Political affiliation types and corporate social responsibility (CSR) commitment: evidence from Indonesia

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to examine the association between political affiliation types and corporate social responsibility (CSR) commitment for listed companies in Indonesia stock exchange (emerging economy) from 2015 to 2017. Design/methodology/approach The final sample of this research is 1,121 firm-year observations across industries, except the financial sector, because they are under different regulations. To estimate the association, ordinary least square regression is used. Also, the authors check our results using an alternative measure of political affiliations, additional control variables and the generalized method of moment model for endogeneity problems. Findings The result indicates that corporate political affiliations, particularly through military and industry-specialized people, have a significantly positive effect on CSR commitment. After testing for endogeneity problems, the findings remain similar. Research limitations/implications This study implies to the literature by providing empirical findings on how different types of political connections, particularly affiliation through board members with the specifically industry-specialized person and military, influence CSR commitments. Also, the authors show an exchange relationship between government and affiliated firms as the primary external motivation for performing CSR in Indonesia. When investors, creditors and policymakers comprehend the political incentives behind CSR performance, it can enable them to create better business valuations and effective CSR strategies in developing countries. However, this study is subject to several limitations. First, the authors do not examine the effect of a different regime with different types of power. Second, the qualitative aspect of the association between political affiliation and CSR is not explored yet. Originality/value The authors investigate the impact of several types of political affiliations on the nonfinancial outcome (CSR) in the context of an emerging country where business practices are heavily influenced by political connections and the military’s dominance.

Politically connected independent supervisory boards and corporate performance during COVID‐19: Evidence from Indonesia

“…The level of politically connected independent board of commissioners is around 15%–16% each year from 2018 to 2021. This value is consistent with previous research on political affiliation in Indonesia and remains within a reasonable range (Joni, Widjaja et al, 2021; Selin et al, 2022). The Pearson correlation test is shown in Tables 3 and 4 in pairs to test the correlations among the key variables.…”

“…Adjusted R 2 31.37% indicates that 31.37%. PC-ISB and CVD have an effect on ROA and the relationship Joni, Widjaja et al, 2021, Selin et al (2022), and Fu et al (2017.…”

Koneksi Politik dan Pengungkapan Corporate Social Responsibility: Tinjauan Literatur dari Berbagai Negara

“…Teori pertukaran sosial adalah suatu kerangka kerja yang digunakan untuk menjelaskan interaksi sosial sebagai pertukaran sumber daya yang saling menguntungkan (Selin et al, 2023). Berdasarkan teori ini, hubungan yang terjalin antara perusahaan dengan pemerintah merupakan kontrak imbal balik.…”

Auditors' Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Audits

“…These auditors exhibit a comprehensive understanding of the broader societal and environmental impacts of corporate activities, recognizing CSR as integral to sustainable business practices. For instance, Smith (2018) emphasizes the importance of auditors' awareness of CSR issues, stating, "Auditors need to understand the broader societal context in which companies operate to effectively evaluate CSR disclosures." These auditors are well-versed in relevant CSR frameworks, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards or the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and recognize the significance of integrating CSR considerations into audit planning and execution (IFAC, 2013).…”