Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:03:29.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional Ownership and Corporate Philanthropic Giving in an Emerging Economy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2016

Yuanyang Song ,
Peter T. Gianiodis  and
Yuanxu Li
Yuanyang Song*
Affiliation:
East China University of Science and Technology, China
Peter T. Gianiodis
Affiliation:
Clemson University, USA
Yuanxu Li
Affiliation:
Fudan University, China
*
Corresponding author: Yuanyang Song ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this study, we examine the effect of institutional ownership on corporate philanthropy in China, an emerging economy. Employing stakeholder identification and salience theory, we posit that institutional ownership positively influences corporate philanthropy, which varies for different types of institutional investors. We further argue that institutional ownership's influence is stronger when philanthropy is aligned with firm goals. Using data from Chinese publicly listed firms, we find a positive effect of institutional ownership on philanthropy, and this effect is stronger for domestic institutional owners when compared to foreign institutional owners, and long-term when compared to short-term institutional owners. We also find that the positive influence of institutional ownership is stronger in private firms and in regions with low institutional development – situations characterizing high alignment between philanthropy and firm goals. Our findings highlight the important role of institutional investors on corporate philanthropy decisions, which have implications for scholars studying and policy makers enacting corporate governance in emerging economies.

摘要:

摘要:

在本研究中, 我们探讨了机构投资者持股对企业慈善捐赠的影响。基于利益相关者识别和重要性理论, 我们认为机构投资者持股对企业慈善捐赠有正向影响, 并且这种影响的强度取决于机构投资者的类型。更进一步, 当慈善捐赠与企业目标一致时, 机构投资者持股对慈善捐赠的影响会更强。基于中国上市公司的数据, 我们发现机构投资者持股对企业慈善捐赠有显著的正向影响, 并且本土机构投资者持股的正向影响强于外资机构投资者持股、长期机构投资者持股的正向影响强于短期机构投资者持股。我们还发现机构投资者对慈善捐赠的正向影响在民营企业和地区制度发展水平低时更强——在这两种情境下慈善捐赠与企业目标更一致。本研究揭示了机构投资者在企业慈善捐赠决策中扮演的重要角色, 对学者进一步研究以及政策制定者改善新兴市场的公司治理有重要启示。

इस शोध अध्ययन में हमने चीन (एक उदीयमान अर्थव्यवस्था) के सन्दर्भ में संस्थागत स्वामित्व के कॉर्पोरेट लोकोपकार पर प्रभाव का अध्ययन किया है. हितधारक निर्धारण व प्रमुखता निर्धारण सिद्धांत (स्टेकहोल्डर आइडेंटिफिकेशन व सेलिएंस थ्योरी) का प्रयोग करते हुए हमारा तर्क यह है कि संस्थागत स्वामित्व का कॉर्पोरेट लोकोपकार पर सकारात्मक प्रभाव होता है और यह भिन्न प्रकार के निवेशकों में पृथक रूप से परिलक्षित होता है. हमारा अगला तर्क यह है कि संस्थागत स्वामित्व का यह प्रभाव तब अधिक होता है जब लोकोपकार का फर्म के लक्ष्यों के साथ तारतम्य हो. चीन की सार्वजनिक सूचीबद्ध (पब्लिक लिस्टेड) फर्मों के आंकड़ों के आधार पर हमने संस्थागत स्वामित्व का लोकोपकार पर सकारात्मक प्रभाव पाया और साथ में यह भी देखा कि यह प्रभाव विदेशी संस्थागत निवेशकों की तुलना में देशी निवेशकों पर अधिक है. इसी प्रकार यह प्रभाव अल्पकालीन निवेशकों की तुलना में दीर्घकालीन निवेशकों के सन्दर्भ में अधिक है. हमने यह भी पाया की संस्थागत स्वामित्व का प्रभाव निजी फर्मों तथा सीमित संस्थागत विकास वाले भौगोलिक क्षेत्रों में अधिक है जो कि लोकोपकार और फर्म के लक्ष्यों के बीच उच्च तारतम्य का द्योतक है. हमारे शोध परिणाम कॉर्पोरेट लोकोपकार सम्बन्धी निर्णयों में संस्थागत निवेशकों कि भूमिका परिलक्षित करते हैं जिसका निगमित प्रशासन (कॉर्पोरेट गवर्नेंस) के शोधार्थियों के साथ ही उदीयमान अर्थव्यवस्थाओं में इस विषय पर नीति निर्धारण करने वालों के लिए भी महत्व है.

Neste estudo, nós examinamos o efeito da propriedade institucional na filantropia corporativa na China, uma economia emergente. Empregando a identificação das partes interessadas e a teoria da saliência, postulamos que a propriedade institucional influencia positivamente a filantropia corporativa, que varia para diferentes tipos de investidores institucionais. Nós ainda argumentamos que a influência da propriedade institucional é mais forte quando a filantropia está alinhada com as metas empresariais. Usando dados de empresas chinesas de capital aberto, encontramos um efeito positivo da propriedade institucional na filantropia, e esse efeito é mais forte para proprietários domésticos, quando comparado com proprietários institucionais estrangeiros, e para proprietários de longo prazo, quando comparado a proprietários institucionais de curto prazo. Nós também achamos que a influência positiva da propriedade institucional é mais forte nas empresas privadas e em regiões com baixo desenvolvimento institucional - situações caracterizando alto alinhamento entre filantropia e metas empresariais. Nossos resultados destacam a importância do papel dos investidores institucionais nas decisões sobre filantropia corporativa, que têm implicações para acadêmicos que pesquisam e formuladores de políticas que legislam sobre governança corporativa em economias emergentes.

Аннотация:

Аннотация:

В данной работе, мы исследуем влияние институционных инвестиций на корпоративную филантропию в Китае, в стране с развивающейся экономикой. На основании теории идентификации и взаимодействия заинтересованных сторон, мы предполагаем, что институционные инвестиции положительно влияют на корпоративную филантропию, с определенными отличиями для разных типов институционных инвесторов. Более того, мы утверждаем, что влияние институционных инвестиций сильнее в том случае, если филантропия совпадает с интересами компании. Используя данные китайских публичных компаний, мы демонстрируем положительное влияние институционных инвестиций на филантропию, и это влияние сильнее в случае национальных, а не иностранных институционных инвесторов, а также в случае долгосрочных, а не краткосрочных институционных инвестиций. Мы также делаем вывод, что положительное влияние институционных инвестиций сильнее в частных компаниях и в регионах с низким институционным развитием – в этих случаях филантропия значительно совпадает с интересами компании. Наши результаты свидетельствуют о важной роли институционных инвесторов в корпоративной филантропии, и это создает предпосылки для исследователей и руководителей в сфере корпоративного управления в странах с развивающейся экономикой.

En este estudio, examinamos el efecto de la propiedad institucional en filantropía corporativa en China, una economía emergente. Usando identificación de partes interesadas y la teoría de la prominencia, postulamos que la propiedad institucional influye positivamente en la filantropía corporativa, la cual varía entre los diferentes tipos de inversionistas institucionales. Adicionalmente argumentamos, que la influencia de la propiedad institucional es más fuerte cuando la filantropía está alineada con las metas de la empresa. Usando datos de empresas chinas que cotizan en bolsa, encontramos un efecto positivo de la propiedad institucional en la filantropía, y este efecto es más fuerte para dueños locales cuando al compararse con dueños institucionales extranjeros, y dueños institucionales de largo plazo cuando se compara con corto plazo. También encontramos que la influencia positiva de propiedad institucional es más fuerte en empresa privadas y en regiones con bajo desarrollo institucional – que caracterizan las situaciones de alta alineación entre filantropía y las metas de la empresa. Nuestros hallazgos resaltan el importante papel de los inversionistas institucionales en las decisiones de filantropía corporativa, la cual tiene implicaciones para académicos estudiando y los responsables de promulgar políticas de gobernabilidad corporativa en economías emergentes.

Keywords

Chinacorporate philanthropyemerging economiesinstitutional investorstakeholder salience
Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 357 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2016 

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

Adams, M., & Hardwick, P. 1998. An analysis of corporate donations: United Kingdom evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 35 (5): 641–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agle, B., Mitchell, R., & Sonnenfeld, J. 1999. Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (5): 507–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amato, L., & Amato, C. 2007. The effects of firm size and industry on corporate giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 72 (3): 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, L., & Galaskiewicz, J. 1988. Stock ownership and company contributions to charity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33 (1): 82–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bai, C. E., Lu, J., & Tao, Z. 2006. Property rights protection and access to bank loans. Economics of Transition, 14 (4): 611–628.Google Scholar
Barker III, V. L., & Mueller, G. C. 2002. CEO characteristics and firm R&D spending. Management Science, 48 (6): 782–801.Google Scholar
Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. 2010. Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97 (1): 71–86.Google Scholar
Bettis, R., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., & Mitchell, W. 2014. Quantitative empirical analysis in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 35 (7): 949–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. 2004. The development of corporate charitable contributions in the UK: A stakeholder analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 41 (8): 1411–1434.Google Scholar
Brennan, M. J., & Cao, H. H. 1997. International portfolio investment flows. Journal of Finance, 52 (5): 1851–1880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. O., Helland, E., & Smith, J. K. 2006. Corporate philanthropic practices. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12 (5): 855–877.Google Scholar
Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. K. 2013. Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of Management Review, 38 (3): 352–376.Google Scholar
Bushee, B. 1998. The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. Accounting Review, 73 (3): 305–333.Google Scholar
Cheung, Y.-L., Rau, P. R., & Stouraitis, A. 2006. Tunneling, propping, and expropriation: Evidence from connected party transactions in Hong Kong. Journal of Financial Economics, 82 (2): 343–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choe, H., Kho, B.-C., & Stulz, R. M. 2005. Do domestic investors have an edge? The trading experience of foreign investors in Korea. Review of Financial Studies, 18 (3): 795–829.Google Scholar
Choi, B. B., Lee, D., & Park, Y. 2013. Corporate social responsibility, corporate governance and earnings quality: Evidence from Korea. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21 (5): 447–467.Google Scholar
Coffey, B., & Fryxell, G. 1991. Institutional ownership of stock and dimensions of corporate social performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 10 (6): 437–444.Google Scholar
Connelly, B. L., Tihanyi, L., Certo, S. T., & Hitt, M. A. 2010. Marching to the beat of different drummers: The influence of institutional owners on competitive actions. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (4): 723–742.Google Scholar
Cox, P., Brammer, S., & Millington, A. 2004. An empirical examination of institutional investor preferences for corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 52 (1): 27–43.Google Scholar
CSRC 2008. China capital markets development report. Beijing: China Financial Publishing House.Google Scholar
Dam, L., & Scholtens, B. 2012. Does ownership type matter for corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20 (3): 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. J. 2007. Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (1): 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, P., Hitt, M., & Gimeno, J. 2001. The influence of activism by institutional investors on R&D. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (1): 144–157.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
Du, X., Jian, W., Du, Y., Feng, W., & Zeng, Q. 2014. Religion, the nature of ultimate owner, and corporate philanthropic giving: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 123 (2): 235–256.Google Scholar
Falck, O., & Heblich, S. 2007. Corporate social responsibility: Doing well by doing good. Business Horizons, 50 (3): 247–254.Google Scholar
Fan, G., Wang, X., & Zhu, H. 2011. NERI index of marketization of China's provinces 2011 report. Beijing: Economics Science Press.Google Scholar
Gillan, S., & Starks, L. 2000. Corporate governance proposals and shareholder activism: The role of institutional investors. Journal of Financial Economics, 57 (2): 275–305.Google Scholar
Godfrey, P. C. 2005. The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30 (4): 777–798.Google Scholar
Goranova, M., & Ryan, L. V. 2013. Shareholder activism: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, Published online: DOI: 10.1177/0149206313515519.Google Scholar
Graves, S., & Waddock, S. 1994. Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (4): 1034–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., & Schor, M. 2009. Investor activism and takeovers. Journal of Financial Economics, 92 (3): 362–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guercio, D. D., & Hawkins, J. 1999. The motivation and impact of pension fund activism. Journal of Financial Economics, 52 (3): 293–340.Google Scholar
Harjoto, M., & Jo, H. 2011. Corporate governance and CSR nexus. Journal of Business Ethics, 100 (1): 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Y., & Tian, Z. 2008. Government-oriented corporate public relation strategies in transitional China. Management and Organization Review, 4 (3): 367–391.Google Scholar
Hellman, J. S., Jones, G., & Kaufmann, D. 2003. Seize the state, seize the day: State capture and influence in transition economies. Journal of Comparative Economics, 31 (4): 751–773.Google Scholar
Hoskisson, R., Hitt, M., Johnson, R., & Grossman, W. 2002. Conflicting voices: The effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (4): 697–716.CrossRefGoogle 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
Jian, M., & Wong, T. J. 2010. Propping through related party transactions. Review of Accounting Studies, 15 (1): 70–105.Google Scholar
Jiang, G., Lee, C. M. C., & Yue, H. 2010. Tunneling through intercorporate loans: The China experience. Journal of Financial Economics, 98 (1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. 2011. Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103: 351–383.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, J.-K., & Stulz, R. 1997. Why is there a home bias? An analysis of foreign portfolio equity ownership in Japan. Journal of Financial Economics, 46 (1): 3–28.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., Ho, I., & Giles, M. 2003. Developing institutional investors in People's Republic of China. World Bank Country Study Paper: 1–80.Google Scholar
Kochhar, R., & David, P. 1996. Institutional investors and firm innovation: A test of competing hypotheses. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (1): 73–84.Google Scholar
La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. 1999. Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, 54 (2): 471–517.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., & Zhang, J. 2006. Why do entrepreneurs enter politics? Evidence from China. Economic Inquiry, 44 (3): 559–578.Google Scholar
Li, H., & Zhang, Y. 2007. The role of managers’ political networking and functional experience in new venture performance: Evidence from China's transition economy. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (8): 791–804.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
Li, J., Vertinsky, I., & Zhang, H. 2013. The quality of domestic legal systems and export performance: Theory and evidence from China. Management International Review, 53 (3): 361–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, X. 2005. A contingent perspective on the advantages of stores’ strategic philanthropy for influencing consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4 (5): 390–401.Google Scholar
Marquis, C., & Lee, M. 2013. Who is governing whom? Executives, governance, and the structure of generosity in large US firms. Strategic Management Journal, 34 (4): 483–497.Google Scholar
Marquis, C., & Qian, C. 2013. Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance. Organization Science, 25 (1): 127–148.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22 (4): 853–886.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., Chrisman, J. J., & Spence, L. J. 2011. Toward a theory of stakeholder salience in family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21 (2): 235–255.Google Scholar
Muller, A. R., Pfarrer, M. D., & Little, L. M. 2014. A theory of collective empathy in corporate philanthropy decisions. Academy of Management Review, 39 (1): 1–21.Google Scholar
NBS. 2003, 2012. China statistical yearbook (Online edition, www.stats.gov.cn). Beijing: China Statistics Press.Google Scholar
Neubaum, D., & Zahra, S. 2006. Institutional ownership and corporate social performance: The moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination. Journal of Management, 32 (1): 108–131.Google Scholar
Oh, W., Chang, Y., & Martynov, A. 2011. The effect of ownership structure on corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 104: 283–297.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28 (2): 275–296.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y. L., & Jiang, Y. 2008. An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (5): 920–936.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2002. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80 (12): 56–69.Google Scholar
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1986. Large shareholders and corporate control. Journal of Political Economy: 94 (3): 461–488.Google Scholar
Su, J., & He, J. 2010. Does giving lead to getting? Evidence from Chinese private enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 93 (1): 73–90.Google Scholar
Su, Y., Xu, D., & Phan, P. H. 2008. Principal–principal conflict in the governance of the Chinese public corporation. Management and Organization Review, 4 (1): 17–38.Google Scholar
Tenev, S., Zhang, C., & Brefort, L. 2002. Corporate governance and enterprise reform in China: Building the institutions of modern markets: World Bank Publications.Google Scholar
Tilcsik, A., & Marquis, C. 2013. Punctuated generosity: How mega-events and natural disasters affect corporate philanthropy in US communities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58 (1): 111–148.Google Scholar
Wang, H., Choi, J., & Li, J. 2008a. 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 corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (6): 1159–1181.Google Scholar
Wang, Q., Wong, T. J., & Xia, L. 2008b. State ownership, the institutional environment, and auditor choice: Evidence from China. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 46 (1): 112–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. J., & Barrett, J. D. 2000. Corporate philanthropy, criminal activity, and firm reputation: Is there a link? Journal of Business Ethics, 26 (4): 341–350.Google Scholar
World Bank 2006. China: Governance, investment climate, and harmonious society: Competitiveness enhancements for 120 cities in China. World Bank Report No. 37759-Cn. World Bank.Google Scholar
Wu, S., Levitas, E., & Priem, R. L. 2005. CEO tenure and company invention under differing levels of technological dynamism. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5): 859–873.Google Scholar
Xin, K. K., & Pearce, J. L. 1996. Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for formal institutional support. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (6): 1641–1658.Google Scholar
Xu, X., & Wang, Y. 1999. Ownership structure and corporate governance in Chinese stock companies. China Economic Review, 10 (1): 75–98.Google Scholar
Young, M. N., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G. D., & Jiang, Y. 2008. Corporate governance in emerging economies: A review of the principal–principal perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (1): 196–220.Google Scholar
Zhang, R., Rezaee, Z., & Zhu, J. 2009. Corporate philanthropic disaster response and ownership type: Evidence from Chinese firms’ response to the Sichuan earthquake. Journal of Business Ethics, 91 (1): 51–63.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
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Download undefined(File)
File 14.4 KB