Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T07:32:24.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional Linkages with the State and Organizational Practices in Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2017

Jianhua Ge  and
Wei Zhao
Jianhua Ge*
Affiliation:
Renmin University of China, China
Wei Zhao
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Shanghai University, China
*
Corresponding author: Jianhua Ge (shishuige@gmail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To deepen our understanding of organizations’ heterogeneous responses to institutional demand, we develop a ‘relational complexity’ argument to highlight organizations’ diverse institutional linkages as another important source of practice variation. We argue that diverse relations between organizations and the institutional authority can filter distinct institutional pressures and expectations, shape organizational interpretations of environmental demands, and thus trigger heterogeneous organizational practices. We adopt this theoretical framework and distinguish two types of institutional linkages with the state to understand different adoption patterns in corporate social responsibility (CSR) in its early stage of diffusion in China. Based on a national survey dataset consisting of 1,268 firms, our analyses show that firms having a stronger bureaucratic linkage with the state tend to focus on more visible external-oriented CSR practices. In contrast, those firms forming a closer partnership with the state through political or semi-political associations are more likely to take more extensive adoptions by further developing internal CSR structures. This study enriches the institutional analyses by shifting our attention to the relational dynamics between organizations and institutional authority as a key source of practice variation. It also has important implications to the research and practices of CSR in emerging economies.

摘要:

摘要:

为了加深我们关于组织对制度需求异质反应的认识, 我们提出“关系复杂性”的论点, 以突出作为实践变化另一个来源的组织的多样制度联系。我们认为, 组织和制度主管部门之间多样的关系可以过滤不同的制度压力和期望, 塑造对环保需求的组织解读, 从而引发异质组织实践。我们采用这个理论框架并区分两种与国家制度联系的不同类型, 以了解在中国的企业社会责任 (CSR) 传播早期阶段所采用CSR的不同模式。基于1268家公司组成的全国调查数据集, 我们的分析显示, 与国家有更强的官僚联系的企业往往专注于更明显的外向型CSR实践。与此相反, 通过政治或半政治关系与国家形成紧密伙伴关系的企业, 更可能通过进一步发展CSR内部结构采取更广泛的行动。本研究通过把我们的注意力转向作为实践变化关键来源的组织和制度主管部门之间的关系动态性, 丰富了制度分析。它对新兴经济体的CSR研究和实践也有重要的启示。

संगठनों की सांस्थानिक मांगों पर विलक्षण प्रतिक्रिया की समझ को सुदृढ़ करने हेतु हमने सम्बन्धजनित जटिलता का मत विकसित किया है जो बहु-आयामी सांस्थानिक संबंधों के कार्यप्रणाली विभेद में एक और महत्त्वपूर्ण स्रोत है. हमारा यह मत है की संगठनों और संस्थागत सत्ता के बीच बहु-आयामी संबंधों से विशिष्ट संस्थागत बाध्यताएं व अपेक्षाएं परिष्कृत होती हैं और परिवेशीय मांगों की संगठनीय व्याख्या होती है जिससे विविधतापूर्ण संगठनीय प्रथाओं का उद्भव होता है. इस सैद्धांतिक प्रतिदर्श को अपनाते हुए हम राज्य से दो प्रकार के संस्थागत संबंधों को पृथक कर चीन में प्रारंभिक चरण में संगठनात्मक सामाजिक दायित्व की अनुकूलन संरचनाओं को समझते हैं. राष्ट्रस्तरीय सर्वेक्षण के 1268 फर्मों के आंकड़ा समुच्चय के विश्लेषण के आधार पर यह देखा जा सकता है कि राजकीय नौकरशाहों से दृढ संगति वाली फर्मों में बाह्य केंद्रित संगठनात्मक सामाजिक दायित्व प्रथाएं अधिक होती हैं. इसके विपरीत राज्य से राजनैतिक व अर्ध-राजनैतिक संगति के आधार पर भागीदारी बनाने वाली फर्मों में आंतरिक संगठनात्मक सामाजिक दायित्व संरचना का विस्तीर्ण अधिग्रहण होता है. यह शोध हमारा ध्यान संगठन व संस्थागत अन्तर्सम्बन्धों कि गतिशीलता के परिपाटी विविधता में योगदान कि ओर आकृष्ट कर संस्थापरक शोध साहित्य को समृद्ध करता है. इसका आशय उदीयमान अर्थव्यवस्थाओं में संगठनात्मक सामाजिक दायित्व के शोध व परिचालन पर भी है.

Sumário:

Sumário:

Para aprofundar a nossa compreensão sobre as respostas heterogêneas das organizações a demandas institucionais, desenvolvemos um argumento de “complexidade relacional” para destacar os diversos vínculos institucionais das organizações como outra importante fonte de variação da prática. Argumentamos que diversificadas relações entre as organizações e a autoridade institucional podem filtrar pressões e expectativas institucionais distintas, moldar as interpretações organizacionais das demandas ambientais e, assim, desencadear práticas organizacionais heterogêneas. Adotamos esse quadro teórico e distinguimos dois tipos distintos de vínculos institucionais com o estado para compreender diferentes padrões de adoção na responsabilidade social corporativa (CSR) na fase inicial da difusão da CSR na China. Com base em um conjunto de dados de uma pesquisa nacional composto por 1.268 empresas, nossas análises mostram que as empresas que possuem um vínculo burocrático mais forte com o Estado tendem a se concentrar em práticas de CSR mais visíveis e orientadas para o público externo. Em contrapartida, as empresas que formam uma parceria mais estreita com o Estado por meio de conexões políticas ou semipolíticas são mais propensas a adotar mais extensões por meio do desenvolvimento de estruturas internas de CSR. Este estudo enriquece as análises institucionais, deslocando nossa atenção para a dinâmica relacional entre organizações e autoridade institucional como fonte chave de variação de prática. Ele também tem implicações importantes para a pesquisa e prática da CSR nas economias emergentes.

Аннотация:

АННОТАЦИЯ:

С целью лучше понять разнообразные действия организаций в ответ на институциональные запросы, мы разрабатываем концепцию «реляционной сложности», чтобы подчеркнуть значение различных институциональных связей в организациях в качестве еще одного важного источника вариативности в действиях. Мы утверждаем, что разнообразные отношения между организациями и исполнительной властью могут оказывать особое институциональное давление и создавать ожидания, а также формировать организационные интерпретации относительно требований окружающей среды, и тем самым вызывать разнообразные организационные действия. Мы принимаем эту теоретическую основу и различаем два разных типа институциональных связей с государством, чтобы понять различные способы применения в сфере корпоративной социальной ответственности (КСО) на ранней стадии распространения КСО в Китае. На основании данных национального опроса, который включает в себя 1268 компаний, можно сделать вывод о том, что компании, имеющие более сильную бюрократическую связь с государством, склонны применять более заметные внешне-ориентированные практики КСО. Напротив, те компании, которые формируют более тесное партнерство с государством при помощи политических или полу-политических связей, с большей вероятностью будут предпринимать более основательные действия путем дальнейшего развития внутренних структур КСО. Это исследование обогащает институциональный анализ, переключая наше внимание на реляционную динамику между организациями и исполнительной властью как ключевой источник вариативности в действиях. Данная работа также имеет важное значение для теоретических исследований и практики КСО в странах с развивающейся экономикой.

Resumen:

RESUMEN:

Para profundizar nuestro entendimiento de las respuestas heterogéneas de las organizaciones a la demanda institucional, desarrollamos un argumento de “complejidad relacional” para destacar las diversas conexiones como otra fuente importante de variación práctica. Argumentamos que las diversas relaciones entre las organizaciones y la autoridad institucional puede filtrar presiones y expectativas distintas, moldear las interpretaciones organizacionales para las demandas ambientales, y de esta manera, desencadenar prácticas organizacionales heterogéneas. Adoptamos este marco teórico y distinguimos dos distintos tipos de conexiones institucionales con el estado para entender los diferentes patrones en la adopción de responsabilidad social empresarial (RSE) en la etapa temprana de difusión de RSE en China. Con base en una base de datos de encuestas nacionales a 1268 empresas, nuestro análisis muestra que las empresas que tienen conexiones burocráticas más fuertes con el estado tienden a enfocarse más en prácticas de RSE hacia el exterior más visibles. En contraste, aquellas empresas que formar una asociación más estrecha con el gobierno mediante asociaciones políticas y semi-políticas son más propensas a adoptar de manera extensiva desarrollando estructuras internas de RSE. Este estudio enriquece los análisis institucionales al desplazar nuestra atención a las dinámicas relacionales entre las organizaciones y la autoridad institucional como una fuente clave de variación de prácticas. También tiene implicaciones importantes para la investigación y las prácticas de RSE en economías emergentes.

Keywords

Chinacorporate social responsibility (CSR)institutional linkagepractice variationrelational complexity中国企业社会责任 (CSR)制度联系实践变化关系复杂性चीनकॉर्पोरेट सामाजिक दायित्वसंस्थागत सम्बन्धपरिपाटीय विविधतासम्बन्धजनित जटिलताChinaresponsabilidade social corporativa (CSR)vínculo institucionalvariação da práticacomplexidade relacionalКитайкорпоративная социальная ответственность (КСО)институциональная связьвариативность действийреляционная сложностьChinaResponsabilidad social empresarial (RSE)conexión institucionalvariación prácticacomplejidad relacional
Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 539 - 573
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. 2012. What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38 (4): 932–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. 2013. Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6 (4): 314–332.Google Scholar
Ansari, S. M., Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. 2010. Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Academy of Management Review, 35 (1): 67–92.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (3): 396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, J. A. C., & Oliver, C. 1991. Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (2): 187–218.Google Scholar
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. 2006. Firm size, organizational visibility and corporate philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15 (1): 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Campbell, J. L., & Lindberg, L. N. 1990. Property rights and the organization of economic activity by the state. American Sociological Review, 55 (5): 634–647.Google Scholar
Carroll, A. B., & Hoy, F. 1984. Integrating corporate social policy into strategic management. Journal of Business Strategy, 4 (3): 48–57.Google Scholar
Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. 2001. Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5): 937–955.Google Scholar
Chen, J., & Dickson, B. J. 2010. Allies of the state: China's private entrepreneurs and democratic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chin, M. K., Hambrick, D. C., & Treviño, L. K. 2013. Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58 (2): 197–232.Google Scholar
Chiu, S.-C., & Sharfman, M. 2011. Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation of the instrumental perspective. Journal of Management, 37 (6): 1558–1585.Google Scholar
Dacin, M. T., Ventresca, M. J., & Beal, B. D. 1999. The embeddedness of organizations: Dialogue & directions. Journal of Management, 25 (3): 317–356.Google Scholar
Davis, G. F., & Greve, H. R. 1997. Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s. American Journal of Sociology, 103 (1): 1–37.Google Scholar
Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. 2008. Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (10): 1027–1055.Google Scholar
den Hond, F., Rehbein, K. A., de Bakker, F. G. A., & Lankveld, H. K. 2014. Playing on two chessboards: Reputation effects between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate political activity (CPA). Journal of Management Studies, 51 (5): 790–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng, G., & Kennedy, S. 2010. Big business and industry association lobbying in China: The paradox of contrasting styles. The China Journal, 63 (63): 101–125.Google Scholar
Devinney, T. 2009. Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, bad and ugly of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (2): 44–57.Google Scholar
Dickson, B. J. 2003. Red capitalists in China: The party, private entrepreneurs, and prospects for political change. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dickson, B. J. 2008. Wealth into power: The Communist Party's embrace of China's private sector. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2): 147–160.Google Scholar
Dobbin, F., Simmons, B., & Garrett, G. 2007. The global diffusion of public policies: Social construction, coercion, competition, or learning? Annual Review of Sociology, 33 (1): 449–472.Google Scholar
Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. 1987. Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12 (1): 76–90.Google Scholar
Edelman, L. B. 1990. Legal environments and organizational governance: The expansion of due process in the American workplace. American Journal of Sociology, 95 (6): 1401–1440.Google Scholar
Edelman, L. B. 1992. Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97 (6): 1531–1576.Google Scholar
Estrin, S., & Prevezer, M. 2011. The role of informal institutions in corporate governance: Brazil, Russia, India, and China compared. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28 (1): 41–67.Google Scholar
Fan, G., Wang, X., & Zhu, H. 2007. NERI index of marketization of China's provinces. Beijing: Economics Science Press.Google Scholar
Fiss, P. C., Kennedy, M. T., & Davis, G. F. 2012. How golden parachutes unfolded: Diffusion and variation of a controversial practice. Organization Science, 23 (4): 1077–1099.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N., & Zhang, J. 2011. A new agenda for research on the trajectory of Chinese capitalism. Management and Organization Review, 7 (1): 39–62.Google Scholar
Francis, C.-B. 1996. Reproduction of danwei institutional features in the context of China's market economy: The case of Haidian dstrict's high-tech sector. The China Quarterly, 147: 839–859.Google Scholar
George, E., Chattopadhyay, P., Sitkin, S. B., & Barden, J. 2006. Cognitive underpinnings of institutional persistence and change: A framing perspective. Academy of Management Review, 31 (2): 347–365.Google Scholar
Goodstein, J. D. 1994. Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer involvement in work-family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (2): 350–382.Google Scholar
Greene, W. H. 2011. Econometric analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Greening, D. W., & Gray, B. 1994. Testing a model of organizational response to social and political issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (3): 467–498.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. 2010. The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21 (2): 521–539.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Whetten, D. 2014. Rethinking institutions and organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 51 (7): 1206–1220.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. 2011. Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5: 317–371.Google Scholar
Guillén, M. F., & Capron, L. 2016. State capacity, minority shareholder protections, and stock market development. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61 (1): 125–160.Google Scholar
Hadani, M., & Coombes, S. 2015. Complementary relationships between corporate philanthropy and corporate political activity: An exploratory study of political marketplace contingencies. Business & Society, 54 (6): 859–881.Google Scholar
Hamilton, G. G., & Biggart, N. W. 1988. Market, culture, and authority: A comparative analysis of management and organization in the far East. American Journal of Sociology, 94: S52–S94.Google Scholar
Hillman, A. J., & Hitt, M. A. 1999. Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review, 24 (4): 825–842.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A. J. 2001. Linking organizational and field-level analyses: The diffusion of corporate environmental practice. Organization & Environment, 14 (2): 133–156.Google Scholar
Jia, M., & Zhang, Z. 2013. The CEO's representation of demands and the corporation's response to external pressures: Do politically affiliated firms donate more? Management and Organization Review, 9 (1): 87–114.Google Scholar
Jia, N. 2014. Are collective political actions and private political actions substitutes or complements? Empirical evidence from China's private sector. Strategic Management Journal, 35 (2): 292–315.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. A., & Greening, D. W. 1999. The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (5): 564–576.Google Scholar
Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. 1999. Civil rights law at work: Sex discrimination and the rise of maternity leave policies. American Journal of Sociology, 105 (2): 455–492.Google Scholar
Kennedy, M., & Fiss, P. 2009. Institutionalization, framing, and diffusion: The logic of TQM adoption and implementation decisions among U hospitals. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (5): 897–918.Google Scholar
Lev, B., Petrovits, C., & Radhakrishnan, S. 2010. Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (2): 182–200.Google Scholar
Li, H., Meng, L., Wang, Q., & Zhou, L. 2008. Political connections, financing and firm performance: Evidence from Chinese private firms. Journal of Development Economics, 87 (2): 283–299.Google Scholar
Li, J., & Qian, C. 2013. Principal-principal conflicts under weak institutions: A study of corporate takeovers in China. Strategic Management Journal, 34 (4): 498–508.Google Scholar
Lim, A., & Tsutsui, K. 2012. Globalization and commitment in corporate social responsibility cross-national analyses of institutional and political-economy effects. American Sociological Review, 77 (1): 69–98.Google Scholar
Lindberg, L. N., & Campbell, J. L. 1991. The state and the organization of economic activity. In Campbell, J. L., Hollingsworth, J. R., & Lindberg, L. N. (Eds.), Governance of the American economy: 356–395. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, M. 2001. Institutional sources of practice variation: Staffing college and university recycling programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (1): 29–56.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, M. 2007. A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (2): 289–307.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, M. 2008. Institutional rationality and practice variation: New directions in the institutional analysis of practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33 (4–5): 349–361.Google Scholar
Luo, Y., & Chen, M. 1997. Does guanxi influence firm performance? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 14 (1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Ma, D., & Parish, W. L. 2006. Tocquevillian moments: Charitable contributions by Chinese private entrepreneurs. Social Forces, 85 (2): 943–964.Google Scholar
Marquis, C., & Lee, M. 2013. Who is governing whom? Executives, governance, and the structure of generosity in large U.S. firms. Strategic Management Journal, 34 (4): 483–497.Google Scholar
Marquis, C., & Qian, C. 2014. Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance? Organization Science, 25 (1): 127–148.Google Scholar
McGinnis, A., Pellegrin, J., Shum, Y., Teo, J., & Wu, J. 2009. The Sichuan Earthquake and the changing landscape of CSR in China. Knowledge@Wharton. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2213 Google Scholar
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26 (1): 117–127.Google Scholar
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2): 340–363.Google Scholar
Michelson, E. 2007. Lawyers, political embeddedness, and institutional continuity in China's transition from socialism. American Journal of Sociology, 113 (2): 352–414.Google Scholar
Moon, J., Kang, N., & Gond, J. 2010. Corporate social responsibility and government. In Coen, D., Grant, W., & Wilson, G. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Business and Government: 512–543. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nee, V., & Opper, S. 2007. On politicized capitalism. In Nee, V. & Swedberg, R. (Eds.), On capitalism: 93–127. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Okhmatovskiy, I., & David, R. J. 2012. Setting your own standards: Internal corporate governance codes as a response to institutional pressure. Organization Science, 23 (1): 155–176.Google Scholar
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16 (1): 145–179.Google Scholar
Oliver, C. 1997. Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (9): 697–713.Google Scholar
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. 2008. Networks and institutions. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 596–623. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. 2010. When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35 (3): 455–476.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. 2000. Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3): 486–501.Google Scholar
Podolny, J. M. 2001. Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107 (1): 33–60.Google Scholar
Powell, W. W. 1991. Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 183–203. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prechel, H., & Morris, T. 2010. The effects of organizational and political embeddedness on financial malfeasance in the largest U corporations: Dependence, incentives, and opportunities. American Sociological Review, 75 (3): 331–354.Google Scholar
Raffaelli, R., & Glynn, M. A. 2014. Turnkey or tailored? Relational pluralism, institutional complexity, and the organizational adoption of more or less customized practices. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (2): 541–562.Google Scholar
Rehbein, K., & Schuler, D. A. 2015. Linking corporate community programs and political strategies: A resource-based view. Business & Society, 54 (6): 794–821.Google Scholar
Ruef, M., & Scott, W. R. 1998. A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (4): 877–904.Google Scholar
SASAC. 2007. Guiding opinions on central SOEs’ social responsibility. https://www.sasac.gov.cn/n1180/n1566/n259760/n264851/3621925.html Google Scholar
Schneider, S. C., & De Meyer, A. 1991. Interpreting and responding to strategic issues: The impact of national culture. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (4): 307–320.Google Scholar
Schuler, D. A., Rehbein, K., & Cramer, R. D. 2002. Pursuing strategic advantage through political means: A multivariate approach. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (4): 659–672.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. 2014. Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identities (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
See, G. 2008. Harmonious society and Chinese CSR: Is there really a link? Journal of Business Ethics, 89 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. 2000. Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4): 681–697.Google Scholar
Sharma, S., Pablo, A. L., & Vredenburg, H. 1999. Corporate environmental responsiveness strategies: The importance of issue interpretation and organizational context. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35 (1): 87–108.Google Scholar
Shi, W. (Stone), Sun, S. L., & Peng, M. W. 2012. Sub-national institutional contingencies, network positions, and IJV partner selection. Journal of Management Studies, 49 (7): 1221–1245.Google Scholar
Shipilov, A. V., Greve, H. R., & Rowley, T. J. 2010. When do interlocks matter? Institutional logics and the diffusion of multiple corporate governance practices. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (4): 846–864.Google Scholar
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20 (3): 571–610.Google Scholar
Sun, P., Mellahi, K., Wright, M., & Xu, H. 2015. Political tie heterogeneity and the impact of adverse shocks on firm value. Journal of Management Studies, 52 (8): 1036–1063.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. R., & Dobbin, F. 1996. The two faces of governance: Responses to legal uncertainty in U.S. firms, 1955 to 1985. American Sociological Review, 61 (5): 794–811.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. 2012. Institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tian, X. 1999. Market orientation and regional economic disparities in China. Post-Communist Economies, 11 (2): 161–172.Google Scholar
Tilcsik, A., & Marquis, C. 2013. Punctuated generosity: How mega-events and natural disasters affect corporate philanthropy in U.S. communities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58 (1): 111–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (1): 22–39.Google Scholar
Tsui, K. 1996. Economic reform and interprovincial inequalities in China. Journal of Development Economics, 50 (2): 353–368.Google Scholar
Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1): 35–67.Google Scholar
Walder, A. G. 1995. Local governments as industrial firms: An organizational analysis of China's transitional economy. American Journal of Sociology, 101 (2): 263–301.Google Scholar
Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. 2006. Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (8): 1703–1725.Google Scholar
Wang, H., Choi, J., & Li, J. 2008. Too little or too much? Untangling the relationship between corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance. Organization Science, 19 (1): 143–159.Google Scholar
Wang, H., & Qian, C. 2011. Corporate philanthropy and financial performance of Chinese firms: The roles of social expectations and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (6): 1159–1181.Google Scholar
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. 1999. Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (5): 539–552.Google Scholar
Weber, K., Davis, G., & Lounsbury, M. 2009. Policy as myth and ceremony? The global spread of stock exchanges, 1980-2005. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (6): 1319–1347.Google Scholar
Xu, S., & Yang, R. 2009. Indigenous characteristics of Chinese corporate social responsibility conceptual paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, 93 (2): 321–333.Google Scholar
Zellner, A. 1962. An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57 (298): 348–368.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., & Luo, X. R. 2013. Dared to care: Organizational vulnerability, institutional logics, and MNCs’ social responsiveness in emerging markets. Organization Science, 24 (6): 1742–1764.Google Scholar
Zhang, R., Zhu, J., Yue, H., & Zhu, C. 2010. Corporate philanthropic giving, advertising intensity, and industry competition level. Journal of Business Ethics, 94 (1): 39–52.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Zhao, W., & Ge, J. 2016. Institutional duality and political strategies of foreign-invested firms in an emerging economy. Journal of World Business, 51 (3): 451–462.Google Scholar
Zhao, M. 2012. CSR-based political legitimacy strategy: Managing the state by doing good in China and Russia. Journal of Business Ethics, 111 (4): 439–460.Google Scholar
Zhou, X., Zhao, W., Li, Q., & Cai, H. 2003. Embeddedness and contractual relationships in China's transitional economy. American Sociological Review, 68 (1): 75–102.Google Scholar
Zhu, H., & Chung, C.-N. 2014. Portfolios of political ties and business group strategy in emerging economies: Evidence from Taiwan. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59 (4): 599–638.Google Scholar
Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. 2007. How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52 (1): 70–105.Google Scholar
Zukin, S., & DiMaggio, P. J. 1990. Introduction. In Zukin, S. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.), Structures of capital: The social organization of the economy: 1–36. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ge and Zhao supplementary material

Ge and Zhao supplementary material 1

Download Ge and Zhao supplementary material(File)
File 13.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Ge and Zhao supplementary material

Ge and Zhao supplementary material 2

Download Ge and Zhao supplementary material(File)
File 13.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Ge and Zhao supplementary material

Ge and Zhao supplementary material 3

Download Ge and Zhao supplementary material(File)
File 39.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Ge and Zhao supplementary material

Ge and Zhao supplementary material 4

Download Ge and Zhao supplementary material(File)
File 14.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Ge and Zhao supplementary material

Ge and Zhao supplementary material 5

Download Ge and Zhao supplementary material(File)
File 13.5 KB