Mechanisms and initiatives of corporate social responsibility behaviours in Ghana: a co-integration approach

Figures & data

Table 1. Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test results.

Variable Name	ADF (at Level)	ADF (at First Differencing)
LnY	(−6.614721) * −4.234972 ** −3.202445 [0.0000]
LnCigfi	(−2.491342) * −4.234972 ** −3.540328 [0.3302]	(−6.260091) * −4.243644 ** −3.544284 [ 0.0000]
Cldummy	(−1.625667) * −4.234972 ** −3.540328 [0.7627]	(-5.887478) * −4.243644 ** −3.544284 [0.0001]
LnIcom	(−2.773959) * −4.243644 ** −3.544284 [ 0.2157]	(-4.296758) * −4.252879 ** −3.548490 [0.0090]
LnLcf	(−0.446522) * −4.243644 ** −3.544284 [ 0.9815]	(−9.363505) * −4.243644 ** −3.544284 [0.0000]

at 1% significant levels. **.

means that critical value is at 5% confidence levels.

ADF test statistics. (MacKinnon et al., 1999) one-sided p-value.

Table 2. Unrestricted co-integration rank test (trace).

Hypothesized	Trace			0.05
Number of CE(s)	Statistic	Eigen Value	Probability**	Critical Value
$0\mathit{*}$	71.67651	0.467019	0.0353	69.81889
$\le 1\mathit{*}$	49.65210	0.445158	0.0336	47.85613
$\le 2\mathit{*}$	29.03461	0.355677	0.0610	29.79707
$\le 3\mathit{*}$	13.65016	0.301321	0.0931	15.49471
$\le 4*$	1.100418	0.030951	0.2942	3.841466

Note: The Trace test shows two co-integrating equation(s) at the 0.05 level of significance.

* Represents rejection of the hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.

^** Denotes the MacKinnon et al. (1999) p-values.

Table 3. Unrestricted co-integration rank test for maximum Eigen value.

Hypothesized	Trace			0.05
Number of CE(s)	Statistic	Eigen Value	Probability**	Critical Value
$0\mathit{*}$	22.02441	0.467019	0.6058	33.87687
$\le 1\mathit{*}$	20.61749	0.445158	0.3000	27.58434
$\le 2\mathit{*}$	15.38445	0.355677	0.2629	21.13162
$\le 3\mathit{*}$	12.54974	0.301321	0.0917	14.26460
$\le 4*$	1.100418	0.030951	0.2942	3.841466

Note: The Trace test shows two co-integrating equation(s) at the 0.05 level of significance.

* Represents rejection of the hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.

^** Denotes the MacKinnon et al. (1999) p-values.

Figure 1. Source, Author’s Construct (2023).

Figure 2. Source, Author’s Construct (2023).

Table 4. Unrestricted co-integrating coefficients (normalized by b’*S11*b = I).

LNICOM	LNCIGFI	LNYT2	LNLIVC	FINDUMMY
3.495727	−6.043735	−2.288761	−1.124827	2.385763
−0.903564	3.814696	−1.101991	−0.379128	−2.931498
1.289760	−0.329543	0.716661	0.976827	−3.721355
−5.986517	5.826516	−0.395100	−0.108717	0.979315
−0.812824	−0.673434	0.759476	−1.191202	0.934838

Figure 3. Source, Author’s Construct (2023).

Table 5. VECM results for (Long run relationship).

	Coefficient	Std. Error	t-Statistic	Prob.
C (1)	−0.60114	0.17939	−3.35104	0.003
C (2)	−0.42699	0.19431	−2.19742	0.039
C (3)	−0.14841	0.17143	−0.86572	0.396
C (4)	1.03372	0.63558	1.62641	0.118
C (5)	−0.31228	0.81685	−0.38230	0.706
C (6)	−0.89232	0.40083	−2.22617	0.037
C (7)	−0.84067	0.28521	−2.94759	0.007
C (8)	−0.73016	0.74639	−0.97826	0.339
C (9)	−0.44982	0.70349	−0.63941	0.529
C (10)	1.69308	0.78840	2.14749	0.043
C (11)	1.70080	0.77155	2.20441	0.038
C (12)	−0.03674	0.11493	−0.31965	0.752
R-squared	0.65381	Mean dependent var		0.04177
Adjusted R-squared	0.48071	S.D. dependent var		0.86284
S.E. of regression	0.62178	Akaike info criterion		2.15810
Sum squared resid	8.50538	Schwarz criterion		2.69681
Log likelihood	−24.6877	Durbin-Watson stat		1.83344

Table

Items	Strongly Agree	Agree	Not Sure	Disagree	Strong Disagree
A firm must first be profitable before undertaking CSR		™
A firm decides to undertake CSR Initiatives to fulfill its responsibilities
Our firm is a socially responsible firm
The CSR initiatives of the firm are conducted on a regular basis
Our CSR initiatives are closely related to our business strategy
We are motivated by the need to improve community relations to undertake CSR initiatives
We are motivated by ethical and moral reasons to undertake CSR initiatives
HR: We are motivated by the need to improve employee motivation to undertake CSR initiatives
We are motivated by the need to improve relations to business partners and investors to undertake CSR initiatives.
MKG: We are motivated by the need to improve Marketing performance to undertake CSR initiatives.
Cross-Functional/Corporate: We are motivated by pressure from the community and others to undertake CSR initiatives
We are motivated by the need to get public incentives (eg tax incentives) to undertake CSR
Corporate Governance: We are motivated by the need to preserve or improve company’s reputation to undertake CSR initiatives.
We are motivated by a commitment to reduce the company’s impact on the environment to undertake CSR initiatives
We are motivated by the need to give back to the community to undertake CSR initiatives to enhance organizational administration
Lack of resources as a barrier to furthering our firm’s CSR initiatives
Lack of money is a barrier to furthering our firm’s CSR initiatives
CSR is not a core activity to the main activities of the firm; hence it is not taken seriously to further our firm’s CSR initiatives
The lack of human resources is a barrier to furthering our firm’s CSR initiatives
Traditional and cultural practices is a barrier to furthering our firm’s CSR initiatives

Table

Items	Strongly Agree	Agree	Not Sure	Disagree	Strong Disagree
Unilateral Mechanisms
The firm directs rare resources for the organization’s CSR allotment.
Unilateral CSR improves the quality of firms’ products
Foundation:
To bolster development
Ecological
General Health
Other activities in the host communities
Collaborative Mechanisms
Partnerships:
Partnering with government
Partnering with non-governmental
Voluntary programs:
General Mock Examination
Teacher Motivation/Award
Supply of Test Books
Culture and Tradition
Support for festivals
Construction of Palace
Royalties to Chiefs
Donations to Chiefs
Economic Empowerment
Youth Entrepreneurial Training
Construction of Markets
Construction of Abattoir
Women Economic Empowerment Training
Micro-Credit Facility
Use of local contractors
Local supply sources
Direct local Employment
Environmental
Re-afforestation
Natural Heritage development preservation
Noise Pollution Control
Protection of River bodies
Air Pollution Control
Erosion Control Measures
Tree Planting Exercises
Energy Conservation
Social
Football Field
Community Centre
Durbar Grounds
Extension of pipe born water
Community Town Planning

Table

Items	Strongly Agree	Agree	Not Sure	Disagree	Strong Disagree
The CSR activities have impacted on the financial performance of the company
The CSR activities have impacted on the reputation of the company
The CSR activities have impacted positively on the community
The CSR activities have impacted positively on the employee motivation
The financial implications of CSR are experienced in the long term

MacKinnon, J. G.,Haug, A. A., &Michelis, Leo. (1999). Numerical distribution functions of likelihood ratio tests for cointegration. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 14(5), 563–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1255(199909/10)14:5<563::AID-JAE530>3.3.CO;2-I

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar