Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:32:37.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Strength of Two Hands: Conflicting Stakeholder Pressures and Corporate Philanthropic Giving

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2020

Liang Zhang ,
Zhe Zhang Open the ORCID record for Zhe Zhang [Opens in a new window] ,
Ming Jia  and
Yeyao Ren
Liang Zhang*
Affiliation:
Xi'an Jiaotong University, China
Zhe Zhang
Affiliation:
Xi'an Jiaotong University, China
Ming Jia
Affiliation:
Northwestern Polytechnical University, China
Yeyao Ren
Affiliation:
Xi'an Jiaotong University, China
*
Corresponding author: Liang Zhang ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We develop a stakeholder framework that examines how firms respond to the conflicting demands that arise from governments and investors in the context of corporate philanthropic giving. We argue that firms that experience such conflict exhibit a decoupling response in philanthropic giving. Furthermore, we identify the boundary conditions of the relationship between the conflicting pressures and the decoupling response. Drawing on stakeholder salience literature, we argue that this relationship will be weakened when CEOs perceive government demands as more salient (such as those with a communist ideology) and when CEOs are less sensitive to investor claims (such as those with fewer career concerns). We find empirical support for our arguments using a sample of 8,857 Chinese listed firms from 2006 to 2015. Our study contributes to the literature on stakeholder theory, decoupling, and corporate philanthropy.

摘要

摘要

我们建立了一个利益相关者框架，研究了企业在慈善捐赠中如何应对来自政府和投资者相互冲突的需求。我们认为，面临这种冲突的公司在慈善捐赠方面会表现出一种脱钩反应。进一步，我们识别了相互冲突的压力与脱钩反应关系的边界条件。基于利益相关者显著性文献，我们认为，当CEO认为政府的要求更加突出（比如具有共产主义意识形态的CEO），或者当CEO对投资者的要求不敏感（比如对职业生涯担忧较少的CEO）时，这种关系将会减弱。利用2006年至2015年8,857家中国上市公司的样本，我们验证了上述观点。这项研究对利益相关者理论、脱钩文献和企业慈善文献做出了贡献。

Аннотация

АННОТАЦИЯ

Мы разрабатываем концепцию заинтересованных сторон, которая исследует, каким образом компании реагируют на противоречивые требования, которые выдвигают правительства и инвесторы, в контексте корпоративной благотворительности. Мы утверждаем, что компании, которые сталкиваются с такой проблемой, демонстрируют реакцию ослабления зависимости в благотворительной деятельности. Кроме того, мы определяем граничные условия для взаимосвязи между противоречивыми требованиями и ответной реакцией ослабления зависимости. Опираясь на научную литературу по особому значению заинтересованных сторон, мы утверждаем, что эта взаимосвязь будет ослаблена, когда генеральные директора воспринимают требования правительства как более существенные (как те, кто придерживаются коммунистической идеологии) и когда генеральные директора менее восприимчивы к требованиям инвесторов (как те, кто не слишком заинтересованы в карьерном росте). Мы находим эмпирическую поддержку наших предположений на основании выборки из 8857 китайских компаний, зарегистрированных на бирже, в период с 2006 по 2015 гг. Наше исследование вносит свой вклад в научную литературу по теории заинтересованных сторон, ослаблению зависимости и корпоративной благотворительности.

Resumen

RESUMEN

Desarrollamos un marco de grupos de interés que examina como en el contexto de demandas conflictivas que surgen de gobiernos e inversionistas en el contexto de donaciones filantrópicas corporativas. Discutimos que las empresas que experimentan ese conflicto exhiben una respuesta de desacoplamiento en donaciones corporativas. Además, identificamos las condiciones límite de la relación entre las presiones conflictivas y la respuesta de desacoplamiento. Basándonos en la literatura de relevancia de grupos de interés, discutimos que esta relación será debilitada cuando los CEOs perciban exigencias del gobierno como más destacadas (como aquellas con ideología comunista) y cuando los CEOs son menos sensibles a las demandas de los inversionistas (como aquellos con menos preocupaciones profesionales). Encontramos soporte empírico para nuestros argumentos usando una muestra de 8.857 empresas chinas que cotizan en bolsa entre 2006 y 2015. Nuestro estudio contribuye a la literatura de teoría de grupos de interés, desacoplamiento, y filantropía corporativa.

Keywords

boundary condition of decouplingconflicting stakeholder pressurescorporate philanthropic givingstakeholder managementstakeholder salience脱钩的边界条件相互冲突的利益相关者压力企业慈善捐赠利益相关者管理利益相关者显著性граничное условие ослабления зависимостипротивоположные требования заинтересованных сторонкорпоративная благотворительностьуправление отношениями с заинтересованными сторонамизначимость заинтересованных сторонcondiciones límites de desacoplamientopresiones de grupos de interés conflictivosdonaciones filantrópicas corporativasgestión de grupos de interésimportancia de los grupos de interés
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 335 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 The International Association for Chinese Management Research

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.)

Footnotes

Accepted by: Senior Editor Till Talaulicar

References

REFERENCES

Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 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.Google Scholar
Bartkus, B. R., Morris, S. A., & Seifert, B. 2002. Governance and corporate philanthropy restraining Robin Hood? Business & Society, 41(3): 319–344.Google Scholar
Bian, Y., Shu, X., & Logan, J. R. 2001. Communist Party membership and regime dynamics in China. Social Forces, 79(3): 805–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. 2012. From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1): 483–530.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byun, H., & Kim, T. H. 2013. Identity claims and diffusion of sustainability report: Evidence from Korean listed companies, 2003–2010. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3): 551–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannella, A. A. Jr, & Lubatkin, M. 1993. Succession as a sociopolitical process: Internal impediments to outsider selection. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4): 763–793.Google Scholar
Carroll, A. B. 1989. Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.Google Scholar
Carroll, A. B. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4): 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, A. B. 2016. Carroll's pyramid of CSR: Taking another look. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1(1): 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C. R., Li, Y., Luo, D., & Zhang, T. 2017. Helping hands or grabbing hands? An analysis of political connections and firm value. Journal of Banking & Finance, 80: 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chin, M., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chizema, A., Liu, X., Lu, J., & Gao, L. 2015. Politically connected boards and top executive pay in Chinese listed firms. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6): 890–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. M., Dhaliwal, D. S., Boivie, S., & Graffin, S. D. 2015. Top management conservatism and corporate risk strategies: Evidence from managers’ personal political orientation and corporate tax avoidance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(12): 1918–1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, M. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuypers, I. R., Koh, P. S., & Wang, H. 2015. Sincerity in corporate philanthropy, stakeholder perceptions and firm value. Organization Science, 27(1): 173–188.Google Scholar
Dickson, B. J. 2003. Red capitalists in China: The party, private entrepreneurs, and prospects for political change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, B. J. 2007. Integrating wealth and power in China: The Communist Party's embrace of the private sector. The China Quarterly, 192: 827–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, X., & Luo, J. H. 2016. Political connections, home formal institutions, and internationalization: Evidence from China. Management and Organization Review, 12(1): 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, R., Hawn, O., & Ioannou, I. 2019. Willing and able: A general model of organizational responses to normative pressures. Academy of Management Review, 44(2): 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law & Economics, 26(2): 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, S. 1992. Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3): 505–538.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Advances in Strategic Management, 1(1): 31–60.Google Scholar
Friedman, E., Johnson, S., Kaufmann, D., & Zoido-Lobaton, P. 2000. Dodging the grabbing hand: The determinants of unofficial activity in 69 countries. Journal of Public Economics, 76(3): 459–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gautier, A., & Pache, A. C. 2015. Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3): 343–369.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W. H. 1993. The econometric approach to efficiency analysis in Fried, H. O. & Schmidt, S.S. (Eds.), The measurement of productive efficiency: Techniques and applications: 68–119. Oxford, UK.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. 2011. Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 317–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heese, J., Krishnan, R., & Moers, F. 2016. Selective regulator decoupling and organizations’ strategic responses. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6): 2178–2204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, M. C. 2005. Career imprints: Creating leaders across an industry. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hillman, A. J. 2005. Politicians on the board of directors: Do connections affect the bottom line? Journal of Management, 31(3): 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, A., & Zhao, M. 2018. Reaching through the fog: Institutional environment and cross-border giving of corporate foundations. Strategic Management Journal, 39(10): 2666–2690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, T. D., Christensen, D. M., & Graffin, S. D. 2017. Higher highs and lower lows: The role of corporate social responsibility in CEO dismissal. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1): 2255–2265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M. C., & Murphy, K. J. 1990. Performance pay and top-management incentives. Journal of Political Economy, 98(2): 225–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, Y. C., & Kim, T. Y. 2018. Between legitimacy and efficiency: An institutional theory of corporate giving. Academy of Management Journal, forthcoming.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, G., & Wang, H. 2008. Should earnings thresholds be used as delisting criteria in stock market? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 27(5): 409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassinis, G., & Vafeas, N. 2006. Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, R., Semadeni, M., & Cannella, A. A. Jr (2014). CEO duality: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 40(1): 256–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lausten, M. 2002. CEO turnover, firm performance and corporate governance: Empirical evidence on Danish firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 20(3): 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, E., Walker, M., & Zeng, C. C. 2017. Do Chinese state subsidies affect voluntary corporate social responsibility disclosure? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 36(3): 179–200.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H., Meng, L., Wang, Q., & Zhou, L. A. 2008. Political connections, financing and firm performance: Evidence from Chinese private firms. Journal of Development Economics, 87(2): 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J., Xia, J., & Zajac, E. J. 2018. On the duality of political and economic stakeholder influence on firm innovation performance: Theory and evidence from Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1): 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, K. J., Tan, J., Zhao, L., & Karim, K. 2015. In the name of charity: Political connections and strategic corporate social responsibility in a transition economy. Journal of Corporate Finance, 32: 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, X. R., Wang, D., & Zhang, J. 2017. Whose call to answer: Institutional complexity and firms’ CSR reporting. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1): 321–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, C., & Qian, C. 2013. Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance? Organization Science, 25(1): 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, C., & Qiao, K. 2019. Waking from Mao's dream: Communist ideological imprinting and the internationalization of entrepreneurial ventures in China. Administrative Science Quarterly, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Marquis, C., & Tilcsik, A. 2016. Institutional equivalence: How industry and community peers influence corporate philanthropy. Organization Science, 27(5): 1325–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., Bansal, P., & Aragón-Correa, J. A. 2019. Older and wiser: How CEOs’ time perspective influences long-term investments in environmentally responsible technologies. British Journal of Management, 30(1): 134–150CrossRefGoogle 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
Parrino, R. 1997. CEO turnover and outside succession a cross-sectional analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 46(2): 165–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, M. A. 2009. Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. The Review of Financial Studies, 22(1): 435–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfarrer, M. D., Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. 2010. A tale of two assets: The effects of firm reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors' reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5): 1131–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Pi, L., & Lowe, J. 2011. Can a powerful CEO avoid involuntary replacement? – An empirical study from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(4): 775–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primo, D. M., Jacobsmeier, M. L., & Milyo, J. 2007. Estimating the impact of state policies and institutions with mixed-level data. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7(4): 446–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian, C., Wang, H., Geng, X., & Yu, Y. 2017. Rent appropriation of knowledge-based assets and firm performance when institutions are weak: A study of Chinese publicly listed firms. Strategic Management Journal, 38(4): 892–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, C. M. 2000. Motives for corporate philanthropy in El Salvador: Altruism and political legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4): 363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, B. 1995. Firm-level responses to government regulation: Theoretical and research approaches. Journal of Management, 21(3): 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, W. S., Markóczy, L., & Stan, C. V. 2014. The continuing importance of political ties in China. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(1): 57–75.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, D. J., & Sloan, R. G. 2002. Earnings surprises, growth expectations, and stock returns or don't let an earnings torpedo sink your portfolio. Review of Accounting Studies, 7(2): 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, P., Hu, H. W., & Hillman, A. J. 2016. The dark side of board political capital: Enabling blockholder rent appropriation. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5): 1801–1822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, Z., & Tang, J. 2018. Stakeholder corporate social responsibility orientation congruence, entrepreneurial orientation and environmental performance of Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises. British Journal of Management, 29(4): 634–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, D., Du, F., & Marquis, C. 2019. Defending Mao's dream: How politicians’ ideological imprinting affects firms’ political appointment in China. Academy of Management Journal, 62(4): 1111–1136.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. 2016. Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions thematic issue on corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2): 534–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, R., Wijen, F., & Heugens, P. P. 2018. Government's green grip: Multifaceted state influence on corporate environmental actions in China. Strategic Management Journal, 39(2): 403–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werbel, J. D., & Carter, S. M. 2002. The CEO's influence on corporate foundation giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 40(1): 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. 1994. Substance and symbolism in CEOs’ long-term incentive plans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3): 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. 2001. Decoupling policy from practice: The case of stock repurchase programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2): 202–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Y., Tian, G., Lu, L. Y., & Yu, Y. 2017. CEO ability and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2): 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., Gimeno, J. 2010. Earnings pressure and competitive behavior: Evidence from the US electricity industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4): 743–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., & Gimeno, J. 2016. Earnings pressure and long-term corporate governance: Can long-term-oriented investors and managers reduce the quarterly earnings obsession? Organization Science, 27(2): 354–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Marquis, C., & Qiao, K. 2016. Do political connections buffer firms from or bind firms to the government? A study of corporate charitable donations of Chinese firms. Organization Science, 27(5): 1307–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar