Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Business Strategy and Corporate Social Responsibility

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the relation between a firm’s business strategy and its corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance. Using a comprehensive measure of business strategy based on the Miles and Snow (Organizational strategy, structure, and process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978, Organizational strategy, structure, and process, Stanford University Press, Stanford 2003) theoretical framework, we find that firms following an innovation-oriented strategy (prospectors) are associated with better CSR performance than those following an efficiency-oriented strategy (defenders). Specifically, compared with defenders, prospectors engage in more socially responsible activities, fewer socially irresponsible activities, and perform better in both stakeholder- and third-party-related CSR areas. Taken together, our results suggest that business strategy is an important determinant of CSR performance. Prospectors take advantage of CSR, as their innovation-oriented strategy allows them not only to benefit more from CSR, but also to have more tolerance for the uncertainty, risk, and long time-horizon associated with CSR engagement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See the Verdantix survey on U.S. Sustainable Business Spending 2012–2017. http://research.verdantix.com/index.cfm/papers/Products.Details/product_id/544/us-sustainable-business-spending-2012-2017.

  2. See McKinsey’s global survey on sustainability’s strategic worth. http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/sustainabilitys-strategic-worth-mckinsey-global-survey-results.

  3. Miles and Snow’s prospectors and defenders strategy typologies are similar to the business strategies suggested by Porter, March, Treacy, and Wiersema (Dent 1990; Langfield-Smith 1997). Specifically, Miles and Snow’s prospectors could be akin to Porter’s product differentiators, March’s explorers, and Treacy and Wiersema’s product leaders. Likewise, Miles and Snow’s defenders could align with Porter’s cost leadership, March’s exploitation, and Treacy and Wiersema’s operational excellence.

  4. We exclude the corporate governance dimension and product dimension. The corporate governance dimension is viewed as a construct distinct from the other dimensions (e.g., Hong et al. 2012; Kim et al. 2012; Servaes and Tamayo 2013). The product dimension focuses on issues such as innovation and product quality. Since prospectors are expected to engage in a great amount of innovation activities, the product dimension has clear strategic implications (Servaes and Tamayo 2013).

  5. In 2003, MSCI STATS expanded its coverage of the Russell 3000 firms. Thus, we choose 2003 as the starting point to calculate CSR performance, to cover more firms. Due to the lagged CSR performance included in our model (1), our sample of business strategy and CSR performance is identified between 2004 and 2012. Since calculation of business strategy component variables requires prior 5-year data, the sample period of business strategy calculation is from 1999 to 2012.

  6. Calculated as {[(24 − 12) × 0.009]/0.073}, where 24 and 12 represent the cutoff values for prospectors and defenders, respectively. 0.009 is the coefficient of STRATEGY, and 0.073 is the absolute value of the mean CSR score.

  7. Except for CAP5, the relationship between CAP5 and CSR should be significant and negative.

References

  • Abagail, M., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification. Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, M., & Hardwick, P. (1998). An analysis of corporate donations: United Kingdom evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 35(5), 641–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.

    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 

  • Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794–816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beard, D. W., & Dess, G. G. (1981). Corporate-level strategy, business-level strategy, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 24(4), 663–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, K. A., Newton, N. J., & Thompson, A. (2015). Business strategy and internal control over financial reporting, working paper. University of New South Wales.

  • Bentley, K. A., Omer, T. C., & Sharp, N. Y. (2013). Business strategy, financial reporting irregularities, and audit effort. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(2), 780–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, K. A., Omer, T. C., & Twedt, B. J. (2016). Does business strategy impact a firm’s information environment? working paper. University of New South Wales.

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield, R., Nelson, M. W., & Soltes, E. (2016). Gathering data for archival, field, survey, and experimental accounting research. Journal of Accounting Research, 54(2), 341–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumentritt, T., & Danis, W. M. (2006). Business strategy types and innovative practices. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(2), 274–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 111–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, T., Dong, H., & Lin, C. (2018). Institutional shareholders and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from two quasi-natural experiments. Journal of Financial Economics. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2924752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., Eshleman, J. D., & Soileau, J. S. (2016). Business strategy and auditor reporting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 36, 63–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., & Jermias, J. (2014). Business strategy, executive compensation and firm performance. Accounting & Finance, 54(1), 113–134.

    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 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. J. (2007). Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(1), 91–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deckop, J. R., Merriman, K. K., & Gupta, S. (2006). The effects of CEO pay structure on corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 32(3), 329–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng, X., Kang, J.-K., & Low, B. S. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value maximization: Evidence from mergers. Journal of Financial Economics, 110(1), 87–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dent, J. F. (1990). Strategy, organization and control: Some possibilities for accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15(1–2), 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dentchev, N. A. (2004). Corporate social performance as a business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4), 395–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Giuli, A., & Kostovetsky, L. (2014). Are red or blue companies more likely to go green? Politics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 111(1), 158–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388–2406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: Doing well by doing good. Business Horizons, 50(3), 247–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flammer, C. (2015). Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Management Science, 61(11), 2549–2568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flammer, C., & Kacperczyk, A. (2015). The impact of stakeholder orientation on innovation: Evidence from a natural experiment. Management Science, 62(7), 1982–2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Stamford, CT: Issue Action Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, September 13, pp. 122–124.

  • Fukuyama, F. (1997). Social capital and the modern capitalist economy: Creating a high trust workplace. Stern Business Magazine, 4(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, C. S., & Merrill, G. B. (1991). The effect of compensation program and structure on SBU competitive strategy: A study of technology-intensive firms. Strategic Management Journal, 12(5), 353–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. (2010). The impact of strategic orientation on corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 18(1), 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1985). Contingency perspectives of organizational strategy: A critical review of the empirical research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 421–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govindarajan, V., & Fisher, J. (1990). Strategy, control systems, and resource sharing: Effects on business-unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 259–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39(3), 254–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. (1983). Some tests of the effectiveness and functional attributes of Miles and Snow’s strategic types. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasan, I., Hoi, C. K., Wu, Q., & Zhang, H. (2017). Does social capital matter in corporate decisions? Evidence from corporate tax avoidance. Journal of Accounting Research, 55, 629–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, D., Omer, T. C., & Phillips, J. D. (2015). The influence of a firm’s business strategy on its tax aggressiveness. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(2), 674–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoejmose, S., Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2013). An empirical examination of the relationship between business strategy and socially responsible supply chain management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 33(5), 589–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoi, C. K., Wu, Q., & Zhang, H. (2016). Community social capital and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3335-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, H., Kubik, J. D., & Scheinkman, J. A. (2012). Financial constraints on corporate goodness, working paper. Princeton University.

  • Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Rajan, M. V. (1997). The choice of performance measures in annual bonus contracts. The Accounting Review, 72(2), 231–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. L., & Hatten, K. J. (1995). Further evidence on the validity of the self typing paragraph approach: Miles and Snow strategic archetypes in banking. Strategic Management Journal, 16(2), 161–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansson, J., Nilsson, J., Modig, F., & Hed Vall, G. (2017). Commitment to sustainability in small and medium-sized enterprises: The influence of strategic orientations and management values. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(1), 69–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jha, A., & Chen, Y. (2015). Audit fees and social capital. The Accounting Review, 90(2), 611–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jha, A., & Cox, J. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and social capital. Journal of Banking & Finance, 60, 252–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2011). Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(3), 351–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiessling, T., Isaksson, L., & Yasar, B. (2016). Market orientation and CSR: Performance implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2), 269–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Park, M. S., & Wier, B. (2012). Is earnings quality associated with corporate social responsibility? The Accounting Review, 87(3), 761–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1251–1288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotchen, M., & Moon, J. J. (2012). Corporate social responsibility for irresponsibility. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 12(1).

  • Kurucz, E. C., Colbert, B. A., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The business case for corporate social responsibility. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 83–112). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langfield-Smith, K. (1997). Management control systems and strategy: A critical review. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), 207–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, X., Musteen, M., & Datta, D. K. (2009). Strategic orientation and the choice of foreign market entry mode: An empirical examination. Management International Review, 49(3), 269–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lii, Y.-S., & Lee, M. (2012). Doing right leads to doing well: When the type of CSR and reputation interact to affect consumer evaluations of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1), 69–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lys, T., Naughton, J. P., & Wang, C. (2015). Signaling through corporate accountability reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(1), 56–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 817–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, L., & Thorne, L. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and long-term compensation: Evidence from Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(3), 241–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manner, M. H. (2010). The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 53–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, J. E., & Berman, S. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenberg Domini ratings data. Business & Society, 45(1), 20–46.

    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 

  • McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (2003). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, D. R. (2017). Post-innovation CSR performance and firm value. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(2), 285–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, A., & Kräussl, R. (2011). Doing good deeds in times of need: A strategic perspective on corporate disaster donations. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 911–929.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neubaum, D. O., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Institutional ownership and corporate social performance: The moderating effects of causal horizon, activism, and coordination. Journal of Management, 32(1), 108–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Martynov, A. (2011). The effect of ownership structure on corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 283–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. (2001). Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business & Society, 40(4), 369–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M. A., & Barney, J. B. (2003). Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(4), 309–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, M. A. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Ridge, J., & Hill, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 262–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopalan, N. (1997). Strategic orientations, incentive plan adoptions, and firm performance: Evidence from electric utility firms. Strategic Management Journal, 18(10), 761–785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigo, P., & Arenas, D. (2008). Do employees care about CSR programs? A typology of employees according to their attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 265–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segev, E. (1987). Strategy, strategy making, and performance: An empirical investigation. Management Science, 33(2), 258–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sekhar Bhattacharyya, S. (2010). Exploring the concept of strategic corporate social responsibility for an integrated perspective. European Business Review, 22(1), 82–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59(5), 1045–1061.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (1987). Accounting control systems and business strategy: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(4), 357–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, P., & Agarwal, N. C. (2002). The effects of firm strategy on the level and structure of executive compensation. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 19(1), 42–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. C., & Hambrick, D. C. (1980). Measuring organizational strategies: Some theoretical and methodological problems. Academy of Management Review, 5(4), 527–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike, V. M., Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2006). Being good while being bad: Social responsibility and the international diversification of US firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 850–862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. (2015). How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9), 1338–1357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. (1995). The discipline of market leaders. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Udayasankar, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and firm size. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 167–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 95–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., & Bansal, P. (2012). Social responsibility in new ventures: Profiting from a long-term orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 33(10), 1135–1153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Google 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 

  • Wong, E. M., Ormiston, M. E., & Tetlock, P. E. (2011). The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1207–1228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolcock, M. (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A. (1990). Research evidence on the Miles–Snow typology. Journal of Management, 16(4), 751–768.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jeong-Bon Kim, Phyllis Mo, Greg Shailer, Byron Song, Zheng Wang, and the workshop participants at Australian National University, Xi’an Jiaotong University, 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Accounting Association and Asia-Pacific Management Accounting Association 2017 Annual Conference for helpful comments. Gaoliang Tian acknowledges financial support for this project from National Natural Science Foundation of China (71372163, 71672141, 71802139).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business Administration, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China

    Yuan Yuan

  2. Research School of Accounting, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    Louise Yi Lu

  3. Department of Accounting and Finance, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China

    Gaoliang Tian

  4. Department of Accountancy, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong

    Yangxin Yu

Authors
  1. Yuan Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Louise Yi Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gaoliang Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yangxin Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuan Yuan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Yuan Yuan declares that she has no conflict of interest. Louise Yi Lu declares that she has no conflict of interest. Gaoliang Tian declares that he has no conflict of interest. Yangxin Yu declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 7.

Table 7 Variable definitions
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yuan, Y., Lu, L.Y., Tian, G. et al. Business Strategy and Corporate Social Responsibility. J Bus Ethics 162, 359–377 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3952-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3952-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation