Cited by 1,793Corporate Social Responsibility ReportingPolitical Influence and Corporate StrategiesManagement and Organizational Studies

Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in China: Symbol or Substance?

Open access
Marquis, Christopher, Qian, Cuili·2014·Organization Science

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1287/orsc.2013.0837

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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