Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 126, Issue 2, pp 169–183 | Cite as

Patterns of Corporate Responsibility Practices for High Financial Performance: Evidence from Three Chinese Societies

  • Na NiEmail author
  • Carolyn Egri
  • Carlos Lo
  • Carol Yeh-Yun Lin


The growing literature on corporate responsibility (CR) has drawn attention to how different CR practices complement each other and interact in the form of configurations. This study investigated CR patterns associated with high financial performance for 466 firms in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. We applied a set-theoretic approach using qualitative comparative analysis to identify similarities and differences across these three societies in configurations of CR practices relating to customer, employee, investor, community, and environmental stakeholder groups. The extent to which the financial benefits of various configurations of CR practices are attributable to institutional factors is examined.


Corporate responsibility practice Configuration Institution QCA analysis 



This research received support through the Central Research Grant (G-YL38) from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguilera, R., & Jackson, G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28, 447–465.Google Scholar
  3. Aguilera, R., Rupp, D., Williams, C., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in CSR: A multi-level theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2006). Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11), 1101–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowen, F. E. (2002). Organizational slack and corporate greening: Broadening the debate. British Journal of Management, 13(4), 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1325–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Branzei, O., & Vertinsky, I. (2002). Eco-sustainability orientation in China and Japan: Differences between proactive and reactive firms. In S. Sharma & M. Starik (Eds.), Research in corporate sustainability: The evolving theory and practice of organizations in the natural environment (pp. 85–122). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Brislin, R. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 185–216.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheung, Y., Tan, W., Ahn, H.-J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). Does corporate social responsibility matter in Asian emerging markets? Journal of Business Ethics, 92(3), 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Child, J., & Tsai, T. (2005). The dynamic between firms’ environmental strategies and institutional constraints in emerging economies: Evidence from China and Taiwan. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 95–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chow, F. H.-S. (2004). The impact of institutional context on human resource management in three Chinese societies. Employee Relations, 26(6), 626–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.Google Scholar
  18. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (2002). Applied multiple regression: Correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Crilly, D. (2011). Predicting stakeholder orientation in the multinational corporation: A mid-range theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 694–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Daub, C.-H., & Ergenizinger, R. (2005). Enabling sustainable management through a new multi-disciplinary concept of customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9–10), 998–1012.Google Scholar
  21. Delery, J., & Doty, D. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 802–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dixon-Fowler, H. R., Slater, D. J., Johnson, J. L., Ellstrand, A. E., & Romi, A. M. (2013). Beyond ‘‘does it pay to be green?’’ A meta-analysis of moderators of the CEP–CFP relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  25. Egri, C. P., & Hornal, R. C. (2002). Strategic environmental human resource management and perceived organizational performance: An explanatory study of the Canadian manufacturing sector. In S. Sharma & M. Starik (Eds.), Research in corporate sustainability: The evolving theory and practice of organizations in the natural environment (pp. 205–236). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Falkenberg, J., & Brunsæl, P. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: A strategic advantage or a strategic necessity? Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fiss, P. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fiss, P. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fransen, L. (2013). The embeddedness of responsible business practice: Exploring the interaction between national-institutional environments and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(2), 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Books.Google Scholar
  32. Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Managing for stakeholders: Trade-offs or value creation. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 7–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Graves, S., & Waddock, S. (2000). Beyond built to last… stakeholder relations in “built-to-last” companies. Business and Society Review, 105(4), 393–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gresov, C., & Drazin, R. (1997). Equifinality: Functional equivalence in organization design. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 403–428.Google Scholar
  36. Hicks, G. L., & Redding, S. G. (1983). The story of the East Asian “economic miracle”, parts I and II. Euro-Asia Business Review, 2(3), 24–32.Google Scholar
  37. Hillman, A., & Keim, G. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach’s value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(4), 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hopkins, M. (2003). The planetary bargain: Corporate social responsibility matters. London: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the multinational enterprise: Strategic and institutional approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 838–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. IMD International. (2010). IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook.
  42. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ip, P. (2009). Is confucianism good for business ethics in China? Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 463–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.Google Scholar
  45. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2009). Governance matters VIII: Aggregate and individual governance indicators (19962008). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4978. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  46. Ketchen, D. J., Jr., Combs, J. G., Russell, C. J., Shook, C., Dean, M. A., Runge, J., et al. (1997). Organizational configurations and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kogut, B., MacDuffie, J., & Ragin, C. (2004). Prototypes and strategy: Assigning causal credit using fuzzy sets. European Management Review, 1(2), 114–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kolk, A., Hong, P., & van Dolen, W. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in China: An analysis of domestic and foreign retailers’ sustainability dimensions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 289–303.Google Scholar
  49. Kostova, T. (1999). Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 308–324.Google Scholar
  50. Ma, X., & Ortolano, L. (2000). Environmental regulation in China: Institutions, enforcement, and compliance. New York: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (1999). Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 455–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. March, J., & Olsen, J. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  54. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Marquis, C., Zhang, J., & Zhou, Y. (2011). Regulatory uncertainty and corporate responses to environmental protection in China. California Management Review, 54(1), 39–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.Google Scholar
  59. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1995). Complementarities and fit: Strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19(2), 179–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.Google Scholar
  62. Montiel, I. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures. Organization & Environment, 21(3), 245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Moon, J., & Shen, X. (2010). CSR in China research: Salience, focus and nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(4), 613–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  66. Orlitzky, M. (2011). Institutional logics in the study of organizations: The social construction of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(3), 409–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Peloza, J. (2009). The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 35, 1518–1541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. -Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Ragin, C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  72. Ragin, C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ragin, C. (2008a). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ragin, C. (2008b). Measurement versus calibration. In J. Box-Steffensmeier, H. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 174–198). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Ragin, C., & Fiss, P. (2009). Net effects analysis versus configurational analysis: An empirical demonstration. In C. Ragin (Ed.), Redesigning social inquiry: Set relations in social research (pp. 190–212). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  76. Ragin, C., & Sonnett, J. (2005). Between complexity and parsimony: Limited diversity, counterfactual cases, and comparative analysis. In S. Kropp, & M. Minkenberg (Eds.), Vergleichen in der Politikwissenschaft (pp. 180–197). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Samiee, S., & Roth, K. (1992). The influence of global marketing standardization on performance. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. (2009). The changing role of business in global society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 327–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Strike, V. M., Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2006). Being good while being bad: Social responsibility and the international diversification of U.S. firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 850–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Swanson, K. E., Kuhn, R. G., & Wei, X. (2001). Environmental policy implementation in rural China: A case study of Yuhang, Zhejiang. Environmental Management, 27(4), 481–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Taneja, S., Taneja, P., & Gupta, R. (2011). Researches in corporate social responsibility: A review of shifting focus, paradigms, and methodologies. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 343–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tang, S. Y., Lo, C. W. H., & Fryxell, G. E. (2003). Enforcement styles, organizational commitment, and enforcement effectiveness: an empirical study of local environmental protection officials in urban China. Environment and Planning, 35(1), 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tang, S. Y., & Zhan, X. Y. (2008). Civic environmental NGOs, civil society, and democratisation in China. Journal of Development Studies, 44(3), 425–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tempel, A., & Walgenbach, P. (2007). Global standardization of organizational forms and management practices? What new institutionalism and the business-systems approach can learn from each other. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. (2009). World Factbook.
  88. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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
  90. Wang, H., & Qian, C. (2012). Corporate philanthropy and financial performance of Chinese firms: The roles of social expectations and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1159–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Whitley, R. (1999). Divergent capitalisms: The social structuring and change of business systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Xun J. (2012). Corporate social responsibility in China: A preferential stakeholder model and effects. Business Strategy and the Environment. doi: 10.1002/bse.1757.
  93. Yang, G. B. (2005). Environmental NGOs and institutional dynamics in China. The China Quarterly, 181, 46–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Yu, B. B., & Egri, C. P. (2005). Human resource management practices and organizational commitment: A comparison of Chinese employees in a state-owned enterprise and a joint venture. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 43(3), 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Na Ni
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carolyn Egri
    • 2
  • Carlos Lo
    • 1
  • Carol Yeh-Yun Lin
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Management & MarketingHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityKowloonHong Kong
  2. 2.Faculty of Business AdministrationSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  3. 3.Department of Business AdministrationNational Chengchi UniversityTaipei 116Taiwan

Personalised recommendations