Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in China: Symbol or Substance?
Open accessAbstract
This study focuses on how and why firms strategically respond to government signals on appropriate corporate activity. We integrate institutional theory with research on corporate political strategy to develop a political dependence model that explains (a) how different types of dependency on the government lead firms to issue corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports and (b) how the risk of governmental monitoring affects the extent to which CSR reports are symbolic or substantive. First, we examine how firm characteristics reflecting dependence on the government—including private versus state ownership, executives serving on political councils, political legacy, and financial resources—affect the likelihood of firms issuing CSR reports. Second, we focus on the symbolic nature of CSR reporting and how variance in the risk of government monitoring through channels such as bureaucratic embeddedness and regional government institutional development influences the extent to which CSR communications are symbolically decoupled from substantive CSR activities. Our database includes all CSR reports issued by the approximately 1,600 publicly listed Chinese firms between 2006 and 2009. Our hypotheses are generally supported. The political perspective we develop contributes to organizational theory by showing that (a) government signaling is an important mechanism of political influence, (b) different types of dependency on the government expose firms to different types of legitima…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Organizations that attract greater attention or operate under greater stakeholder scrutiny face a heightened risk of being identified as hypocritical.
“we expect that organizations that attract greater attention or that operate under greater stakeholder scrutiny will experience a heightened risk of being identified as hypocritical”
From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as Marquis and Qian, 2014
Greater scrutiny from stakeholders and society can produce environmental disclosures that are more accurate, more substantive, or even overly modest.
“increased scrutiny by stakeholders and society at large can lead to moreaccurate (Marquis, Toffel, and Zhou, 2016), more-substantive (Marquis and Qian, 2014), or even overly modest disclosures (Kim and Lyon, 2015).”
From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as Marquis and Qian, 2014
Despite these developments, some discrepancies still exist between organizational social responsibility policies and actual practices, a gap that suggests that these initiatives are often merely a matter of legal compliance or corporate branding rather than a serious voluntary attempt at improving working conditions in supply chains.
“Despite these developments, some discrepancies still exist between organizational social responsibility policies and actual practices, a gap that suggests that these initiatives are often merely a matter of legal compliance or corporate branding rather than a serious voluntary attempt at improving working conditions in supply chains (Marquis & Cuili, 2014).”
From Common Good HRM: A paradigm shift in Sustainable HRM? (2020) · cites this paper as Marquis & Cuili, 2014
Cites
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779 · see citing works
La Porta, R., Lopez‐de‐Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1998) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/250042 · Cited by 18,025 · see citing works
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. (1997) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256948 · Cited by 2,855 · see citing works
Greenwash: Corporate Environmental Disclosure under Threat of Audit
Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011) · Journal of Economics & Management Strategy · doi:10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00282.x · Cited by 1,569 · see citing works
PURSUING STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE THROUGH POLITICAL MEANS: A MULTIVARIATE APPROACH.
Schuler, D. A., Rehbein, K., & Cramer, R. D. (2002) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/3069303 · Cited by 625 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review
Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2021) · Review of Accounting Studies · doi:10.1007/s11142-021-09609-5 · Cited by 1,923 · see citing works
Common Good HRM: A paradigm shift in Sustainable HRM?
Aust, I., Matthews, B., & Muller-Camen, M. (2020) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100705 · Cited by 531 · see citing works
Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic
Carlos, W. C., & Lewis, B. W. (2018) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839217695089 · Cited by 393 · see citing works
Uzunca, B., Rigtering, J. P. C., & Ozcan, P. (2018) · Academy of Management Discoveries · doi:10.5465/amd.2016.0153 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Mion, G., & Loza Adaui, C. R. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11174612 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Masters of Disasters? An Empirical Analysis of How Societies Benefit from Corporate Disaster Aid
Ballesteros, L., Useem, M., & Wry, T. (2017) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2015.0765 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Tian, Q., Liu, Y., & Fan, J. (2015) · Journal of Management & Organization · doi:10.1017/jmo.2015.14 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Orazi, D. C., & Chan, E. Y. (2020) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-018-4028-6 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Integration of non‐market and market activities in cross‐border mergers and acquisitions
Ahammad, M. F., Tarba, S. Y., Frynas, J. G., & Scola, A. (2017) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12228 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
- Authors
- Marquis, C., & Qian, C.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2014-02
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 127-148
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2110415574
- Cited by
- 1,793
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 304 · 2025: 234 · 2024: 198 · 2023: 183 · 2022: 194 · 2021: 133 · 2020: 130 · 2019: 127 · 2018: 100 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 71 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 128.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- nrs.harvard.edu
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Organization Science (publishedVersion)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- eCommons (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Keywords
- corporate social responsibility disclosure, political dependence, political strategy, legitimacy pressure, government monitoring, state ownership, political legacy, listed companies, China
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review