Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

The Impact of Risk Disclosure on the Corporate Social Responsibility of Jordanian Banks

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Submitted:

14 February 2023

Posted:

21 February 2023

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact on corporate social responsibility when Jordanian banks disclose risks. The main objective of the study is to investigate the relationship between risk disclosure and corporate social responsibility in the banking sector in Jordan. To achieve this goal, data was collected from 23 Jordanian banks listed on the Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) over a period of 10 years, from 2010 to 2019. The data was analyzed using a regression model with four independent variables that represent the risk disclosure; corporate social responsibility was used as the dependent variable. The study also built in controls for the age of each bank, its size, leverage, and ROE, to ensure that the results were not affected by these factors. The results of the study show that all independent variables are positively correlated with corporate social responsibility. This suggests that disclosing risks is an effective way to improve corporate social responsibility in the banking industry. The findings of this study have important practical implications for bank managers, future researchers, and policymakers. The study also highlights the importance of future research in this field in order to understand the relationship between risk disclosure and corporate social responsibility in other countries and within other sectors of industry.
Keywords: 
Subject: 
Business, Economics and Management  -   Economics

Introduction

A company’s Annual Report and its financial disclosure is of critical importance for both a company and its investors. It enables investors to make informed decisions about the financial position of a company based on full and accurate financial information. In the absence of an Annual Report, investors would have incomplete information upon which to base their investment decisions, therefore leaving them more vulnerable to make risky or poor investment decisions. A company’s reputation can also be affected as a result of the transparency of its financial reporting (Shbail, Obeid, Salleh, Mohd Nor, & Alshurafat, 2023; Taha, Alshurafat, Shbail, & Obeid, 2023; Ting, 2021; Wichianrak, Wong, Khan, Siriwardhane, & Dellaportas, 2021; Yu & Bondi, 2019; Zaman, Hudaib, & Haniffa, 2011; Zubeltzu-Jaka, Álvarez-Etxeberria, & Ortas, 2020). A company is able to build trust with its investors and stakeholders by ensuring that it provides accurate and comprehensive financial information; this is vital if a company wishes to have long-term success as it encourages investment and support. (Roberts, 1992; Saadullah & Elsayed, 2020; Santana, Morales-Sánchez, & Pasamar, 2020; Sbaih, Alshurafat, Al-Hazaima, & Alhusban, 2023; Shbail, Obeid, Alshurafat, et al., 2023).
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is where a company takes responsibility for any acts or decisions that it takes that result in any social or environmental impact. CSR involves a company taking responsibility for its actions and making improvements that benefit society as a whole (Padilla-Lozano & Collazzo, 2021). CSR has become of increased importance as both consumers and investors are now more socially and environmentally responsible (Mansour, Alzyoud, Abuzaid, & Alshurafat, 2023; Odat, Alshurafat, & Masadeh, 2021; Pham & Tran, 2020; Pistoni, Songini, & Bavagnoli, 2018; Pucheta-Martínez & Gallego-Álvarez, 2019; Qa’dan & Suwaidan, 2019).
Importantly, CSR can help to improve a company’s reputation and enable it to build trust with its consumers and stakeholders. When a company takes action to address any social or environmental issues, it can give the positive impression that it cares as much about these issues as its profit margins. (Haloush, Alshurafat, & Alhusban, 2021; Jaradat, Al-Dmour, Alshurafat, Al-Hazaima, & Al Shbail, 2022; Nekhili, Nagati, Chtioui, & Rebolledo, 2017; Omoteso & Obalola, 2014). This positive impression can result in the company benefitting from an increase in both customer loyalty and investor support, thereby resulting in an increase in profits and financial performance. This paper intends to examine the impact of risk disclosure on corporate social responsibility within the banking sector (Naseem, Rehman, Ikram, & Malik, 2017).
The structure of this paper is divided into several sections. The literature relating to the subject matter of the paper is analyzed in Section 2. The methodologies used in the research are described in Section 3. The fourth section presents the data analysis and findings. The significance of the results and their relation to existing literature are discussed in Section 5. Finally, the conclusion of the study is provided in Section 6.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Financial Disclosure

The financial information disclosed in the Annual Report enables investors to compare the performance of different companies in the same industry. This facilitates investors being able to identify companies that are performing well and those that may be experiencing difficulties (Sbaih et al., 2023; Taha et al., 2023). This information can also help to highlight trends and patterns within the industry that can assist investors with making informed decisions regarding where to invest their money (Peterson & Jeong, 2010; Sardo & Serrasqueiro, 2017). In addition, financial disclosure in the Annual Report is important with regard to regulation. It helps regulators to ensure that companies are adhering to correct accounting practices and that any financial information they are providing is accurate and reliable. Regulators also use this information to identify potential fraud or other financial misconduct (Ananzeh, Alshurafat, Bugshan, & Hussainey, 2022; Ananzeh, Alshurafat, & Hussainey, 2021; Dahmash, Al Salamat, Masadeh, & Alshurafat, 2021; Peterson & Jeong, 2010; Sardo & Serrasqueiro, 2017).
Finally, financial disclosure in the Annual Report is important for the purpose of company management. It provides managers with clarity regarding a company’s financial performance and allows them to identify areas where improvements can be made (H. Alshurafat, Beattie, Jones, & Sands, 2020; H. Alshurafat, Shbail, et al., 2023; H. A. Alshurafat, 2019; Matar & Eneizan, 2018; Mattera, Ruiz-Morales, Gava, & Soto, 2021). This information can thereafter be used in order to make strategic decisions about the company’s future direction and help ensure its long-term success (Maharani & Faisal, 2019).
In conclusion, financial disclosure in the Annual Report is crucial for both companies and investors (Hazaima, Low, & Allen, 2017; Lantz & Sahut, 2005). It provides investors with the information they need to make informed decisions, allows for transparency and builds trust. It also enables investors to compare the performance of different companies and helps regulators to ensure proper accounting practices, preventing fraud and misconduct (H. Alshurafat, Ananzeh, Al-Hazaima, & Al Shbail, 2022; H. Alshurafat, Beattie, Jones, & Sands, 2019a, 2019b; Duque-Grisales, Aguilera-Caracuel, Guerrero-Villegas, & García-Sánchez, 2020; El Khoury, Nasrallah, & Alareeni, 2021; Galant & Cadez, 2017). Financial disclosure also helps the management of the company identify areas for improvement and assists them to make strategic decisions (Alam, Zhang, & Al Hazaima, 2018; H. Alshurafat, Al-Msiedeen, et al., 2023; Castro, Ramírez, & Escobar, 2021; Crisóstomo, de Souza Freire, & De Vasconcellos, 2011; Desoky, 2020).

CSR

CSR also contributes to attracting and retaining employees. Many employees consider more than just salary when looking at a prospective job opportunity. (H. Alshurafat, Al-Mawali, & Al Shbail, 2022; H. Alshurafat, Al Shbail, & Mansour, 2021; H. Alshurafat, Al Shbail, Masadeh, Dahmash, & Al-Msiedeen, 2021; Ting, 2021; Wichianrak et al., 2021; Yu & Bondi, 2019; Zubeltzu-Jaka et al., 2020). Many are equally interested in working for an organization with whom they share common values and who are having a positive impact on the world. By prioritizing its commitment to CSR, a company is likely to attract and retain employees who are interested in making a difference in the world. (Stahl, Brewster, Collings, & Hajro, 2020). CSR can also help to reduce an organization’s impact on the environment, as well as improve its energy efficiency. Reducing its energy usage will lead to an organization saving money. It can also reduce the likelihood of a company receiving onerous regulatory fines and penalties as well as help to protect the environment and promote sustainable development (Santana et al., 2020; Sharabati, 2018).
CSR also helps to address issues within society and contributes to more sustainable development, therefore benefitting an organization and creating a more stable and financially successful society, providing additional opportunities for companies to do business (Alhusban et al., 2020; H. Alshurafat, 2021; H. Alshurafat, Al Shbail, & Almuiet, 2021; Pucheta-Martínez & Gallego-Álvarez, 2019; Qa’dan & Suwaidan, 2019; Roberts, 1992). CSR also helps to mitigate against potential risks and future business challenges that relate to issues within society. Many organizations undertake CSR activities, for example, by carrying out voluntary work, donating money to charity and investing in community development programs. These actions can all have a positive impact and contribute to creating stronger and more resilient communities (Al-Hazaima, Al Shbail, Alshurafat, Ananzeh, & Al Shbeil, 2022; Al Shbeil, Alshurafat, Taha, Shbail, & Obeid, 2023; Alaqrabawi & Alshurafat, 2021; Nekhili et al., 2017; Padilla-Lozano & Collazzo, 2021; Pistoni et al., 2018; Probohudono, Tower, & Rusmin, 2013).
In conclusion, CSR has become increasingly important in a world where consumers and investors have become more socially and environmentally responsible (M. O. Al Shbail, Alshurafat, Ananzeh, & Al-Msiedeen, 2021; M. O. Al Shbail, Alshurafat, Ananzeh, & Bani-Khalid, 2022; M. O. Al Shbail, Esra’a, Alshurafat, Ananzeh, & Al Kurdi, 2021; Malik et al., 2021; Matuszak, Różańska, & Macuda, 2019; Mulyadi & Anwar, 2012; Naseem et al., 2017). It can help to improve an organization’s reputation, build trust with its consumers and other stakeholders, attract and retain employees, reduce any environmental impact, address issues within society, contribute to sustainable development, benefit the community and society in general, and mitigate potential business risks and challenges (Abu Suileek & Alshurafat, 2023; M. Al Shbail, 2022; Ibrahim & Hanefah, 2016; Khan, Muttakin, & Siddiqui, 2013; Kramer, 2020; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010; Liu & Zhang, 2017).

Risks within the Banking Sector

Banks are exposed to specific risks that can have a substantial impact on their financial performance and stability (Probohudono et al., 2013; Ryu, 2018). These risks can be classified as credit risk and market risk.
Credit risk is where there is a risk of loss as a consequence of a borrower’s failure to make repayments towards a loan or other financial obligation. Banks are exposed to credit risk through loans, leases, and other financial products they provide, specifically: mortgages, personal loans, credit card loans, and business loans. Banks must be prudent at balancing credit risk by carefully assessing whether a borrower is creditworthy, setting sensible and affordable credit limits for borrowers, and regularly checking the situation regarding borrowers with personal or business loans for any signs that the debt is becoming unmanageable. Banks use various methods to measure credit risks, including: credit scoring, credit rating, and credit monitoring (Probohudono et al., 2013).
Market risk is the risk of loss that results from variations in the value of a bank’s investments, including; stocks, bonds, and derivatives. A bank’s trading activities can also expose it to market risk. These activities can include the buying and selling of securities and currencies (Hang & Huy, 2021). Banks must ensure that they effectively manage market risk by monitoring their investment portfolios and making any changes that are necessary to avoid, or minimize any adverse impacts from market fluctuations. Banks use various methods to measure market risk, including Value at Risk (VaR), stress testing and scenario analysis (Hang & Huy, 2021; Probohudono et al., 2013).
Operational risk is a further risk that banks are exposed to. This is the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, systems, human errors, or external events. Operational risk includes any risk as a result of fraud, cyber-attacks, natural disasters, and issues of regulatory compliance. Banks must manage operational risk by implementing strong internal controls, disaster recovery plans, and regular audits that are effective in identifying and addressing any potential vulnerabilities in the organization (Dai, Lu, & Qi, 2019; Hang & Huy, 2021; Probohudono et al., 2013).
Interest rate risk is an additional risk that banks are exposed to. This is the risk that a bank’s financial performance may be adversely affected by changes in national and international interest rates. Banks are exposed to interest rate risk because the interest rate applicable to their assets (loans) and liabilities (deposits) is often different. Therefore, when interest rates rise, the value of a bank’s assets may decrease, while the value of its liabilities may increase. Banks must manage interest rate risk by paying close attention to interest rate trends, adjusting their lending and investment strategies, and balancing their exposure to interest rate fluctuations (Dai et al., 2019; Hang & Huy, 2021).
Liquidity risk is a further risk that banks are exposed to. This is the risk that a bank may not be able to meet its financial obligations when they fall due. This situation can occur if a bank does not have sufficient cash (or other liquid assets) available to fulfill its short-term financial obligations. Banks must manage liquidity risk by ensuring that they have sufficient levels of cash (and other liquid assets), monitoring their sources of funding, regularly reviewing their use of funding, and ensuring that they implement effective contingency plans (Hang & Huy, 2021; Ryu, 2018).
In conclusion, banks are exposed to various types of risk that can have a significant impact on their financial performance and stability. These risks include: credit risk, market risk, operational risk, interest rate risk, and liquidity risk. It is important for banks to carefully manage these risks by evaluating and monitoring them, implementing strong internal controls and contingency plans, and adjusting their strategies to minimize the impact of the risks on their financial performance whenever possible (Dai et al., 2019; Hang & Huy, 2021; Ryu, 2018). Based on the above arguments, the following hypotheses have been formulated:
H1. There is a positive relationship between the disclosure of credit risk and corporate social responsibility.
H2. There is a positive relationship between the disclosure of interest rate risk and corporate social responsibility.
H3. There is a positive relationship between the disclosure of liquidity risk and corporate social responsibility.
H4. There is a positive relationship between the disclosure of operational risk and corporate social responsibility.

Stakeholders’ Theory

The stakeholders theory is a principle found in business ethics and corporate governance that proposes that a company has a responsibility to, not only its shareholders, but to all of its stakeholders, including customers, employees, suppliers, and the wider community (Roberts, 1992; Stahl et al., 2020). According to this theory, a company’s success is not confined to just its financial performance, but also by its overall impact on all of its stakeholders. This means that a company should consider the needs and interests of all of its stakeholders when making decisions and not merely focus on maximizing profits for its shareholders. This approach is supported by the idea that companies are not just economic entities but also social and political ones. On this basis, organizations should consider the social and environmental impact of any decision-making (Peltier-Rivest & Pacini, 2019; Roberts, 1992).
The stakeholders theory promotes a sustainable and responsible approach to business. By considering the requirements and wishes of all its stakeholders, an organization can ensure that it is not merely focused on its shareholders receiving short-term financial gain, but is also positively and successfully contributing to a positive impact on society and the environment. This approach can result in long-term success for the organization and its stakeholders (Clarkson, 2016; Mi, Chang, Lin, & Chang, 2018). In support of this theory, Barghathi, Collison, and Crawford (2017) argue that, by considering the needs of all stakeholders, an organization can create a stable and supportive environment for its operations that can result in increased profits.
By adopting the stakeholders theory, an organization can help to improve its reputation and build trust with its stakeholders. By demonstrating that it is committed to addressing the needs and interests of all its stakeholders, it can create a positive reputation, which can result in attracting additional customers, employees, and investors to the organization. In the long-term, this can result in an increase in profits and increased success (Al-Hazaima, Low, & Sharma, 2021; Barghathi, 2019).

Research Methodology

The objective of this paper is to investigate the relationship between risk disclosure and corporate social responsibility within Jordanian banks. To achieve this objective, a sample of 23 Jordanian banks were selected between 2010 and 2019. To ensure the accuracy and dependability of the research findings, strict standards were applied to the sample selection. This included the requirement that the annual reports produced by each bank be publicly available on the Amman Stock Exchange, and that the banks had been consistently traded on the exchange for at least 10 years. Based upon these criteria, a sample of 23 Jordanian banks listed on the Amman Stock Exchange were chosen as the subjects of the study.

Variables Measurement

This paper focuses on analyzing corporate social responsibility as the dependent variable. There are various methods that can be adopted in order to evaluate corporate social responsibility, such as using content analysis, surveys, reputation indices, and one-dimensional indicators (H. Alshurafat, Ananzeh, et al., 2022). In carrying out the investigation, corporate social responsibility was assessed using three dimensions: environmental, economic, and social; it was evaluated by using 22 items. A dichotomous method was used whereby a sustainable item was marked as 1 if it was disclosed and 0 if it was not. To provide clarity, a corporate social responsibility index for each bank is calculated by a specific method.
C S R = ∑ j = 1 d j n
Where: dj=1 if item j is disclosed, or 0 if not, and n is the maximum number of items, being 22 items.

Independent Variables:

This research uses a dichotomous method to measure risk disclosure, where each item was marked as 1 if it was disclosed, and 0 if it was not. Four types of risk were evaluated in this study:
  • Credit risk: the possibility that a borrower will default on their loan or other credit obligations.
  • Interest rate risk: the risk that a bank’s earnings and capital will be affected by changes in interest rates.
  • Liquidity risk: the risk that a bank will not be able to fulfill its financial obligations when they fall due.
  • Operational risk: the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, systems, human errors, or external events. To provide clarity, a risk disclosure index for each bank is calculated by a specific method.
A dichotomous method was used where each item was marked as 1 if it was disclosed and 0 if it was not. To clarify, each bank’s risk disclosure index was calculated in the following way:
C R = ∑ j = 1 d j n
I R R = ∑ j = 1 d j n
L R = ∑ j = 1 d j n
O R = ∑ j = 1 d j n
Where: dj=1 if item j is disclosed, or 0 if not, and n is the maximum number of items: 6 for CR, 4 for IRR, 8 for LR, and 5 for OR.
Control Variables: The investigation studied four control variables in order to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variables. The first control variable is the size of the bank (BSIZE), which was calculated by considering the logarithm of each bank’s total asset value. The second variable was the age of the bank (BAGE), calculated from the date that each bank was established, until the date of the study. Leverage was measured as the ratio of total debt to total assets. The last variable was the return on equity (ROE), determined by dividing net income by total equity (Abu Suileek & Alshurafat, 2023; Ananzeh et al., 2022; Dahmash et al., 2021).

Regression Model

To investigate the hypotheses of this study, the regression model that was used was:
Sustainability𝑖𝑡 = 𝛼 + 𝛽1 CR𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽2 IRR𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽3 LR𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽4 OR𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽5𝐵𝑨𝑮𝑬𝑖𝑡+ 𝛽6𝑩𝑺𝑰𝒁𝑬𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽7𝑳𝑬𝑽𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽8ROE 𝑖𝑡 + ɛ.
Where:
CR is the credit risk, IRR stands for the interest rate risk, LR is liquidity, OR is the operational risk, BAGE is the total number of years since each bank began operating, BSIZE is the logarithm of each bank’s asset value, LEV is total debt to total asset value, and ROE is net income to total equity.

Data Analysis and Empirical Results

Descriptive Statistics and CSR Disclosure Level

Table 1 illustrates the statistics obtained further to the variables that were included in the study. The average level of corporate social responsibility disclosure among Jordanian banks is found to be low, at 0.22. This result indicates that there is a need to improve corporate social responsibility among the Jordanian banks that were the subject of this research. Additionally, the results reveal that credit risk is the most commonly reported area of risk, with a value of 0.25, while liquidity risk was the least reported, with a value of 0.15. This illustrates that, on average, banks are not dedicating adequate time and focus to matters relating to liquidity risk.
Table 1 displays significant variations in the control variables. The descriptive statistics reveal that the average size of each bank is 14.329, the return on equity has an average value of 0.662, the leverage is 37.2, and the average age of the banks are 26.15.

Multicollinearity analysis

Table 2 illustrates the use of the variance inflation factor (VIF) method to evaluate the presence of multicollinearity between the independent variables. With reference to Dahmash et al. (2021), when the VIF value is less than 10, multicollinearity is not an issue. The results presented in Table 2 demonstrate that all values adhere to this principle, suggesting that there is no multicollinearity among the independent variables.

Empirical Analysis

In order to verify our hypotheses, we carried out a simple linear regression analysis. The results from this analysis are presented below. The first hypothesis suggests a link between credit risk and corporate social responsibility within Jordanian banks. The results of the simple linear regression analysis carried out to test this hypothesis can be found in Table 3.
Table 3 shows that, within the Jordanian banks studied, there is a strong positive correlation between credit risk and corporate social responsibility, as indicated by a correlation coefficient of 0.745 and a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.631. This means that, it is due to credit risk that 63.1% of the changes in corporate social responsibility have taken place within the Jordanian banks that were the subject of this research. The adjusted coefficient of determination (Adj.R2) is 0.629, which is only slightly lower than the coefficient of determination; this indicates that the model is effective in predicting the values of the dependent variable. In addition, the table shows that the model is statistically significant, with an F-value of 284.350 and a p-value of 0.000 (α ≤ 0.05), which supports the acceptance of the first hypothesis.
The second hypothesis suggests that there is a correlation between interest rate risk and corporate social responsibility within Jordanian banks. Table 4 shows the results of a simple linear regression examination of this hypothesis.
Table 4 illustrates that, within the Jordanian banks studied in this research, there is a strong positive correlation between interest rate risk and corporate social responsibility; this can be seen by a correlation coefficient of 0.738 and a coefficient of determination of 0.614. This means that, it is due to the interest rate risk variable, that 61.4% of changes in corporate social responsibility have taken place within the banks. The adjusted coefficient of determination (Adj.R2) is 0.611, which is fractionally lower than the coefficient of determination (a difference of 0.003); this indicates that the model’s variables can predict the values of the dependent variable. In addition, the table demonstrates the significance of the model, with an F-value of 198.684 and a p-value of 0.000 (α ≤ 0.05); this supports the acceptance of the second hypothesis.
The third hypothesis suggests a link between liquidity risk and corporate social responsibility within Jordanian banks. Table 5 displays the results of a simple linear regression analysis examining this hypothesis.
Table 5 shows a strong positive correlation between liquidity risk and corporate social responsibility within the banks; this is indicated by a correlation coefficient of 0.759 and a coefficient of determination of 0.662, meaning that liquidity risk explains 66.2% of the changes in corporate social responsibility that have taken place within the banks. The adjusted coefficient of determination (Adj.R2) is 0.659, which is fractionally lower than the coefficient of determination (a difference of 0.003); this indicates that the model variables can predict the values of the dependent variable. In addition, the table illustrates the importance of the model, with an F-value of 221.031 and a p-value of 0.000 (α ≤ 0.05), supporting the acceptance of the third hypothesis.
The fourth hypothesis predicts a relationship between operational risk and corporate social responsibility within the banks. Table 6 shows the results of a simple linear regression analysis examining this hypothesis.
Table 6 illustrates a strong positive correlation between operational risk and corporate social responsibility within the Jordanian banks. This can be seen by a correlation coefficient of 0.698, and a coefficient of determination of 0.578, meaning that operational risk explains 57.8% of the changes in corporate social responsibility that has taken place within the banks. The adjusted coefficient of determination (Adj.R2) is 0.576, which is slightly lower than the coefficient of determination (a difference of 0.002), demonstrating the ability of the model variables to predict the values of the dependent variable. in addition, the table demonstrates the significance of the model, with an F value of 221.031 and a p-value of 0.000 (α ≤ 0.05), supporting the acceptance of the fourth hypothesis.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study aimed to investigate the correlation between risk disclosure and corporate social responsibility within Jordanian banks. This objective was achieved by collecting data from 23 banks that were listed on the Amman Stock Exchange between 2010 and 2019 and analyzing the data using a regression model and content analysis. The research found that there is a strong and positive correlation between risk disclosure and corporate social responsibility within the Jordanian banks that were the subjects of this study. This conclusion is consistent with previous studies carried out, including, Probohudono et al. (2013); Roberts (1992); and Dai et al. (2019), that suggested that risk disclosure enhanced corporate social responsibility and encompassed all internal and external factors that impacted upon the operations carried out by banks. Based on these findings, the study recommends that banks adopt an increased focus on risk disclosure factors that relate to corporate social responsibility as well as increase the role of risk disclosure within the banking industry, thus ensuring that it is more comprehensive.

References

  1. Abu Suileek, H.; Alshurafat, H. (2023). The determinants of environmental accounting disclosure: a review of the literature. Paper presented at the International Conference on Business and Technology. [CrossRef]
  2. Al-Hazaima, H.; Al Shbail, M.O.; Alshurafat, H.; Ananzeh, H.; Al Shbeil, S.O. Dataset for integration of sustainability education into the accounting curricula of tertiary education institutions in Jordan. Data in Brief 2022, 42, 108224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Al-Hazaima, H.; Low, M.; Sharma, U. Perceptions of salient stakeholders on the integration of sustainability education into the accounting curriculum: a Jordanian study. Meditari Accountancy Research 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Al Shbail, M. Factors influencing cloud AIS adoption: Evidence from Jordan. Int. J. of Business Excellence. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Al Shbail, M.O.; Alshurafat, H.; Ananzeh, H.; Al-Msiedeen, J.M. Dataset of Factors affecting online cheating by accounting students: The relevance of social factors and the fraud triangle model factors. Data in Brief 2021, 107732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Al Shbail, M.O.; Alshurafat, H.; Ananzeh, H.; Bani-Khalid, T.O. The moderating effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between human capital dimensions and internal audit effectiveness. Cogent Business & Management 2022, 9(1), 2115731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Al Shbail, M.O.; Esra’a, B.; Alshurafat, H.; Ananzeh, H.; Al Kurdi, B.H. Factors affecting online cheating by accounting students: the relevance of social factors and the fraud triangle model factors. Academy of Strategic Management Journal 2021, 20, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Al Shbeil, S.; Alshurafat, H.; Taha, N.; Shbail, A.; Obeid, M. (2023). What Do We Know About Forensic Accounting? A Literature Review. Paper presented at the European, Asian, Middle Eastern, North African Conference on Management & Information Systems. [CrossRef]
  9. Alam, R.; Zhang, Z.; Al Hazaima, H. (2018). Impact of corporate social responsibility disclosures on financial performance.
  10. Alaqrabawi, M.; Alshurafat, H. (2021). Alignment between accounting graduates’ competencies and workplace needs: Neo-correspondence perspective and meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on New Ideas in Management, Economics and Accounting, Budapest, Hungary.
  11. Alhusban, A.A. A.; Haloush, H.A.; Alshurafat, H.; Al-Msiedeen, J.M.; Massadeh, A.A. M.; Alhmoud, R.J. The regulatory structure and governance of forensic accountancy in the emerging market: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Governance and Regulation/Volume 2020, 9(4), 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Alshurafat, H. (2021). Forensic accounting as a profession in Australia? A sociological perspective. Meditari Accountancy Research. [CrossRef]
  13. Alshurafat, H.; Al-Mawali, H.; Al Shbail, M.O. (2022). The influence of technostress on the intention to use blockchain technology: the perspectives of Jordanian auditors. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, (ahead-of-print). [CrossRef]
  14. Alshurafat, H.; Al-Msiedeen, J.M.; Shbail, A.; Obeid, M.; Ananzeh, H.; Alshbiel, S.; Jaradat, Z. (2023). Forensic Accounting Education Within the Australian Universities. Paper presented at the International Conference on Business and Technology. [CrossRef]
  15. Alshurafat, H.; Al Shbail, M.; Almuiet, M. (2021). Factors Affecting the Intention to Adopt IT Forensic Accounting Tools to Detect Financial Cybercrimes. International Journal of Business Excellence. [CrossRef]
  16. Alshurafat, H.; Al Shbail, M.O.; Mansour, E. (2021). Strengths and weaknesses of forensic accounting: an implication on the socio-economic development. Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development. [CrossRef]
  17. Alshurafat, H.; Al Shbail, M.O.; Masadeh, W.M.; Dahmash, F.; Al-Msiedeen, J.M. Factors affecting online accounting education during the COVID-19 pandemic: an integrated perspective of social capital theory, the theory of reasoned action and the technology acceptance model. Education and Information Technologies, 2021, 26, 6995–7013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Alshurafat, H.; Ananzeh, H.; Al-Hazaima, H.; Al Shbail, M.O. (2022). Do different dimensions of corporate social responsibility disclosure have different economic consequence: multi-approaches for profitability examination. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, (ahead-of-print). [CrossRef]
  19. Alshurafat, H.; Beattie, C.; Jones, G.; Sands, J. (2019a). The Domain of Forensic Accounting Services: Evidence from Australia. Paper presented at the 19th Asian Academic Accounting Association (Four A) Annual Conference.
  20. Alshurafat, H.; Beattie, C.; Jones, G.; Sands, J. Forensic accounting core and interdisciplinary curricula components in Australian universities: Analysis of websites. Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting 2019, 11(2), 353–365. [Google Scholar]
  21. Alshurafat, H.; Beattie, C.; Jones, G.; Sands, J. Perceptions of the usefulness of various teaching methods in forensic accounting education. Accounting Education 2020, 29(2), 177–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Alshurafat, H.; Shbail, A.; Obeid, M.; Mansour, E.; Alzoubi, A.B.; Alrawabdeh, W. (2023). An Instructional Project: Compliance with IASB Conceptual Framework by the Listed Companies. Paper presented at the International Conference on Business and Technology. [CrossRef]
  23. Alshurafat, H.A. (2019). Forensic accounting curricula and pedagogies in Australian universities: analysis of academic and practitioner perspectives. University of Southern Queensland. [CrossRef]
  24. Ananzeh, H.; Alshurafat, H.; Bugshan, A.; Hussainey, K. (2022). The impact of corporate governance on forward-looking CSR disclosure. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting. [CrossRef]
  25. Ananzeh, H.; Alshurafat, H.; Hussainey, K. (2021). Do firm characteristics and ownership structure affect corporate philanthropic contributions in Jordan? Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, forthcoming. [CrossRef]
  26. Barghathi, Y. (2019). Financial reporting quality and earnings management in Libyan banks: stakeholders’ perceptions. African Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 2019, 6(3), 177–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Barghathi, Y.; Collison, D.; Crawford, L. Earnings management in Libyan commercial banks: perceptions of stakeholders. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation 2017, 13(2), 123–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Castro, J.P. G.; Ramírez, D.F. D.; Escobar, J.M. (2021). The relationship between intellectual capital and financial performance in Colombian listed banking entities. Asia Pacific Management Review 2021, 26(4), 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Clarkson, M.B. (2016). A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance: University of Toronto Press. [CrossRef]
  30. Crisóstomo, V.L.; de Souza Freire, F.; De Vasconcellos, F.C. (2011). Corporate social responsibility, firm value and financial performance in Brazil. Social Responsibility Journal. [CrossRef]
  31. Dahmash, F.; Al Salamat, W.; Masadeh, W.M.; Alshurafat, H. (2021). The effect of a firm’s internal factors on its profitability: evidence from Jordan. [CrossRef]
  32. Dai, J.; Lu, C.; Qi, J. Corporate social responsibility disclosure and stock price crash risk: Evidence from China. Sustainability 2019, 11(2), 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Desoky, A. The Impact of Intellectual Capital on Firm’s Financial Performance: Empirical Evidence from Bahrain. Desoky, AM and Mousa, GA (2020). The impact of intellectual capital on firm’s financial performance: evidence from Bahrain, Investment Management and Financial Innovations 2020, 17(4), 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Duque-Grisales, E.; Aguilera-Caracuel, J.; Guerrero-Villegas, J.; García-Sánchez, E. Does green innovation affect the financial performance of Multilatinas? The moderating role of ISO 14001 and R&D investment. Business Strategy and the Environment 2020, 29(8), 3286–3302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. El Khoury, R.; Nasrallah, N.; Alareeni, B. ESG and financial performance of banks in the MENAT region: concavity–convexity patterns. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 2021, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Galant, A.; Cadez, S. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance relationship: a review of measurement approaches. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja 2017, 30(1), 676–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Haloush, H.A.; Alshurafat, H.; Alhusban, A.A. A. Auditors’ civil liability towards clients under the Jordanian law: legal and auditing perspectives. Journal of Governance and Regulation/Volume, 10 2021, 10(1). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hang, N.T.; Huy, D.T. N. Better Risk Management of Banks and Sustainability - A Case Study in Vietnam. Revista Geintec-gestao Inovacao E Tecnologias 2021, 11(2), 481–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hazaima, H.; Low, M.; Allen, J. Impact of corporate social responsibility disclosures on financial performance – a Jordanian case study. International Journal of Critical Accounting, 9 2017, 9(4-6), 433–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ibrahim, A.H.; Hanefah, M.M. (2016). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility in Jordan. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting. [CrossRef]
  41. Jaradat, Z.; Al-Dmour, A.; Alshurafat, H.; Al-Hazaima, H.; Al Shbail, M.O. Factors influencing business intelligence adoption: evidence from Jordan. Journal of Decision Systems 2022, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khan, A.; Muttakin, M.B.; Siddiqui, J. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics 2013, 114(2), 207–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kramer, M.E. P. a. M. R. Corporate Social Responsibility. CSR and Socially Responsible Investing Strategies in Transitioning and Emerging Economies 2020, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lantz, J.-S.; Sahut, J.-M. R&D investment and the financial performance of technological firms. International Journal of Business, 10 2005, 10(3), 251. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lindgreen, A.; Swaen, V. Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews 2010, 12(1), 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liu, X.; Zhang, C. Corporate governance, social responsibility information disclosure, and enterprise value in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 2017, 142, 1075–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Maharani, N.B.; Faisal, F. Intellectual capital and financial performance of the company. Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi dan Keuangan 2019, 9(1), 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Malik, S.Y.; Hayat Mughal, Y.; Azam, T.; Cao, Y.; Wan, Z.; Zhu, H.; Thurasamy, R. Corporate Social Responsibility, Green Human Resources Management, and Sustainable Performance: Is Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Environment the Missing Link? Sustainability 2021, 13(3), 1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mansour, E.; Alzyoud, S.; Abuzaid, R.; Alshurafat, H. (2023). Accounting Students Perspectives of Peer Tutoring. Paper presented at the International Conference on Business and Technology. [CrossRef]
  50. Matar, A.; Eneizan, B.M. Determinants of financial performance in the industrial firms: Evidence from Jordan. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology 2018, 22(1), 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mattera, M.; Ruiz-Morales, C.A.; Gava, L.; Soto, F. Sustainable business models to create sustainable competitive advantages: strategic approach to overcoming COVID-19 crisis and improve financial performance. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Matuszak, Ł.; Różańska, E.; Macuda, M. The impact of corporate governance characteristics on banks’ corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from Poland. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mi, C.; Chang, F.; Lin, C.; Chang, Y. The theory of reasoned action to CSR behavioral intentions: The role of CSR expected benefit, CSR expected effort and stakeholders. Sustainability 2018, 10(12), 4462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mulyadi, M.S.; Anwar, Y. Impact of corporate social responsibility toward firm value and profitability. The Business Review, Cambridge 2012, 19(2), 316–322. [Google Scholar]
  55. Naseem, M.A.; Rehman, R.U.; Ikram, A.; Malik, F. Impact of board characteristics on corporate social responsibility disclosure. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR) 2017, 33(4), 801–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nekhili, M.; Nagati, H.; Chtioui, T.; Rebolledo, C. Corporate social responsibility disclosure and market value: Family versus non-family firms. Journal of Business Research 2017, 77, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Odat, Q.A.; Alshurafat, H.; Masadeh, W.M. (2021). FACTORS AFFECTING ACCOUNTANTS TRANSITION TO ONLINE WORKING DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC: A PROPOSED MODEL. DR. DY PATIL B-SCHOOL, PUNE, INDIA, 528.
  58. Omoteso, K.; Obalola, M. (2014). The role of auditing in the management of corporate fraud. In Ethics, Governance and Corporate Crime: Challenges and Consequences: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. [CrossRef]
  59. Padilla-Lozano, C.P.; Collazzo, P. Corporate social responsibility, green innovation and competitiveness–causality in manufacturing. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Peltier-Rivest, D.; Pacini, C. Detecting counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs: A multi-stakeholder forensic accounting strategy. Journal of Financial Crime 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Peterson, R.A.; Jeong, J. Exploring the impact of advertising and R&D expenditures on corporate brand value and firm-level financial performance. Journal of the academy of marketing science 2010, 38(6), 677–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pham, H.S. T.; Tran, H.T. CSR disclosure and firm performance: The mediating role of corporate reputation and moderating role of CEO integrity. Journal of Business Research 2020, 120, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pistoni, A.; Songini, L.; Bavagnoli, F. Integrated reporting quality: An empirical analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2018, 25(4), 489–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Probohudono, A.N.; Tower, G.; Rusmin, R. Risk disclosure during the global financial crisis. Social Responsibility Journal 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pucheta-Martínez, M.C.; Gallego-Álvarez, I. An international approach of the relationship between board attributes and the disclosure of corporate social responsibility issues. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2019, 26(3), 612–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Qa’dan, M.B. A.; Suwaidan, M.S. Board composition, ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure: the case of Jordan. Social Responsibility Journal 2019, 15(1), 28–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Roberts, R.W. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, organizations and society 1992, 17(6), 595–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ryu, H.-S. (2018). Understanding benefit and risk framework of fintech adoption: Comparison of early adopters and late adopters. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
  69. Saadullah, S.M.; Elsayed, N. An audit simulation of the substantive procedures in the revenue process – A teaching case incorporating Bloom’s taxonomy. Journal of Accounting Education 2020, 52, 100678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Santana, M.; Morales-Sánchez, R.; Pasamar, S. Mapping the link between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and human resource management (HRM): how is this relationship measured? Sustainability 2020, 12(4), 1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sardo, F.; Serrasqueiro, Z. A European empirical study of the relationship between firms’ intellectual capital, financial performance and market value. Journal of intellectual capital 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sbaih, Y.S. A.; Alshurafat, H.; Al-Hazaima, H.; Alhusban, A.A. A. (2023). The Impact of IFRS 16 “Leases” on the Financial Performance on Jordanian Industrial Companies. Paper presented at the International Conference on Business and Technology. [CrossRef]
  73. Sharabati, A.-A. A. Effect of corporate social responsibility on Jordan pharmaceutical industry’s business performance. Social Responsibility Journal 2018, 14(3), 566–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Shbail, A.; Obeid, M.; Alshurafat, H.; Ananzeh, H.; Mansour, E.; Hamdan, A. (2023). Factors Affecting the Adoption of Remote Auditing During the Times of COVID-19: An Integrated Perspective of Diffusion of Innovations Model and the Technology Acceptance Model. Paper presented at the International Conference on Business and Technology. [CrossRef]
  75. Shbail, A.; Obeid, M.; Salleh, Z.; Mohd Nor, M.N.; Alshurafat, H. (2023). The Impact of Job Stressors and Burnout on Internal Auditors’ Satisfaction. Paper presented at the International Conference on Business and Technology. [CrossRef]
  76. Stahl, G.K.; Brewster, C.J.; Collings, D.G.; Hajro, A. (2020). Enhancing the role of human resource management in corporate sustainability and social responsibility: A multi-stakeholder, multidimensional approach to HRM. Human Resource Management Review 2020, 30(3), 100708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Taha, N.; Alshurafat, H.; Shbail, A.; Obeid, M. (2023). The Impact of Different Intellectual Capital Dimensions on Banks Operational and Financial Performance. Paper presented at the International Conference on Business and Technology. [CrossRef]
  78. Ting, P.-H. Do large firms just talk corporate social responsibility? - the evidence from CSR report disclosure. Finance Research Letters, 2021, (38 (January 2021)), 101476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wichianrak, J.; Wong, K.; Khan, T.; Siriwardhane, P.; Dellaportas, S. Soft law, institutional signalling – Thai corporate environmental disclosures. Social Responsibility Journal 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yu, D.; Bondi, M. A genre-based analysis of forward-looking statements in corporate social responsibility reports. Written Communication 2019, 36(3), 379–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zaman, M.; Hudaib, M.; Haniffa, R. Corporate governance quality, audit fees and non-audit services fees. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 2011, 38(1-2), 165–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zubeltzu-Jaka, E.; Álvarez-Etxeberria, I.; Ortas, E. (2020). The effect of the size of the board of directors on corporate social performance: A meta-analytic approach. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2020, 27(3), 1361–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Variables Obs Mean Std. dev
 
CSR level 230 0.22 0.134
LR level 230 0.15 0.264
IRR level 230 0.17 0.187
CR level 230 0.25 0.221
OR level 230 0.157 0.352
Size of Bank 230 14.329 2.33
ROE 230 0.662 7.927
Leverage 230 37.2 24.079
Bank age 230 26.15 16.866
Table 2. Multicollinearity analysis.
Table 2. Multicollinearity analysis.
Variables Variance inflation factor (VIF)
CSR level 1.689
LR level 1.570
IRR level 1.354
CR level 1.283
OR level 1.799
Size of Bank 1.268
ROE 1.649
Leverage 1.566
Table 3. Simple linear regression analysis: First hypothesis.
Table 3. Simple linear regression analysis: First hypothesis.
Dependent Variable R R2
 		 Adjusted R2 ANOVA Coefficients
F Sig. F* B β T Sig. T*
CSR 0.745 0.631 0.629 284.350 0.000 0.872 0.798 20.034 0.000
* The effect is statistically significant at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05).
Table 4. Simple linear regression analysis: Second hypothesis.
Table 4. Simple linear regression analysis: Second hypothesis.
Dependent Variable R R2
 		 Adjusted R2 ANOVA Coefficients
F Sig. F* B β T Sig. T*
CSR 0.738 0.614 0.611 684.198 0.000 0.796 0.647 16.154 0.000
* The effect is statistically significant at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05).
Table 5. Simple linear regression analysis: Third hypothesis.
Table 5. Simple linear regression analysis: Third hypothesis.
Dependent Variable R R2
 		 Adjusted R2 ANOVA Coefficients
F Sig. F* B β T Sig. T*
CSR 0.759 0.662 0.659 031.221 0.000 0.812 0.673 19.648 0.000
* The effect is statistically significant at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05).
Table 6. Simple linear regression analysis: Fourth hypothesis.
Table 6. Simple linear regression analysis: Fourth hypothesis.
Dependent Variable R R2
 		 Adjusted R2 ANOVA Coefficients
F Sig. F* B β T Sig. T*
CSR 0.698 0.578 0.576 236.184 0.000 0.647 0.591 13.542 0.000
* The effect is statistically significant at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Alerts
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated