Análisis e Interpretación de Resultados

The notion of corporate value has changed over time. Corporate value was traditionally associated with economic value as measured by share markets, and involved a short-term focus on increasing profits and returns for shareholders (Berthon, 2010; Charreaux & Desbrières, 2001). The traditional economic measures and focus are now seen to be inadequate and do not properly reflect

corporate value creation. There has been a continuous shift in the notion of corporate value due to the importance placed on long-term sustainability and demand for corporate accountability to a wider group of stakeholders (Berthon, 2010). IIRC (2013a) claims that value is not created within an organisation itself, but is dependent on: available resources, an organisation’s external environment, and its relationships with stakeholders. IR emphasises that shareholder value is maximised when organisations consider a diverse range of stakeholders and balance the six capitals. This section explores the term ‘value creation’ by reviewing literature surrounding corporate value creation and its relationships with investors. Discussions are presented on intellectual capital, CSR, and stakeholder management as these three concepts appear to be commonly associated with value creation.

Gaps have emerged between corporate market value and book value as the source of economic value is no longer purely based on tangible assets, but is also based on the creation of intangible assets and intellectual capital (CGMA, 2014; Ming-Chin, Shu-Ju, & Hwang, 2005; Mouritsen et al., 2001). Intellectual capital refers to intangible resources that create corporate value, and are commonly identified with three principle components: human capital, customer capital, and organisational capital (Edvinsson, 1997; Mouritsen et al., 2001; Roslender, Marks, & Stevenson, 2015; Stewart, 1998). Human capital is not owned by corporations and relates to the combined skills, knowledge, innovation, and abilities of employees, and this also includes corporate values and culture (Edvinsson, 1997; Stewart, 1998). Similarly, customer capital is not owned by corporations and relates to the ongoing relationships with consumers or organisations who transact with a corporation. Customer capital is reflected by analysis such as consumer retention,

per customer profitability and market share (Mouritsen et al., 2001; Stewart, 1998). Organisational capital are assets owned by a corporation, such as organisational structure, patents, trademarks, and anything that supports employee productivity (Edvinsson, 1997; Stewart, 1998). Studies on East Asian corporations suggest better intellectual capital efficiency is associated with higher market value. Tan, Plowman and Hancock (2007) used the Value Added Intellectual Coefficient method as a measure of intellectual capital and value creation, and compared it to corporations’ return on equity, earnings per share and annual returns. They found a significant positive relationship between the development of intellectual capital and corporate performance, where corporations with higher values of intellectual capitalachieved greater financial performance compared to those with lower values. Ming-Chin et al. (2005) also used the Value Added Intellectual Coefficientmethod and found corporations with greater intellectual capital perform better financially in the long-term and have higher market value, leading Ming-Chin et al. to conclude investors place higher value on corporations with better intellectual capital efficiency. Studies on UK corporations also show a significantly positive association between intellectual capital and financial performance (Zéghal & Maaloul, 2010).

CSR is recognised as positively associated with corporate value creation and financial performance despite ongoing debates on whether engagement in socially responsible behaviour economically benefits corporations. CSR is about corporations voluntarily operating for the wider social interest instead of focusing on profits, this includes respecting communities and the environment, practicing ethical behaviour, and caring for employees (Bénabou & Tirole, 2010; Huang, 2010). The traditional economic argument by Friedman (1970) argues for

management to make decisions that maximise shareholder wealth, and socially responsible activities tend to be perceived as inconsistent with such economic objectives (Godfrey, 2005). However, there are studies that suggest a positive relationship between CSR and financial performance. Through interviews and surveys with institutional investors and company executives, Petersen and Vredenburg (2009) found Canadian investors consider CSR to contribute to corporate value as investors view a direct link between CSR and financial performance. CSR is seen as a strategy that can reduce corporations’ exposure to risk related market volatility, community problems, terrorism, resource use, and governmental problems. Godfrey (2005) supports the idea of a positive relationship between CSR and financial performance. Godfrey theorised that philanthropic activity can sometimes, to a certain extent, generate positive moral capital to help corporations resist future negative shocks. For instance, accumulation of positive moral capital would not have shielded Enron and Arthur Anderson from punishment as both organisations violated ethical and legal obligations; however, in the case of Unocal, evidence of philanthropic activity acted as counterfactual evidence to claims regarding the corporation violating human rights, and such claims were discounted.

Stakeholder management is another factor associated with value creation. Corporate value is created through building and managing relationships with stakeholders. Hillman and Keim (2001) investigates the relationship between shareholder value, as measured by financial performance, and corporate social performance. The researchers separated ‘corporate social performance’ into two components of ‘stakeholder management’ and ‘social issue participation’. Stakeholder management relates to developing relationships with key stakeholders.

It relates to building community relations and employee relations, as well as addressing diversity and environmental issues. Stakeholder management often leads to the development of corporate reputation, and strengthening of the interdependency between corporations and key stakeholder groups. Social issue participation relates to involvement in social concerns voiced by a small portion of society, where the concerns do not have a direct relationship with key stakeholders. Examples of this include involvement in non-domestic concerns or prohibiting the use of nuclear energy. Hillman and Keim reports that not all CSR activities create shareholder value and suggests effective stakeholder management improves financial performance, whereas social issue participation has a negative impact on shareholder value. Similarly, Moura-Leite, Padgett and Galán (2014) found a positive relationship between stakeholder management and financial performance, and suggests that although social issue participation may not have significant effects on financial profitability, such practices could benefit corporate reputation and lead to better market performance. Different to the previous two studies, Scholtens and Zhou (2008) suggests focusing on stakeholder relations does not necessarily achieve greater financial performance. The study found an obvious relationship between socially irresponsible behaviour and poor financial performance and higher volatility of share prices; however, stakeholder relations in general have a slightly negative association with financial performance. Scholtens and Zhou’s findings suggest there is a point where the increased revenues from enhanced stakeholder relations are offset by the cost of achieving and maintaining responsible conduct.