Effect of Business Social Responsibility (BSR) on Performance of SMEs: Data Screening and Preliminary Analysis

of 13
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Entertainment & Humor

Published:

Views: 23 | Pages: 13

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Description
The increase on Business Social Responsibility (BSR) understanding in present-day businesses has led to postulations that the related behaviors would facilitate viable benefit to be attained as a firm different itself from its rivalry through such
Transcript
  Asian Social Science; Vol. 10, No. 8; 2014 ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 103 Effect of Business Social Responsibility (BSR) on Performance of SMEs: Data Screening and Preliminary Analysis Abdullahi Hassan Gorondutse 1  & Haim Hilman 1   1 School of Business Management, College of Business, University Utara Malaysia, Malaysia Correspondence: Abdullahi Hassan Gorondutse, School of Business Management, College of Business, University Utara Malaysia, Malaysia. Tel: 60-014-306-2427; 23-480-6807-5309. E-mail: ahgdutse@gmail.com Received: January 3, 2014 Accepted: February 20, 2014 Online Published: March 26, 2014 doi:10.5539/ass.v10n8p103 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n8p103 Abstract The increase on Business Social Responsibility (BSR) understanding in present-day businesses has led to  postulations that the related behaviors would facilitate viable benefit to be attained as a firm different itself from its rivalry through such actions. Therefore, the objectives of this study was to carried out Data gathering in respect to Data screening and preliminary analysis in related to effect of business social responsibility on  performance of SMEs in Nigeria. 514 respondents were derived from Small Scale Industries in Kano State  Nigeria. The study employed purposive sampling techniques, equally the exercises was carried in order to suit the supposition of multivariate analysis. In view of that, an appraisal of Data missing, identify univariate and multivariate outlier and lastly, skewness and kurtosis were checked. In addition, factor analysis through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was also carried out. Similarly, all the exercises were prepared in Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software version 18, and the preliminary analysis reveals convinced that the data fulfill condition of multivariate analysis. The findings will give an insight to further analysis its hope to  provide understanding of how and why this may be diverse in a perspectives rising environment. Keywords:  business social responsibility, performance, data selection, SMEs and Nigeria 1. Introduction The significance of data preliminary in analysis cannot be over quantified as it is very indispensable in social science research (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2013). Missing data happen when a respondent either deliberately or accidentally fails to respond one or more questions (Hair et al., 2013). For that reason, the value and the evocative conclusion of the analysis more or less depend on the initial data screening (Maiyaki & Mouktar, 2011). Unfortunately, this basic preliminary exercise is more often than not being unobserved by researchers perhaps due to the weight attached to it (Hair et al., 2010, 2013; Maiyaki & Mouktar, 2011). However, leaving this segment of data preliminary would absolutely have an effect on the result value and/or the suitability of the type of analysis required. Although, according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) the best way of insuring precision is all the way through proof reading of the srcinal data vis-à-vis the computerized data file. Conversely, with big data set, proof reading is complicated or even unattainable (Maiyaki & Mouktar, 2011). For this reason, there is need to investigate data through descriptive statistics using computer software. In this way, all the unseen errors that are not easily experiential would be exposed (Hair et al., 2010, 2013). In addition, the authors observed that by preparing data assessment, researcher have at least two essential advantages (Hair et al., 2010). (1), whole indulgent of the inter-associations among the constructs and as a result facilitates clear explanation of the outputs. (2), capability to gratify the postulation of multivariate data analysis which is more difficult than in univariate analyses. On a final note, this study examined issues related to data screening and preliminary analysis in order to have a free error Data as recommended by (Hair et al., 2010, 2013).  2 . Literature Review Allouche and Laracle (2006) state that for a long period, the concept of social responsibility has been the matter of extreme ideologically prejudiced debates (Bowen, 1953; Carroll, 1979; Freeman, 1984; Friedman, 1962; Gorondutse & Hilman, 2013a; Sethi, 1975; Wood, 1991; Taneja, Kumar, & Gupta, 2011). Perrini, (2006) are of the view that business ethics and social responsibility are often interchangeable. In the same way, those two  www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 10, No. 8; 2014 104 terms are identical and exchangeable (Lee, 2008; Beneke et al., 2012). Even though, a rising knowledge of CSR in literature, no definition of CSR is generally established (Matten & Moon, 2008; Torugsa, Donohue, & Hecker, 2012). This may be due to BSR is an sunshade term moving with some, and being identical with other conceptions of business-community relationships (Gorondutse & Hilman, 2013a, 2013d; Matten & Moon, 2008; Torugsa et al., 2012). The dimension of social responsibility covers different levels and issues of activities that have an effect on corporate control, employee relationships, supply series and customer relationships, environmental managing, ethics, trust and cooperation, community involvement, commitment to being an ethical, ethical culture as well as key company operations and organizational performances (Dewan, 2009; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Gorondutse & Hilman, 2013d; Perrini et al., 2010; Wood, 2002). Specifically, the issues are commitment to BSR, Trust of BSR, Perceived ethics, organizational culture and firm’s performance. Furthermore, in recent times, organizations are thinking that in order to continue industrious, viable and substantial in a hastily varying environment of the world, they have to develop into and committed to socially responsible (Okoro, 2012). Commitment to being ethical organization must be at the mind of not only the public speaking, but also the certainty personified in business actions (Wood, 2002). In the previous two decades, globalization have indistinct countrywide boundaries and know-how has accelerated point in time and covered distance, known a quick transformation in the corporate environment, business want to enlarge their capability to administer their earnings and risks and to defend the status of their brand in the community (Dennis, Hackert, Tokle, & Vokurka, 2012; Gorondutse & Hilman, 2013a), While BSR is significant to firms in all environments, it is above all important for rising nations like Nigeria, where partial funds for meeting the ever increasing aspirations and variety of a pluralistic humanity, make practice of sustainable growth more demanding (Abiodun, 2012; Amaeshi, Adi, Ogbechi, & Amao, 2006; David, 2012). Trust refers to the key sign of physically powerful administration in the direction of stakeholder trade interaction (Fang, Palmatier, Scheer, & Li, 2008; Hilman & Gorondutse, 2013b; Hansen, Dunford, Boss, Angermeier, & Alan, 2011). There is a belief in literature and in company practices that BSR is based not merely on principles,  but also progressive egotism (Perrini et al., 2010; Smith, 2003), the stakeholder beliefs a firm’s social accountable actions will make its business more attractive than its business rivals, primarily it enhanced economic performances, and able to plan better market reflection and be more focus for and keep retaining consumers (Hilman & Gorondutse, 2013b; Perrini et al., 2010). Even though, trust has an immediate consequence on an organization social performance (Pivato, Misani, & Tencati, 2008; Tian, Wang, & Yang, 2011), and in the absence of trust this may prevent future investment or even lead to the withdrawal of an existing investment (Pivato et al., 2008). Previous researches use trust of BSR in the respect of consumers (Hansen et al., 2011; Hilman & Gorondutse, 2013b; Tian et al., 2011). Business ethics are moral behaviors that business adheres to guide the way it behaves (Hilman & Gorondutse, 2013b; Valentine & Fleischman, 2008). Organizational ethics is a desire to adopt moral principles and company  practices. However, some organizations encourage an ethical customs by given optimistic ideals that influences organizational members’ moral beliefs and performances (Trevino & Nelson, 2004; Valentine & Fleischman, 2008). Ethics related programs are likely to enhance organizational performances, and corporation participation in BSR behavior. It ought to persuade their employees to work more ethically (Valentine & Fleischman, 2008). For instance, dissonance theory suggests that workers understanding decreased disagreement and increased happiness when a company is substantiated to be ethical (Cotchet & Chi, 2012; Hilman & Gorondutse, 2013b; Verschoor, 1998). The identical ought to be proper when communally accountable policies are initiated by a firm to enhanced welfare and the wishes of major stakeholders (McWilliams et al., 2006; Valentine & Fleischman, 2008). Such hard work institutes attractive goals for BSR, which should preferably improve the similarity linking the desires of the corporation and the wishes of workers (Cotchet & Chi, 2012), while this study offer new contribution and used trust on the perspective of an organization. Business Social Responsibility events should also provide to support the casual agreement between workers and corporation by fulfilling a company’s commitment to offer a desirable employment condition for its employees (Cotchet & Chi, 2012; Peloza & Papana, 2008). Earlier study also provided that firm’s ethics yields better work  pleasure and organizational performances (Berrone, Surroca, & Tribo, 2007; Peloza & Papana, 2008; Hilman & Gorondutse, 2013b; Singhapakdi, Vitell, Rallapalli, & Kraft, 1996). Organizational culture is described as personality or feelings of firm which influence behavior. Culture is a collection of beliefs, values and an assumption held by an organization and is the level at which company is conducted sensibly or irresponsibly (Ahmad, Veerapandian, & Ghee, 2011; Gorondutse & Hilman, 2013d; Schein, 1992). Organizational culture guides behavior that determines service quality, ethical consideration and fair treatment of stakeholders (Ahmad et al., 2011; Gorondutse & Hilman, 2013d; Hemdon, Fraedrich, & Yeh,  www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 10, No. 8; 2014 105 2001). However, organizational culture depending on its kind is anticipated to absolutely or negatively have an effect on BSR (Galbreath, 2010). Scholars argues that an over emphasis has been placed on investigating the substance of BSR actions to the detriment of studying the inner factors that may form or constrain such actions (Galbreath, 2010; Gorondutse & Hilman, 2013d), Unfortunately, theoretical relation between organizational construct such commitment, trust of BSR, perceived ethics and organizational culture are very few or no empirical evidence in the Nigerian context. Absence of these important practices have somewhat resulted to organization’s neglect for social responsibility behaviors toward stakeholders. However, firm performance, is one of the most relevant constructs in the field (Gorondutse & Hilman, 2013d; Hilman & Gorondutse, 2013b; Peloza & Papania, 2008), and the construct is commonly used as the final dependent variable (Richard, Devinney, Yip, & Johnson, 2009) in various fields (Hilman & Gorondutse, 2013b; Peloza & Papania, 2008). Despite its relevance, research into firm performance suffers from problems such as lack of consensus, selection of indicators based on convenience and little consideration of its dimensionality (Combs, Crook, & Shook, 2005; Hilman & Gorondutse, 2013b; Richard, Devinney, Yip, & Johnson, 2009). Many studies measure firm performance with a single indicator and represent this concept as one-dimensional, even while admitting its multidimensionality (Hilman & Gorondutse, 2013b).  3. Methodology In this section the data assessment was carried out with the aid of both descriptive and inferential statistics using SPSS 18 version software. For example, simple descriptive statistics, Mahalanobis distance, correlation analysis were engaged. In addition, the sample of this study derived from the small scale industries in Nigeria. Purposive sampling design was used to collect data. Hence, 486 useable responses were retrieved from the small scale industries in Kano state Nigeria.  4. Results and Discussion This section present result and discussion, out of the 800 copies of questionnaires circulated, a sum of 514 copies were finally completed, giving a response rate of 64%. A reasonably far above response rate was achieved which is above expected rate of response and as a result of the researcher’s persistence for on the stain achievement of the questionnaire. Furthermore, the researcher used a technique of motivation by providing a form of a pen, which to a great degree encouraged a great numeral of the participants to take part in the exercises. Moreover, in trying to address the issues of preliminary analysis, it result in deleting twenty eight copies of questionnaire and consequently not painstaking and not eligible to be part of the analysis. Thus, a sum of 486 copies of questionnaire was live in order to continue with the preliminary exercises. The descriptive analysis reveals that 31.1% were General Manager, 29.8% were different categories of Managers and 29.4% were Chief executive/Owner of business. Descriptive statistic show that the respondents were less than 5 years of their existence in the business with 35%, followed by the range of 5-10 years, which was 32.5%; followed by the range bracket of 11-20 years with 22.6%; the range bracket of 21-40 years with 7.4%, and, finally the range bracket of 40 years and above with 2.5%. It can be clearly seen that most of the respondents, over 80%, are still within the range of target of this study (see Table1 for this and the subsequent descriptive statistic). Similarly, for the business location of the respondents, the analysis shows that the Headquarter were outnumber than the remaining groups constituting 64% of the total respondents. This followed by Division location with 17.9%; then by subsidiary and others respondents in that order. The descriptive analysis reveals that a large  percentage of the respondents owned their business on individual basis. For example, 48.1% of the respondents owned business on individually; followed by 32.7% of the respondents with partnership; 12.1% with joint ventures and others with 7.2%. With regards to the number of employees in the business, the descriptive statistics shows that the respondents with ranging less than twenty employees were more with 52.7%, followed  by those with between 21 and 40 employees with 17.7%, followed by those with 61 and 80 employees with 12.8%, then those with between 80 and above employees and those with 41 and 60 employees in that order. Furthermore, the descriptive statistic shows that the activities of business were more with Food and Beverages with 25.5%, followed by Poultry with 20%; then Textile Materials with 13.6%, Weaving & Dying with 10.7%, Furniture and Equipment with 10.5%, Others with 8.2%, Recycling with 7% and Tobacco Product with 4.5%. The initial analysis assesses the Total Assets of the respondents based on the activities they operate. It was reveals that close to the half of the respondents 1-100million (1million naira is equivalent to USD6250),  precisely 43.8%, followed by less than 1million with 34.6%, followed by 101-200million with 10.7%, followed  by 201-300million and 301-Above with 5.8% and 5.1%, respectively. 301-Above is the least among Total Assets of the business by the respondents. These perhaps indicate that the businesses are small in nature. Based on the  www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 10, No. 8; 2014 106 above, it could be summarized that the respondents who participated in the research provided adequate variance regarding their backgrounds. Hence, the data used in the study were provided by respondents from diverse economic backgrounds (see Table 1).   Table 1. Summary of respondents’ demography S/N Items FrequencyPercentage 1 Job Tile Chief executive/owner 15129.4 General Manager16031.1 Managers 15329.8 Others 509.7 2 Years of Existence  Less than 5 years18035 5-10years 16732.5 11-20years 11622.6 21-40years 387.4 Above 40years 132.5 3 Organization Location  Headquarters 32964 Division 9217.9 Subsidiary 438.4 Others 509.7 4 Ownership of the Organization  Individual 24748.1 Partnership 16832.7 Joint ventures 6212.1 Others 377.2 5 Number of employee in your organization  Less than 20 27152.7 21-40 9117.7 41-60 397.6 61-80 6612.8 Above 80 479.2 6 Organization Activities  Food and Beverages 13125.5 Tobacco Product234.5 Textiles Materials7013.6 Weaving and Dyeing 5510.7 Furniture and Equipment 5410.5 Recycling 367 Poultry 10320 Others 428.2 7 Total assets at the end of year  Less than 1 million naira 17834.6 1-100 million naira 22543.8 101-200 million5510.7 201-300 million naira 305.8 301 million-Above 265.1  www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 10, No. 8; 2014 107 4.1 Test of Non-Response Bias  Non-response bias has been defined as the mistake a researcher expects to make while estimating a sample characteristic because some types of survey respondents are under-represented due to non-response (Berg, 2002). It is well explained in the literature that “there is no minimum response rate below which a survey estimate is necessarily biased and, conversely, no response rate above which it is never biased” (Singer, 2006, p. 641). However, no matter small the non-response, there is a possible bias which must be investigated (Pearl & Fairley, 1985; Sheikh, 1981), thus the need for conducting the non-response bias analysis for this study. While as shown Table 2, respondents were categorized in to two independent samples based on their response to survey questionnaires regarding five main survey variables (Commitment, Trust, Perceived Ethics, Organizational Culture, and Performance).The most common the standard ways to test for non-response bias for this research is to contrast the responses of those who responded to the questionnaires distributed early before end of August, 2013 (i.e., before Sallah break) and those who responded to the questionnaires distributed after August, 2013 (i.e., after Sallah break). Looking at the table below, it might be seen generally that range mean and standard deviation for early response and late response are distinctly diverse. The 2 tailed t test result (Table 3) shows that there is no significant disparity with respect to the early respondents and behind based on Commitment (t 1.487, p < 0.066), Trust (t . 718, p < 0.398), Perceived ethics (t 1.003, p< 0.316), Organizational culture (t .332, p < 0.740) and Performance (t 1.631, p< 0.104). Therefore, based on the t test results it can be fulfilled that there is almost no dissimilarity between the early participants and late participants, and, consequently, no dilemma of non-response bias (see Table 2 & 3). Table 2. Group descriptive statistics for early and late respondents Response Bias N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Mean Error Commitment  Early response 360 5.29 .978 .052 Late response 126 5.43 .609 .054 Trust  Early response 360 5.59 .652 .034 Late response 126 5.63 .460 .041 Perceived Ethics  Early response 360 5.43 .639 .034 Late response 126 5.36 .615 .055 Organizational Culture  Early response 360 5.33 .596 .031 Late response 126 5.31 .547 .049 Performance  Early response 360 5.25 .708 .037 Late response 126 5.36 .611 .054 Table 3. Independent samples T-test for equality of means Leven’ Test for equality of variance F Sig. T df Sig. (2 tailed)Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95 Confidence of the difference Lower Interval Upper OC Equal variance (Assumed) 12.926.000 1.487 484 .138 1.3814 .09287 .32061 .64433 Equal variance (Not assumed) 1.845 351.871.066 1.3814 .07488 .28540 .00912 TR Equal variance (Assumed) 18.271.000 .718 484 .473 .04524 .06299 .16901 .07853 Equal variance (Not .846 309.4 .398 .04524 .05347 .15045 .05997
Recommended
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x