Why Firms Perform Differently in Corporate Social Responsibility? Firm Ownership and the Persistence of Organizational Imprints

Abstract

This article analyzes the effects of firms’ founding ownership in shaping their corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance in China. Drawing on a nationwide survey of 1,037 representative manufacturing firms in 12 cities, we specify the imprinting effects of firms’ founding ownership on labor and environmental protections, two important CSR practices. Our results show that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) founded during the state socialist period, regardless of their restructuring experience in the market reform era, continued to implement pro-labor practices. Moreover, even the SOEs founded in the market reform era provided better labor protection than non-SOEs founded during the same time. In contrast, the founding imprints of environmentalism in the reform era for non-SOEs, especially the de novo private firms, explain why they spent more than SOEs in environmental protection. We extend the organizational imprinting theory by highlighting the importance of firms’ founding ownership imprints and in shaping their current CSR performance.

Corporate Social Responsibility Amid Social Distancing During the COVID-19 Crisis: BRICS vs. OECD Countries

“…Implementing voluntary initiatives for businesses to improve their employees' labor conditions and implementing socially significant projects creates a particular environmental protection sphere. Application of these practices on corporate responsibility in developing markets are found in the following readings: Benlemlih (2019) , Borges et al (2018) , Cheong et al (2017) , Denisov et al (2018) , Ge and Zhao (2017) , Gong and Ho (2018) , Han and Zheng (2016) , Krivtsov (2014) , Lee et al (2018) , Li and Liu (2018) , Malik and Kanwal (2018) , Marquis et al (2017) , Morozova et al (2018) , Mukherjee et al (2018) , Nazri et al (2018) , Popkova (2017) , Schrempf-Stirling (2018) , and Veselovsky et al (2018) , Chu et al (2018) , Frig et al (2018) , Harjoto and Laksmana (2018)) , Kansal et al (2018) , Sheikh (2019) , Utgård (2018) .…”

Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: does institutional quality matter?

“…An important part of literature has focused on the association between corporate governance practices, CSR and FP. The main conclusion suggests that within good governance practices, CSR positively affects the level of firm performance (Han and Zheng, 2016; Soewarno, 2018; Dyck et al , 2019). Sial et al (2018) have supported that the relationship between CSR and firm performance can be moderated by other external factors such as environmental outcomes (Pullman et al , 2009; Wang and Sarkis, 2017; Úbeda-García et al , 2021), innovation (Fisher and Sawczyn, 2013; Anser et al , 2018) and the firm's reputation (Rehman et al , 2020).…”

Stakeholder pressure for sustainability: Can ‘innovative capabilities’ explain the idiosyncratic response in the manufacturing firms?

“…Literature explores how various factors affect or mediate these organisational responses. Literature reports the following exogenous and endogenous factors: growth rate of the industry and traits of business managers (Lewis, Walls, & Dowell, 2014), cultural value and ethical leadership (Zhu, Sun, & Leung, 2014), chief executive officer's reputation (Konadu et al, 2020), trust and identity (Kostova & Roth, 2002), environmental training (Sarkis et al, 2010), sustainability control systems (Wijethilake & Upadhaya, 2020), firm ownership (Han & Zheng, 2016) and board composition, and location of an organisation (Davis & Greve, 1997). We did not find any study that discussed the mediating role of innovations on the firm's response regarding adoption of sustainable practices under the impact of stakeholder pressure.…”