Abstract

This paper aims to measure the extent to which public companies at the Palestine Stock Exchange have adopted social responsibility according to international standards and concepts represented by the four dimensions of social responsibility (economic, legal, ethical, and human dimensions). Unlike previous Palestinian studies, this paper provides a theoretical and practical basis for the actual application of corporate social responsibility, as well as the relationship of variables related to the company’s work sector, age, classification in the market, and the adoption of social responsibility. To reach the aim, the applied study applied the descriptive analytical method by studying the content, percentages, mean, standard deviation, and relative weight, in addition to a t-test for one sample. The questionnaire was distributed to the study population as one for each company, as the study population consisted of 49 companies listed on the Palestine Stock Exchange. The study retrieved 38 questionnaires with a recovery rate of 77.6%. The findings showed a high degree of approval regarding «adopting social responsibility through the legal dimension», with a relative weight of 86.20%. There is a medium degree of approval regarding «adopting social responsibility through the ethical dimension» with relative weight. 82.58%, in addition to having a medium degree of approval regarding «adopting social responsibility through the economic dimension», with a relative weight of 78.53%. The results showed a lack of general approval regarding «adopting social responsibility through the human dimension», with a relative weight of 63.79%. The obtained results revealed that the public shareholding companies listed on the Palestine Securities Exchange adopt social responsibility programs through their four dimensions combined to a medium degree. There are no significant differences between the companies listed on the Palestine Stock Exchange and the leading and distinguished companies in their social responsibility practice, on the one hand, and between companies in terms of adopting social responsibility through its four dimensions, according to (work sector, company age), except for the company’s classification variable in the market, on the other hand. The paper recommended that companies work on making an integrative relationship with the local community and achieve their own goals through such a surrounding environment. Therefore, they must take serious steps to increase the level of development of their relationship with the local community and improve the special programs and policies for social responsibility in solving problems related to social, economic, and environmental aspects. The state must also have a positive attitude and practices toward companies that adopt social responsibility, through legislation or procedures such as exempting them from taxes or other facilities in return for their social contribution. The study also recommended the need for greater attention to social responsibility through preparing plans and discussing them in the meetings of the Board of Directors so that they are taken into account in the budget.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility, public shareholding companies, Palestine Securities Exchange, Palestine.

JEL Classification: M14, G30, E22.

Cite as: Eleyan, F. J. Y (2022). Corporate Social Responsibility and Public Shareholding Companies at Palestine Securities Exchange Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 76-84. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2022.4-08

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

References

1. Aya Pastrana, N., & Sriramesh, K. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility: Perceptions and practices among smes in Colombia. Public Relations Review, 40(1), 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Baker, M. (2004). Definitions of corporate social responsibility – what is CSR? Mallen Baker – Change is a learnable process. Retrieved from [Link]
3. Benlemlih, M., & Bitar, M. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility and Investment Efficiency. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(3), 647–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility as an internal marketing strategy. Sloan Management Review, 49, 1-29. [Google Scholar]
5. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? an institutional theory of Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Carroll, A. B. (2016). Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR: Taking another look. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1(1). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. García‐Sánchez, I. M. (2019). The moderating role of board monitoring power in the relationship between environmental conditions and corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review, 29(1), 114–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), 51–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Jordaan, L. A., De Klerk, M., & De Villiers, C. J. (2018). Corporate Social Responsibility and earnings management of South African companies. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 21(1). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Kim, K.-H., Kim, M. C., & Qian, C. (2015). Effects of corporate social responsibility on Corporate Financial Performance: A competitive-action perspective. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1097–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Lu, H., Liu, X., & Falkenberg, L. (2020). Investigating the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on Risk Management Practices. Business & Society, 61(2), 496–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. McElhaney, K. (2009). A strategic approach to corporate social responsibility. Leader to Leader, 2009(52), 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. McManus, T. (2008). The Business Strategy/Corporate Social Responsibility “mash‐up.” Journal of Management Development, 27(10), 1066–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Munasinghe, M. A. T. K., & Malkumari, A. P. (2012). Corporate social responsibility in small and medium enterprises (SME) in Sri Lanka. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 3(2). [Google Scholar]
16. Orazalin, N. (2019). Do board sustainability committees contribute to corporate environmental and social performance? The mediating role of Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(1), 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Palazzi, M., & Starcher, G. (1998). Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Success. Paris: European Bahá’í Business Forum. [Google Scholar]
18. Palestine Exchange. (n.d.). Retrieved from [Link]
19. Petkoski, D., & Twose, N. (2003). Public Policy for Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved from [Link]
20. Saleh, M. W. A., Zaid, M. A. A., Shurafa, R., Maigoshi, Z. S., Mansour, M., & Zaid, A. (2021). Does board gender enhance Palestinian firm performance? the moderating role of Corporate Social Responsibility. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 21(4), 685–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Salmones, M. del, Crespo, A. H., & Bosque, I. R. (2005). Influence of corporate social responsibility on loyalty and valuation of services. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4), 369–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]