Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organizational slack and corporate social performance: Empirical evidence from China’s public firms

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates how organizational slack affects corporate social performance (CSP). Based on a sample of 1,299 Chinese listed firms, our results show that only unabsorbed slack contributes to CSP and the positive relationship between unabsorbed slack and CSP is consistent with the relationship between unabsorbed slack and corporate financial performance (CFP). Our results also show that absorbed slack generates a negative impact on CSP. Furthermore, our findings indicate that state ownership has a negative impact on the relationship between unabsorbed slack and CSP. This finding illustrates that state ownership weakens unabsorbed slack’s contribution to CSP.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Social Responsibility Report (She Hui Ze Ren Bao Gao), source: http://baike.baidu.com/view/4670610.htm, accessed Apr 10, 2013.

  2. The MCT-CSR rating system adopts a structured expert scoring methodi1n which the macrocosm makes up 30 points; the content, 50 points; and the technique, 20 points. Source: http://www.rksratings.com/index.php/Index/Product/index.

References

  • Arora, P., & Dharwadkar, R. 2011. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR): The moderating roles of attainment discrepancy and organization slack. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(2): 136–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K., Carroll, A., & Hatfield, J. 1985. An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2): 446–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boisot, M., & Child, J. 1996. From fiefs to clans and network capitalism: Explaining China’s emerging economic order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 600–628.

  • Bourgeois, L. J. 1981. On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1): 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, S. W., Shepherd, D. A., & Wiklund, J. 2011. The importance of slack for new organizations facing ‘tough’ environments. Journal of Management Studies, 48(5): 1071–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38: 268–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, C. 2008. Purchasing and social responsibility: A replication and extension. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 40(4): 4–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterji, A., Levine, D., & Toffel, M. 2009. How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility?. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18: 125–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. M., & Delmas, M. 2010. Measuring corporate social performance: An efficiency perspective. Production and Operation Management, 20: 789–804.

  • Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., & Huang, S. 2013. Chinese guanxi: An integrative review and new directions for future research. Management and Organization Review, 9(1): 167–207

  • Cheng, J., & Kesner, I. 1997. Organizational slack and response to environmental shifts: The impact of resource allocation patterns. Journal of Management, 23: 1–18.

  • Child, J. 1994. Organization: A guide to problems and practice. London: Sage.

  • Child, J., & Lu, Y. 1996. Institutional constraints on economic reform: The case of investment decisions in China. Organization Science, 7(1): 60–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, Y. C., & Liaw, Y. C. 2009. Organizational slack: Is more or less better?. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22: 321–342.

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R., & March, J. 1963. A behavior theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlsrud, A. 2006. How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15: 1–13.

  • Daniel, F., Lohrke, C., Fornaciari, C., & Turner, R. 2004. Slack resources and firm performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 57(6): 565–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz, H., & Villalonga, B. 2001. Ownership structure and corporate performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 7(3): 209–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman. 

  • Friedman, M. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. R. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

  • George, G. 2005. Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 661–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. R. 2003. Investment and the behavioral theory of the firm: Evidence from shipbuilding. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(5): 1051–1076.

  • Griffin, J., & Mahon, J. 1997. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate. Business and Society, 36: 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y. F., & Chen, C. J. 2010. The impact of technological diversity and organizational slack on innovation. Technovation, 30(7): 420–428.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ju, M., & Zhao, H. X. 2009. Behind organizational slack and firm performance in China: The moderating roles of ownership and competitive intensity. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(4): 701–717.

  • Kapopoulos, P., & Lazaretou, S. 2007. Corporate ownership structure and firm performance: Evidence from Greek firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(2): 144–158.

  • Keister, L. A. 2009. Organizational research on market transition: A sociological approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(4): 719–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., Kim, H., & Lee, P. M. 2008. Ownership structure and the relationship between financial slack and R&D investments: Evidence from Korean firms. Organization Science, 19(3): 404–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornai, J. 1992. The socialist system: The political economy of communism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Lin, C., Ma, Y., & Su, D. W. 2009. Corporate governance and firm efficiency: Evidence from China’s publicly listed firms. Managerial and Decision Economics, 30(3): 193–209.

  • Liu, Y., & Fang, R. S. 2003. Research on the relationship between absorbed slack and technology innovation. Group Technology & Production Modernization, 20(2): 40–48.

  • Loureiro, M., & Lotade, J. 2005. Do fair trade and ecol-lables in coffee wake up the consumer conscience?. Ecological Economics, 53: 129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Y. 1996. Management decision making in Chinese enterprises. London: McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, X., Yao, X., & Xi, Y. 2006. Business group affiliation and firm performance in a transition economy: A focus on ownership voids. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(4): 467–483.

  • March, J., & Simon, H. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., & Qian, C. 2011. Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance?. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Cambridge.

  • McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. 1988. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of management Journal, 31(4): 854–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 117–127.

  • Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S. K., & Peng, M. W. 2009. Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(1): 61–80.

  • Moses, O. D. 1992. Organizational slack and risk-taking behavior: Tests of product pricing strategy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 5: 38–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nee, V. 1992. Organizational dynamics of market transition: Hybrid forms, property rights, and mixed economy in China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 1–27.

  • Nee, V. 2000. The role of the state in marking a market economy. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 156: 64–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nee, V., Opper, S., & Wong, S. 2007. Developmental state and corporate governance in China. Management and Organizational Review, 3(1): 19–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. 1996. Is slack good or bad for innovation?. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1245–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., & Heath, P. S. 1996. The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. Academy of Management Review, 21(2): 492–528.

  • Peng, M. W., Tan, J., & Tong, T. W. 2004. Ownership types and strategic groups in an emerging economy. Journal of Management Studies, 41(7): 1105–1129.

  • Saiia, D., Carroll, A., & Buchholtz, A. 2003. Philanthropy as strategy: When corporate charity “begins at home”. Business & Society, 42(2): 169–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2): 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. 1992. Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

  • Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M. P., Wolf, G., Chase, R. B., & Tansik, D. A. 1988. Antecedents of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 13: 601–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. V. 1986. Performance, slack, and risk taking in organizational decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 29: 562–585.

  • Stan, C. V., Peng, M. W., & Bruton, G. D. 2014. Slack and the performance of state-owned enterprises. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(1): 1–23.

  • Strike, V., 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.

  • Su, Z. F., Xie, E., & Li, Y. 2009. Organizational slack and firm performance during institutional transitions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(1): 75–91.

  • Swanson, D. L. 1995. Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 20: 43–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J. 2002. Impact of ownership type on environment–strategy linkage and performance: Evidence from a transitional economy. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3): 333–354.

  • Tan, J., & Peng, M. W. 2003. Organizational slack and firm performance during economic transition: Two studies from an emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 1249–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. 1967. Organization in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D., & Greening, D. 1996. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 658–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Laan, G., Van Ees, H., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. 2007. Corporate social and financial performance: An extended stakeholder theory, and empirical test with accounting measures. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(3): 299–310.

  • Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z. G. 2008. The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 147–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Wartick, S., & Cochran, P. 1985. The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10: 767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wefald, A. J., Katz, J. P., Downey, R. G., & Rust, K. G. 2010. Organizational slack and performance: The impact of outliers. Journal of Applied Business Research, 26: 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16: 691–718.

  • Wong, S. C. 2004. Improving corporate governance in SOEs: An integrated approach. Corporate Governance International, 7(2): 19–29.

  • Zif, J. 1981. Managerial strategic behavior in state-owned enterprises—Business and political orientations. Management Science, 27(11): 1326–1339.

  • Zif, J. 1983. Explanatory concepts of managerial strategic behavior in state-owned enterprises: A multinational study. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(1): 35–46.

  • Zona, F. 2012. Corporate investing as a response to economic downturn: Prospect theory, the behavioral agency model and the role of financial slack. British Journal of Management, 23(S1): S42–S57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71372157/71232011) and the Hong Kong Research Grants Committee (CUHK448109).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

    Erming Xu, Hui Yang & J. Martina Quan

  2. Business School, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Hui Yang & Yuan Lu

Authors
  1. Erming Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hui Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Martina Quan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuan Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hui Yang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, E., Yang, H., Quan, J.M. et al. Organizational slack and corporate social performance: Empirical evidence from China’s public firms. Asia Pac J Manag 32, 181–198 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-014-9401-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-014-9401-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation