Research on the Regional Differences in the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Management on Corporate Governance Performance based on Regional Economics and Stakeholder Theory

Hongjing Wang; Yunting Fan; Yongze Chen; Xiaoxi Ding; Yushuo Zhang

doi:10.6981/FEM.202501_6(1).0007

Authors

Hongjing Wang
Yunting Fan
Yongze Chen
Xiaoxi Ding
Yushuo Zhang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6981/FEM.202501_6(1).0007

Keywords:

Corporate Social Responsibility; Corporate Governance; Regional Economics; Stakeholder Theory; Regional Differences.

Abstract

This paper investigates the regional differences in the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) management on corporate governance performance through the lens of regional economics and stakeholder theory. Using firm-level data from different economic regions, we employ a stratified sampling approach to analyze the moderating role of regional economic development in shaping the CSR-governance relationship. The findings reveal that CSR management has a significant positive effect on corporate governance performance, but the magnitude of this effect varies across regions with differing economic development levels. Specifically, firms in economically developed regions exhibit stronger governance improvements through CSR initiatives compared to those in less developed regions. This research contributes to the theoretical understanding of CSR in the context of regional economics and offers practical implications for firms and policymakers to tailor CSR strategies based on regional characteristics.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] García-Sánchez, I. M., & García-Meca, E. (2019). Do talented managers invest more efficiently? The moderating role of corporate governance mechanisms. Business Research Quarterly, 22(1), 45-58.

[2] Khan, H. Z., Bose, S., & Mollik, A. T. (2021). CSR reporting, ownership concentration and firm performance: The case of an emerging economy. Accounting Research Journal, 34(1), 1-19.

[3] Naciti, V. (2019). Corporate governance and board of directors: The effect of a board composition on firm sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237, 117727.

[4] Shahbaz, M., Raghutla, C., Song, M., Zameer, H., & Jiao, Z. (2020). Public-private partnerships investment in energy as new determinant of CO2 emissions: The role of technological innovations in China. Energy Economics, 86, 104664.

[5] Zaid, M. A. A., Wang, M., & Abuhijleh, S. T. F. (2019). The effect of corporate governance practices on corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from Palestine. Journal of Global Responsibility, 10(2), 134-160.

[6] Boubaker, S., Cellier, A., & Manita, R. (2020). Does corporate social responsibility reduce financial distress risk? Economic Modelling, 91, 835-851.

[7] Gerged, A. M., & Elheddad, M. (2020). How can national governance affect education quality? The role of information and communication technology and innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120315.

[8] Husted, B. W., & de Sousa-Filho, J. M. (2019). Board structure and environmental, social, and governance disclosure in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 102, 220-227.

[9] Muttakin, M. B., Khan, A., & Subramaniam, N. (2020). Firm characteristics, board diversity and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from Bangladesh. Pacific Accounting Review, 32(2), 147-172.

[10] Yin, J., & Jamali, D. (2021). Strategic corporate social responsibility of multinational companies subsidiaries in emerging markets: Evidence from China. Long Range Planning, 54(6), 102041.

[11] Ayuso, S., & Navarrete-Báez, F. E. (2018). How does entrepreneurial and international orientation influence SMEs’ commitment to sustainable development? Empirical evidence from Spain and Mexico. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(1), 80-94.

[12] Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2016). Agency theory and bounded self-interest. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 276-297.

[13] Freudenreich, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Schaltegger, S. (2020). A stakeholder theory perspective on business models: Value creation for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(1), 3-18.

[14] Hörisch, J., Freeman, R. E., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Applying stakeholder theory in sustainability management: Links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual framework. Organization & Environment, 27(4), 328-346.

[15] Jones, T. M., Harrison, J. S., & Felps, W. (2018). How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide a sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 371-391.

[16] Amaeshi, K. M., Adegbite, E., & Rajwani, T. (2016). Corporate social responsibility in challenging and non-enabling institutional contexts: Do institutional voids matter? Journal of Business Ethics, 134(1), 135-153.

[17] Chen, Y., Hung, M., & Wang, Y. (2018). The effect of mandatory CSR disclosure on firm profitability and social externalities: Evidence from China. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 65(1), 169-190.

[18] García-Sánchez, I. M., & García-Meca, E. (2018). Do talented managers invest more efficiently? The moderating role of corporate governance mechanisms. Business Research Quarterly, 21(4), 282-297.

[19] Marquis, C., & Qian, C. (2014). Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance? Organization Science, 25(1), 127-148.

[20] Miska, C., Witt, M. A., & Stahl, G. K. (2016). Drivers of global CSR integration and local CSR responsiveness: Evidence from Chinese MNEs. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(3), 317-345.

[21] Tang, Z., & Tang, J. (2016). The relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate governance in China: Evidence from Chinese firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(4), 705-724.

[22] Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions: Thematic issue on corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 534-544.

[23] Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275678.

[24] Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815768.

[25] 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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275684.

[26] Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2012). What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(9), 834–864. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/jibs.2012.26.

[27] Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2012). The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1052-1.