Research Findings and Contributions

Based on the review of current literature and the gaps identified in section 1.2, the data from 171 companies in the six Southeast Asian countries was collected and analysed to answer the research questions addressed in section 1.4. The findings of this study provide multiple empirical and theoretical contributions.

Firstly, the study has identified the levels of CSRD in six Southeast Asian countries, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Therefore, in response to the gap that majority of CSRD determinants studies conducted in Southeast Asia have strongly focused on a few countries, such as Indonesia and Malaysia (table 3), the study provided a better understanding of CSRD across the region, as individual countries were only studied in a limited manner in previous research. Moreover, due to the lack of comparative studies in the region, the study has attempted to provide an empirical contribution examining whether there are any differences in the level of CSRD across the six countries. The findings concluded that the two countries with the highest level of CSRD are Thailand and Indonesia, while the Philippines and Vietnam were found to have the lowest CSRD. Between these two extremes are Singapore and Malaysia. The finding is interesting in the sense that the level of CSRD does not reflect a country’s

42

economic development stage, thereby attributing these differences in the level of CSRD to other institutional factors.

Secondly, in response to the lack of studies considering the impact of external determinants on CSRD, the study has examined the role of institutional factors. The study also contributes theoretically to the growing literature emphasising the role of the institutional environment in shaping firms’ CSR practices (see Brammer, Jackson and Matten, 2012; Campbell, 2007; Cormier, Magnan and van Velthoven, 2005; Lee, 2011; Marquis, Glynn and Davis, 2007) and by identifying relevant institutional factors influencing CSRD based on the institutions’ framework of Scott (1995). Consequently, the study is one of few studies that has attempted to quantify relevant institutional factors and examine the impact of these factors on CSRD. The impact of the external institutional environment was examined through different institutional pillars, including regulative, cultural-cognitive and normative. Based on the institutional theory, Scott’s framework (1995) and existing literature, the two institutional factors, legal origin and mandatory disclosure, are identified to present the impact of regulative pillars, Hofstede’s (2005) uncertainty avoidance and masculinity cultural dimensions representing cultural-cognitive pillar, and finally, the adoption of GRI standard and membership of CSR-related associations representing the effect of normative pillar. The empirical findings showed that mandatory disclosure, the two cultural dimensions and the adoption of GRI standard have significant impact on the level of CSRD in the context of the six countries. While mandatory disclosure, GRI reporting standard and uncertainty avoidance have a positive impact on CSRD, the effect of the masculinity dimension was found to be negative. Amongst the four significant institutional factors, mandatory disclosure representative of the regulative pillar is the strongest indicator of CSRD, followed by the two cultural dimensions representing cultural-cognitive pillar, and finally, the adoption of GRI standard of normative pillar. Similar with the observation of Muthuri and Gilbert (2011), the results imply that institutional environment influences the level of CSRD through all three pillars with certain institutional factors having more impact than others. Moreover, the strongest effect of mandatory disclosure among all the institutional factors found in this study supports the statement of Campbell (2006) that corporations tend to act more responsibly if there are strong and well-enforced regulations supporting such behaviour.

43

Thirdly, as discussed in section 1.2, there is a need for more studies examining the impact of corporate governance on CSRD in Southeast Asia. The findings of this study, therefore, contribute to the limited literature considering the effect of corporate governance on CSRD in this context. As expected, the findings provide some different points of view on this matter compared with previous studies (e.g. Barako and Brown, 2008; Htay, Rashid, Adnan and Meera, 2012; Jizi et al., 2014). Four corporate governance factors were found to have a significant impact on CSRD, including board size, board gender diversity, block ownership and the presence of CSR committee. Board size and the presence of CSR committee have a positive effect while the impact of board gender diversity and block ownership was found to be negative. The impact of block ownership and the presence of CSR committee is consistent with previous literature (Khan, Chand and Patel, 2013b; Michelon and Parbonetti, 2012; Ntim and Soobaroyen, 2013; Reverte, 2009), however, the negative effect of female directors and the positive effect of larger board size are not common findings in other studies (see Barako and Brown, 2008; Frias-Aceituno, Rodriguez-Ariza and Garcia-Sanchez, 2013a). The finding showed that in contrast to the opinions that larger board size tends to be ineffective (Van den Berghe and Levrau, 2004), large boards are a customary practice amongst firms in these countries. The role of female directors in this context is also different. Female directors are often associated with a caring nature and are expected to pressure managers into engaging more with CSR practices (Ntim and Soobaroyen, 2013). The negative effect of female directors found in this study, however, could be the result of the lack of board independence caused from the extremely low proportion of female directors on board (Amran, Periasamy and Zulkafli, 2014b). Moreover, opposite to the traditional conclusion that independent directors would motivate increased firm involvement in CSRD (see Barako and Brown, 2008; Htay et al., 2012; Jizi et al., 2014), the percentage of independent directors has almost no effect, a cause of high block ownership (Chen and Nowland, 2010), as well as management’s limited CSR awareness, and knowledge in some of the countries (Binh, 2016; Chapple and Moon, 2005; Nguyen et al., 2015)

The findings of this study, in general, have also provided some practical contributions. Identification of levels of CSRD across the six countries in Southeast Asia allows each country to compare the level of its firms’ CSRD with the others and learn from the experience of the countries with constructive practices. Moreover, the study also provides evidence of the diverse impact of some corporate governance practices in the regional context. The findings, therefore, allow

44

researchers, governments and other institutions to review the role of corporate governance in this context and open opportunities for further development. In terms of the institutional environment, the findings highlight the integral role of government in motivating firms to participate in CSRD. The findings also support the effectiveness of GRI reporting standard in guiding firms to improve their CSRD. Finally, results of this study encourage CSR-related associations to review their activities and play a constructive role in encouraging their members to take part in CSRD.