38329 0.84984
1.243**
(0.039)
0.343232 0.536372
CEO DUALITY
1.329**
(0.034)
− 0.293221 0.472801
1.340***
(0.005)
0.204091 0.639291
2.103**
(0.039)
1.35839 2.43943
Industry average
1.329**
(0.023)
0.129329 0.291091
1.304**
(0.041)
0.193881 0.293910
1.573**
(0.038)
0.193939 0.83949
Employee
1.392***
(0.003)
0.183022 0.827371
1.494**
(0.038)
0.294921 0.49212
1.942***
(0.002)
0.472819 0.898932
Asset
1.34943***
(0.001)
0.192811 0.329921
1.954**
(0.057)
0.019392 0.193931
1.303***
(0.001)
0.23773 0.193922
Institutions
− 1.320
(0.493)
− 0.1032091 0.390293
− 1.583
(0.392)
− 0.528811 0.82177
− 1.473
(0.391)
− 0.34838 0.584002
LEVERAGE
1.439
(0.832)
− 0.193320 0.399301
5.992
(0.302)
− .492981 4.210932
− 3.201
(0.392)
− 2.39493 5.49921
COVID-19
1.394
(0.487)
− 0.930929 0.843991
1.504
(0.842)
− 0.399291 0.294828
2.402
(0.938)
− 0.59430 0.103409
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
750
Volume 19, 2023
Table 6. Moderating Influence of Ownership Concentration and CEO (Chief Executive Officer) Integrity
Corporate
Reputation
Approach
10
Approach
11
Approach
12
Approach
13
Approach
14
Approach
15
Approach
16
Approach
17
Approach
18
Approach
19
L.CSRD-CEO-FR
1.393***
(0.001)
1.942***
(0.002)
1.438*
(0.089)
9.329***
(0.004)
− 1.549
(0.811)
1.329
(0.391)
8.498***
(0.008)
–
–
–
–
–
–
L.CSRD–OC–FR
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1.459***
(0.003)
1.342***
(0.001)
1.942
(0.953)
Moderator
variables L.
CEOintegrity1
329.439**
(0.032)
8458.458**
*
(0.005)
L. CEOintegrity2
81.439***
(0.001)
80.329***
(0.002)
L. CEOintegrity3
1.243
(0.843)
8.693**
(0.039)
L. OC
1.929
(0.330)
1.403
(0.582)
Moderator
variables L.
CEOint1*CSRD
41.393**
(0.021)
L. CEOint2*CSRD
1.853**
(0.031)
L.CEOint3*CSRD
1.494**
(0.035)
L. OC*CSRD
Control
1.395
(0.021)
L. Asset
1.950***
(0.001)
1.593***
(0.002)
1.949***
(0.009)
− 1.492
(0.439)
1.953***
(0.006)
1.499***
(0.003)
1.503
(0.853)
1.243
(0.248)
1.387**
(0.042)
1.964***
(0.001)
L. CEO duality
81.439***
(0.001)
80.581***
(0.002)
82.953***
(0.001)
882.459**
*
(0.004)
81.329***
(0.006)
8.491***
(0.001)
817.459**
(0.039)
1.423
0.391
1.320
0.812
1.945
0.328
L. Institutions
8.349
(0.590)
8.439
(0.572)
− 9.439
(0.834)
51.942
(0.827)
8.393
(0.692)
− 3.291
(0.847)
89.491
(0.845)
1.695
(.291)
1.485
(0.674)
1.496
(0.439)
L. Leverage
− 8.329**
(0.032)
− 8.438**
(0.038)
−1.382
(0.843)
−5.292*
(0.069)
−1.494
(0.829)
− 1.439
(0.853)
− 8.327**
(0.031)
1.493***
(0.001)
1.303
(0.492)
1.438***
(0.009)
COVID-19
4.209***
(0.003)
8.439***
(0.002)
5.239**
(0.018)
5.322
(0.450)
5.209**
(0.039)
5.292**
(0.019)
8.491
(0.659)
1.409
(0.590)
1.903***
(0.001)
1.428***
(0.004)
SARGN
1.383
1.582
1.683
1.382
1.853
1.883
1.857
1.493
1.201
1.483
AR 2
1.595
1.055
1.506
1.985
1.683
1.593
1.494
1.049
1.392
1.492
Dummy Country
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dummy Year
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
751
Volume 19, 2023
Table 7. Findings of GLS (Generalized Least Square)-(Estimation of Robustness)
Variables
Approach
10
Approach
11
Approach
12
Approach
13
Approach
14
Approach
15
Approach
16
Approach
17
Approach
18
Approach
19
1.942***
(0.002)
1.394***
(0.004)
1.489*
(0.081)
5.392***
(0.003)
-1.598
(0.372)
1.958
(0.857)
6.382***
(0.001)
1.437***
(0.006)
1.954***
(0.002)
1.493
(.438)
Moderator Variables
L.CEOIntegrity1
69.392**
(0.0452)
9462.92***
(0.009)
L.CEOIntegrity2
31.494***
(0.001)
40.498***
(0.002)
L.CEOIntegrity3
1.394*
(0.0736)
3.291**
(0.031)
L.OC
1.304***
(0.002)
3.291***
(0.008)
Moderator Variables
L.CEOint1*CSRD
21.409**
(0.049)
L.CEOint2*CSRD
1.943**
(0.023)
L.CEOint3*CSRD
1.372**
(0.021)
L.OC*CSRD
3.193***
(0.005)
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
752
Volume 19, 2023
Financial volatility or unfavorable events are
advised to actively engage in CSR activities to
minimize potential damage to their credibility.
Furthermore, managers can consider increasing their
involvement in CSR projects to enhance the
company's reputation and overall image, resulting in
improved performance. Detailed disclosure of CSR
information can significantly enhance a firm's
performance and reputation, leading to substantial
financial rewards from CSR initiatives.
Policymakers should take action to ensure the
successful implementation of CSR disclosures
(CSRD) to achieve the anticipated social benefits.
In situations where concerns regarding the
integrity of corporate executives arise, it is
recommended to appoint a supervisor or evaluator
nominated by the board to oversee corporate social
responsibility disclosure. This oversight serves as a
safeguard, especially when executives lack integrity.
The underlying assumption is that CEOs with
compromised moral character may engage in
fraudulent activities, which can undermine the
accuracy of reports on corporate social responsibility
and adversely affect the company's performance.
6.2Theoretical Implications
This study has significant implications for the
existing body of literature. Firstly, it contributes to
the literature by offering comprehensive analysis and
empirical evidence of the relationship between
corporate social responsibility disclosure (CSRD)
and corporate performance. The research suggests
that while CEO integrity modifies, corporate
reputation (CR) mediates the link between corporate
social responsibility disclosure and business
performance. These findings challenge previous
assumptions of a direct relationship and highlight the
complexity and depth of the association between
CSRD and firm performance. The study employs
robust statistical methods, extensive data, and
modern regression techniques to provide in-depth
evaluations. The conclusions drawn from this
research contribute more reliable findings than prior
studies that focused solely on the direct connection
between corporate social responsibility disclosure
and company performance.
Secondly, the results of this study demonstrate
that corporate reputation (CR) may operate as a
channel through which the effects of corporate social
responsibility disclosure influence organizational
performance. While previous research has projected
CR as a potential mediator in the relationship
between firm performance and corporate social
responsibility disclosure, empirical evidence
supporting the positive effects of corporate social
responsibility disclosure on organizational
performance via CR has been limited.
Thirdly, this research is one of the few studies
that suggest and provide evidence for the moderating
effects of CEO integrity and ownership
concentration on the effectiveness of CSRD.
Considering these moderating factors, the study
enhances our understanding of how corporate social
responsibility disclosure can impact company
performance.
Lastly, this research arranges the basis for
developing a measuring scale for CEO integrity.
Unlike prior investigations that relied on subjective
employee evaluations or personal biases when
assessing managers or CEOs, this research employs
objective metrics derived from the firm's financial
data to evaluate CEO integrity.
6.3 Theoretical Implications
This study has significant implications for the
existing body of literature. Firstly, it contributes to
the literature by offering comprehensive analysis and
empirical evidence of the relationship between
corporate social responsibility disclosure (CSRD)
and corporate performance. The research suggests
that while CEO integrity modifies, corporate
reputation (CR) mediates the link between corporate
social responsibility disclosure and business
performance. These findings challenge previous
assumptions of a direct relationship and highlight the
complexity and depth of the association between
CSRD and firm performance. The study employs
robust statistical methods, extensive data, and
modern regression techniques to provide in-depth
evaluations. The conclusions drawn from this
research contribute more reliable findings than prior
studies that focused solely on the direct connection
between corporate social responsibility disclosure
and company performance.
Secondly, the results of this study demonstrate
that corporate reputation (CR) may operate as a
channel through which the effects of corporate social
responsibility disclosure influence organizational
performance. While previous research has projected
CR as a potential mediator in the relationship
between firm performance and corporate social
responsibility disclosure, empirical evidence
supporting the positive effects of corporate social
responsibility disclosure on organizational
performance via CR has been limited.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
753
Volume 19, 2023
Thirdly, this research is one of the few studies
that suggest and provide evidence for the moderating
effects of CEO integrity and ownership
concentration on the effectiveness of CSRD.
Considering these moderating factors, the study
enhances our understanding of how corporate social
responsibility disclosure can impact company
performance.
Lastly, this research arranges the basis for
developing a measuring scale for CEO integrity.
Unlike prior investigations that relied on subjective
employee evaluations or personal biases when
assessing managers or CEOs, this research employs
objective metrics derived from the firm's financial
data to evaluate CEO integrity.
6.4 Limitations and Future Research
This research is subject to several limitations. One
limitation is the method used to measure chief
executive officer integrity, which may not have fully
captured all the diverse aspects of integrity.
Therefore, this study suggests improving the
assessment of chief executive officer integrity.
Further investigation into the moderating effect of
chief executive officer integrity is also recommended
to validate the present study's findings. Excluding
chief executive officer integrity from the research
approach could skew the results.
Another limitation is that the research focused
solely on publicly traded firms, and the findings may
differ if smaller businesses were included. Future
research could consider using a larger sample size
encompassing participants from multiple countries to
address this limitation. Furthermore, exploring other
aspects of organizational management, such as CEO
pay, corporate ownership, and family ownership,
may provide valuable insights into understanding the
moderating effect of family ownership. These areas
present promising opportunities for further research,
[23], [52], [104].
References:
[1] Mathews, M.R., Twenty-five years of social
and environmental accounting research: is
there a silver jubilee to celebrate?
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 1997. 10(4): p. 481-531.
[2] Xuezhou, W., et al., Analyzing the impact of
board vigilance on financial distress through
the intervention of leverage structure and
interaction of asset tangibility in the non-
financial sector of Pakistan. International
Journal of Financial Engineering, 2022.
9(02): p. 2150004.
[3] Buallay, A., et al., Corporate social
responsibility disclosure and firms'
performance in Mediterranean countries: a
stakeholders' perspective. EuroMed Journal
of Business, 2020. 15(3): p. 361-375.
[4] Buallay, A. and A. Hamdan, Guest editorial:
Sustainability reporting in different
institutional and regulatory environments.
Competitiveness Review: An International
Business Journal, 2023. 33(1): p. 1-6.
[5] Hąbek, P. and R. Wolniak, Assessing the
quality of corporate social responsibility
reports: the case of reporting practices in
selected European Union member states.
Quality & quantity, 2016. 50: p. 399-420.
[6] Chang, B.H., et al., The asymmetric effects of
oil price on sectoral Islamic stocks: new
evidence from quantile-on-quantile
regression approach. Resources Policy, 2020.
65: p. 101571.
[7] Noman, M., et al., Impact of cashless bank
payments on economic growth: Evidence
from G7 countries. Advances in Decision
Sciences, 2023. 27(1): p. 0_1-20.
[8] Jaworska, S., Change but no climate change:
Discourses of climate change in corporate
social responsibility reporting in the oil
industry. International Journal of Business
Communication, 2018. 55(2): p. 194-219.
[9] Al-Shammari, M.A., S.N. Banerjee, and A.A.
Rasheed, Corporate social responsibility and
firm performance: A theory of dual
responsibility. Management Decision, 2022.
60(6): p. 1513-1540.
[10] Gohar, R., et al., Oil prices and sectorial
stock indices of Pakistan: Empirical evidence
using bootstrap ARDL model. Advances in
Decision Sciences, 2022. 26(4): p. 1-27.
[11] Gohar, R., et al., Does US infectious disease
equity market volatility index predict G7
stock returns? Evidence beyond symmetry.
Annals of Financial Economics, 2023.
18(02): p. 2250028.
[12] Abernathy, J., et al., Literature review and
research opportunities on credibility of
corporate social responsibility reporting.
American Journal of Business, 2017. 32(1): p.
24-41.
[13] Benlemlih, M., Corporate social
responsibility and firm financing decisions: A
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
754
Volume 19, 2023
literature review. Journal of Multinational
Financial Management, 2017. 42: p. 1-10.
[14] Velte, P., Do CEO incentives and
characteristics influence corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and vice versa? A
literature review. Social Responsibility
Journal, 2019. 16(8): p. 1293-1323.
[15] Chang, B.H., et al., COVID-19, lockdown
measures and their impact on food and
healthcare prices: empirical evidence using a
dynamic ARDL model. Journal of Economic
Studies, 2022.
[16] Chang, B.H., et al., Exchange rate response
to economic policy uncertainty: evidence
beyond asymmetry. Humanities and Social
Sciences Communications, 2022. 9(1): p. 1-
14.
[17] Maydybura, A., et al., The asymmetric effect
of the extreme changes in the economic policy
uncertainty on the exchange rates: evidence
from emerging seven countries. Annals of
Financial Economics, 2023. 18(02): p.
2250031.
[18] Chijoke-Mgbame, A.M., et al., The role of
corporate governance on CSR disclosure and
firm performance in a voluntary environment.
Corporate Governance: The International
Journal of Business in Society, 2020. 20(2):
p. 294-306.
[19] Gohar, R., et al., Nexus between consumption,
income, and price changes: Asymmetric
Evidence from NARDL Model. ETIKONOMI,
2022. 21(2): p. 213-228.
[20] Wang, X., et al., The asymmetric effect of
income and price changes on the
consumption expenditures: evidence from G7
countries using nonlinear bounds testing
approach. Portuguese Economic Journal,
2022: p. 1-19.
[21] Nguyen, N.T.T., N.P. Nguyen, and TT Hoai,
Ethical leadership, corporate social
responsibility, firm reputation, and firm
performance: A serial mediation model.
Heliyon, 2021. 7(4).
[22] Chang, B.H., SKO Rajput, and NH. Ghumro,
Asymmetric impact of exchange rate changes
on the trade balance: does global financial
crisis matter? Annals of Financial
Economics, 2018. 13(04): p. 1850015.
[23] Peng, B., et al., Exchange rate and energy
demand in G7 countries: Fresh insights from
Quantile ARDL model. Energy Strategy
Reviews, 2022. 44: p. 100986.
[24] Shocker, AD and S.P. Sethi, An approach to
incorporating societal preferences in
developing corporate action strategies.
California management review, 1973. 15(4):
p. 97-105.
[25] Qalati, S.A., et al., Employee performance
under transformational leadership and
organizational citizenship behavior: A
mediated model. Heliyon, 2022. 8(11).
[26] Matten, D. and A. Crane, Corporate
citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical
conceptualization. Academy of Management
review, 2005. 30(1): p. 166-179.
[27] Popescu, C.R.G., Corporate social
responsibility, corporate governance and
business performance: Limits and challenges
imposed by the implementation of directive
2013/34/EU in Romania. Sustainability,
2019. 11(19): p. 5146.
[28] Tibiletti, V., et al., Does corporate
governance matter in corporate social
responsibility disclosure? Evidence from Italy
in the “era of sustainability”. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 2021. 28(2): p. 896-907.
[29] Chang, B.H., et al., Asymmetric effect of
extreme changes in the exchange rate
volatility on the US imports: Evidence from
multiple threshold nonlinear autoregressive
distributed lag model. Studies in economics
and finance, 2020. 37(2): p. 293-309.
[30] Blass, A., Y. Yafeh, and O. Yosha, Corporate
governance in an emerging market: The case
of Israel. Journal of Applied Corporate
Finance, 1998. 10(4): p. 79-89.
[31] López, MV, A. Garcia, and L. Rodriguez,
Sustainable development and corporate
performance: A study based on the Dow
Jones sustainability index. Journal of
business ethics, 2007. 75: p. 285-300.
[32] García-Sánchez, I.M. and J. Martínez-
Ferrero, Chief executive officer ability,
corporate social responsibility, and financial
performance: The moderating role of the
environment. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 2019. 28(4): p. 542-555.
[33] Dmytriyev, S.D., R.E. Freeman, and J.
Hörisch, The relationship between
stakeholder theory and corporate social
responsibility: Differences, similarities, and
implications for social issues in management.
Journal of Management Studies, 2021. 58(6):
p. 1441-1470.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
755
Volume 19, 2023
[34] Ali, W., et al., Revisiting the impacts of
globalization, renewable energy
consumption, and economic growth on
environmental quality in South Asia.
Advances in Decision Sciences, 2022. 26(3):
p. 1-23.
[35] Uche, E., BH. Chang, and R. Gohar,
Consumption optimization in G7 countries:
Evidence of heterogeneous asymmetry in
income and price differentials. Journal of
International Commerce, Economics and
Policy, 2022. 13(01): p. 2250002.
[36] Ullah, W., Evolving corporate governance
and firms performance: evidence from
Japanese firms. Economics of Governance,
2017. 18(1): p. 1-33.
[37] Salvi, A., A. Giakoumelou, and GS Bertinetti,
CSR in the bond market: Pricing stakeholders
and the moderating role of the institutional
context. Global Finance Journal, 2021. 50: p.
100522.
[38] Manzaneque-Lizano, M., E. Alfaro-Cortés,
and A.M. Priego de la Cruz, Stakeholders and
long-term sustainability of SMEs. Who really
matters in crisis contexts, and when.
Sustainability, 2019. 11(23): p. 6551.
[39] Claessens, S. and K. Tzioumis, Ownership
and financing structures of listed and large
non-listed corporations. Corporate
Governance: An International Review, 2006.
14(4): p. 266-276.
[40] Agyemang, O.S. and A. Ansong, Corporate
social responsibility and firm performance of
Ghanaian SMEs: Mediating role of access to
capital and firm reputation. Journal of Global
Responsibility, 2017. 8(1): p. 47-62.
[41] Pham, H.S.T. and H.T. Tran, CSR disclosure
and firm performance: The mediating role of
corporate reputation and moderating role of
CEO integrity. Journal of Business Research,
2020. 120: p. 127-136.
[42] Chang, B.H., et al., Dynamic analysis of the
relationship between stock prices and
macroeconomic variables: An empirical
study of Pakistan stock exchange. South
Asian Journal of Business Studies, 2019.
8(3): p. 229-245.
[43] Chang, B.H., SKO Rajput, and NA. Bhutto,
impact of exchange rate volatility on the US
exports: a new evidence from multiple
threshold nonlinear ARDL model. Journal of
international commerce, Economics and
Policy, 2019. 10(02): p. 1950009.
[44] Waldman, D.A., D.S. Siegel, and M. Javidan,
Components of CEO transformational
leadership and corporate social
responsibility. Journal of management
studies, 2006. 43(8): p. 1703-1725.
[45] Veríssimo, J.M.C. and T.M.C. Lacerda, Does
integrity matter for CSR practice in
organizations? The mediating role of
transformational leadership. Business Ethics:
A European Review, 2015. 24(1): p. 34-51.
[46] Hashmi, S.M., BH. Chang, and M. Shahbaz,
Asymmetric effect of exchange rate volatility
on India's cross-border trade: Evidence from
global financial crisis and multiple threshold
nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag
model. Australian Economic Papers, 2021.
60(1): p. 64-97.
[47] Syed, Q.R., W.S. Malik, and BH. Chang,
Volatility spillover effect of federal reserve’s
balance sheet on the financial and goods
markets of Indo-Pak region. Annals of
Financial Economics, 2019. 14(03): p.
1950015.
[48] Hashmi, S.M. and BH. Chang, Asymmetric
effect of macroeconomic variables on the
emerging stock indices: A quantile ARDL
approach. International Journal of Finance &
Economics, 2023. 28(1): p. 1006-1024.
[49] Hashmi, S.M., BH. Chang, and L. Rong,
Asymmetric effect of COVID-19 pandemic on
E7 stock indices: Evidence from quantile-on-
quantile regression approach. Research in
International Business and Finance, 2021. 58:
p. 101485.
[50] Rim, H. and M.A.T. Ferguson, Proactive
versus reactive CSR in a crisis: An
impression management perspective.
International Journal of Business
Communication, 2020. 57(4): p. 545-568.
[51] Chang, B.H., et al., Does gold act as a hedge
or a safe haven? Evidence from Pakistan.
The Pakistan Development Review, 2020: p.
69-80.
[52] Derindag, O.F., et al., Food prices response
to global and national factors: Evidence
beyond asymmetry. Cogent Economics &
Finance, 2023. 11(1): p. 2187128.
[53] Parmar, B.L., et al., Stakeholder theory: The
state of the art. Academy of Management
Annals, 2010. 4(1): p. 403-445.
[54] Suchman, M.C., Managing legitimacy:
Strategic and institutional approaches.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
756
Volume 19, 2023
Academy of management review, 1995.
20(3): p. 571-610.
[55] Platonova, E., et al., The impact of corporate
social responsibility disclosure on financial
performance: Evidence from the GCC Islamic
banking sector. Journal of Business Ethics,
2018. 151: p. 451-471.
[56] Fahad, P. and S.A. Busru, CSR disclosure
and firm performance: evidence from an
emerging market. Corporate Governance: The
International Journal of Business in Society,
2021. 21(4): p. 553-568.
[57] Hasan, I., S. Singh, and S. Kashiramka, Does
corporate social responsibility disclosure
impact firm performance? An industry-wise
analysis of Indian firms. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 2021: p. 1-
41.
[58] Deephouse, D.L., W. Newburry, and A.
Soleimani, The effects of institutional
development and national culture on cross-
national differences in corporate reputation.
Journal of World Business, 2016. 51(3): p.
463-473.
[59] Lange, D., P.M. Lee, and Y. Dai,
Organizational reputation: A review. Journal
of management, 2011. 37(1): p. 153-184.
[60] Fombrun, C.J., A world of reputation
research, analysis and thinking—building
corporate reputation through CSR initiatives:
evolving standards. Corporate reputation
review, 2005. 8: p. 7-12.
[61] Boyd, B.K., DD. Bergh, and D.J. Ketchen Jr,
Reconsidering the reputation—performance
relationship: A resource-based view. Journal
of management, 2010. 36(3): p. 588-609.
[62] Barney, J., Firm resources and sustained
competitive advantage. Journal of
management, 1991. 17(1): p. 99-120.
[63] Pohjola, M., The new economy in growth and
development. Oxford Review of Economic
Policy, 2002. 18(3): p. 380-396.
[64] Gohar, R., et al., Do the income and price
changes affect consumption in the emerging 7
countries? Empirical evidence using quantile
ARDL model. Annals of Financial
Economics, 2022. 17(04): p. 2250024.
[65] Gohar, R., et al., The economic policy
uncertainty extreme dynamics and its effect
on the exchange rate. Global Economy
Journal, 2022. 22(03): p. 2350006.
[66] Lee, J. and J. Jungbae Roh, Revisiting
corporate reputation and firm performance
link. Benchmarking: An International Journal,
2012. 19(4/5): p. 649-664.
[67] Zhu, Q., Y. Geng, and K.-h. Lai, Circular
economy practices among Chinese
manufacturers varying in environmental-
oriented supply chain cooperation and the
performance implications. Journal of
environmental management, 2010. 91(6): p.
1324-1331.
[68] Galbreath, J. and P. Shum, Do customer
satisfaction and reputation mediate the CSR–
FP link? Evidence from Australia. Australian
journal of management, 2012. 37(2): p. 211-
229.
[69] Saeidi, SP, et al., How does corporate social
responsibility contribute to firm financial
performance? The mediating role of
competitive advantage, reputation, and
customer satisfaction. Journal of business
research, 2015. 68(2): p. 341-350.
[70] Bauman, D.C., Leadership and the three
faces of integrity. The leadership quarterly,
2013. 24(3): p. 414-426.
[71] Palanski, M.E. and F.J. Yammarino, Integrity
and leadership:: clearing the conceptual
confusion. European Management Journal,
2007. 25(3): p. 171-184.
[72] Eisenbeiss, S.A., D. Van Knippenberg, and
C.M. Fahrbach, Doing well by doing good?
Analyzing the relationship between CEO
ethical leadership and firm performance.
Journal of Business Ethics, 2015. 128: p. 635-
651.
[73] Jensen, M.C. and WH Meckling, Theory of
the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs
and ownership structure. Journal of financial
economics, 1976. 3(4): p. 305-360.
[74] Akben-Selcuk, E., Corporate social
responsibility and financial performance: The
moderating role of ownership concentration
in Turkey. Sustainability, 2019. 11(13): p.
3643.
[75] Jensen, M.C. and R.S. Ruback, The market
for corporate control: The scientific evidence.
Journal of Financial economics, 1983. 11(1-
4): p. 5-50.
[76] Peng, C.-W. and M.-L. Yang, The effect of
corporate social performance on financial
performance: The moderating effect of
ownership concentration. Journal of business
ethics, 2014. 123: p. 171-182.
[77] Zhao, X. and A.J. Murrell, Revisiting the
corporate social performance
‐
financial
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
757
Volume 19, 2023
performance link: A replication of W addock
and G raves. Strategic Management Journal,
2016. 37(11): p. 2378-2388.
[78] Branco, M.C. and L.L. Rodrigues,
Communication of corporate social
responsibility by Portuguese banks: A
legitimacy theory perspective. Corporate
communications: An international journal,
2006. 11(3): p. 232-248.
[79] Buertey, S., Board gender diversity and
corporate social responsibility assurance:
The moderating effect of ownership
concentration. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 2021. 28(6): p. 1579-1590.
[80] Karim, S., NA. Manab, and R.B. Ismail,
Assessing the governance mechanisms,
corporate social responsibility and
performance: the moderating effect of board
independence. Global Business Review,
2020: p. 0972150920917773.
[81] Javeed, S.A. and L. Lefen, An analysis of
corporate social responsibility and firm
performance with moderating effects of CEO
power and ownership structure: A case study
of the manufacturing sector of Pakistan.
Sustainability, 2019. 11(1): p. 248.
[82] Hsu, F.-J. and S.-H. Chen, US quantitative
easing and firm’s default risk: The role of
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The
Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance,
2021. 80: p. 650-664.
[83] Rinawiyanti, E.D., X. Huang, and S. As-
Saber, Adopting management control systems
through CSR strategic integration and
investigating its impact on company
performance: evidence from Indonesia.
Corporate Governance: The international
journal of business in society, 2020. 21(3): p.
463-478.
[84] Feder, M. and B.E. Weißenberger, Towards a
holistic view of CSR-related management
control systems in German companies:
Determinants and corporate performance
effects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021.
294: p. 126084.
[85] Adrian, T. and H.S. Shin, Liquidity and
leverage. Journal of financial intermediation,
2010. 19(3): p. 418-437.
[86] Zhou, M., K. Li, and Z. Chen, Corporate
governance quality and financial leverage:
Evidence from China. International Review
of Financial Analysis, 2021. 73: p. 101652.
[87] Hsieh, L., et al., A multidimensional
perspective of SME internationalization
speed: The influence of entrepreneurial
characteristics. International Business
Review, 2019. 28(2): p. 268-283.
[88] Bari, M.W., et al., Soft issues during cross-
border mergers and acquisitions and industry
performance, China–Pakistan economic
corridor based view. Sage Open, 2019. 9(2):
p. 2158244019845180.
[89] Lu, J., et al., Modified Carroll’s pyramid of
corporate social responsibility to enhance
organizational performance of SMEs
industry. Journal of Cleaner Production,
2020. 271: p. 122456.
[90] Bear, S., N. Rahman, and C. Post, The impact
of board diversity and gender composition on
corporate social responsibility and firm
reputation. Journal of business ethics, 2010.
97: p. 207-221.
[91] Elmagrhi, M.H., et al., A study of
environmental policies and regulations,
governance structures, and environmental
performance: The role of female directors.
Business strategy and the environment, 2019.
28(1): p. 206-220.
[92] Cole, D.A. and S.E. Maxwell, Testing
mediational models with longitudinal data:
questions and tips in the use of structural
equation modeling. Journal of abnormal
psychology, 2003. 112(4): p. 558.
[93] Baron, R.M. and D.A. Kenny, The
moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of personality and social psychology,
1986. 51(6): p. 1173.
[94] Mansfield, E.R. and B.P. Helms, Detecting
multicollinearity. The American Statistician,
1982. 36(3a): p. 158-160.
[95] Semykina, A. and J.M. Wooldridge,
Estimation of dynamic panel data models
with sample selection. Journal of Applied
Econometrics, 2013. 28(1): p. 47-61.
[96] Roodman, D., xtabond2: Stata module to
extend xtabond dynamic panel data
estimator. 2020.
[97] Shrout, P.E. and N. Bolger, Mediation in
experimental and nonexperimental studies:
new procedures and recommendations.
Psychological methods, 2002. 7(4): p. 422.
[98] Yang, C.-L. and J.-H. Lai, Influence of cross-
listing on the relationship between financial
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
758
Volume 19, 2023
leverage and R&D investment: A sustainable
development strategy. Sustainability, 2021.
13(18): p. 10341.
[99] Javeed, S.A., et al., What is the role of the
board sustainable committee for corporate
social responsibility? The moderating effect
of gender diversity and ownership
concentration. Journal of Cleaner Production,
2022. 379: p. 134710.
[100] Chen, H.l., W.t. Hsu, and C.y. Chang, Family
ownership, institutional ownership, and
internationalization of SMEs. Journal of
Small Business Management, 2014. 52(4): p.
771-789.
[101] Malmendier, U. and G. Tate, CEO
overconfidence and corporate investment.
The journal of finance, 2005. 60(6): p. 2661-
2700.
[102] Croci, E., H. Gonenc, and N. Ozkan, CEO
compensation, family control, and
institutional investors in Continental Europe.
Journal of Banking & Finance, 2012. 36(12):
p. 3318-3335.
[103] Alareeni, B.A. and A. Hamdan, ESG impact
on performance of US S&P 500-listed firms.
Corporate Governance: The International
Journal of Business in Society, 2020. 20(7):
p. 1409-1428.
[104] Peng, M.W., Outside directors and firm
performance during institutional transitions.
Strategic management journal, 2004. 25(5): p.
453-471.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
759
Volume 19, 2023
Appendix
Variables
Proxies
Firm’s
Performance
ROA, Tobin's Q, and ROE calculations evaluate company performance, [12].
Firm reputation
The Firm Reputation of a company is determined by looking at the total reputation
score it earns from success in a given year, [34]. Each of the businesses is given a
score between 1 and 17, with one being the highest and 17 being the smallest,
according to Fortune's worldwide reputation rating methodology.
Industry
Performance
The sector is regulated to measure the sector's impact, comparable to earlier research
on company performance.
Corporate
Social
Responsibility
Disclosure
The Bloomberg ESG group's unique disclosure index evaluates CSR (Corporate
Social Responsibility) disclosure. This rating considers how well the business has
disclosed information about its ethical, environmental, and management obligations.
The disclosure score is derived to determine the degree of transparency of the
business and reporting on corporate social responsibility (CSR) problems by taking
these factors into account.
Institutions
Our research utilizes the World Economic Forum's worldwide competitive reports,
[45], to determine each nation's overall institution rating.
Chief
Executive
Officer
Integrity
In the present investigation, we use three substitution measures to assess the integrity
of CEOs. These parameters are chosen by considering a nation's audit and reporting
standards and the board's independence. Additionally, we look at the ratio of sales to
operational expenses in connection to the degree of board independence and the
caliber of auditing and reporting requirements in the nation to evaluate the integrity
of the CEO. According to, [67], another metric for evaluating chief executive officer
honesty is the contrast between net business income and chief executive officer
benefits.
CEO Duality
For CEO duality, a dummy variable is utilized, with one representing that the chief
executive officer is also the board chairperson and 0 representing the reverse, [42].
Ownership
Concentration
Ownership concentration is the proportion of an organization's stock held by its
biggest stakeholder.
Size
Determined through the overall quantity of assets and employees, [15].
Leverage
We computed the financial leverage by dividing debt by equity, [42].
Industry
influence
It is shown by the mean Return on Assets of all sectors for a certain year, as defined
by Le and O'Brien, [84].
C
The value of COVID-19 is 1 for the 2020-2021 data, whereas it is 0 for the other
observations.
Year
We could not include it in our framework because of certain possible inaccuracies.
Nevertheless, this may impact how a company operates and performs.
Country
It is a dummy variable.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
760
Volume 19, 2023
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
-ALMUATASIM MUSABAH SAIF AL
MUTAIRI, wrote the whole manuscript, collected
data, analysed data, and obtained the necessary
results. Moreover, this author also wrote the results
discussion part.
-SUZAIDA BTE. BAKAR, supervised the whole
project, proofread the contents of whole project and
corrected all the grammatical and sentence structure
issues as highlighted by the Editor and the
reviewers.
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.e
n_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.71
Almuatasim Musabah Saif Al Mutairi, Suzaida Bte. Bakar
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
761
Volume 19, 2023
