Skip to main content
×
Home

Do Employees Support Corporate Philanthropy? Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies

  • Yongqiang Gao (a1) and Haibin Yang (a2)
Abstract
ABSTRACT

While prior research generally acknowledges the positive effect of corporate philanthropy (CP) on firm performance, the underlying mechanisms regarding how or why CP leads to better financial performance remain unclear. We argue that employees as an influential firm stakeholder group may act as an important factor in realizing the value of CP. We specifically ground this study in social identity theory to investigate whether or not employees support CP by increasing labor productivity, as well as whether a firm's salary level and market visibility will moderate such an effect. Evidence from Chinese listed firms suggests that CP positively influences labor productivity. In addition, self-compared salaries and firm visibility strengthen the link between CP and labor productivity, suggesting that the value of CP depends on the support of key stakeholders such as employees.

摘要:

虽然以前的研究一般承认企业慈善 (CP) 对企业绩效的积极作用, CP如何或为什么带来更好的财务表现的基本机制仍不清楚。我们认为, 员工作为一个有影响力的公司利益相关者群体在实现CP价值上是个重要因素。我们特别将本研究根植于社会认同理论, 以调查员工是否通过提高劳动生产率来支持CP, 以及公司的工资水平和市场知名度是否将影响这样的效果。中国上市公司的证据表明, CP积极影响劳动生产率。此外, 自我相比工资和企业知名度增强CP和劳动生产率之间的联系, 从而表明CP的价值取决于像员工这样的关键利益相关者的支持。

यद्यपि उपलब्ध शोध प्रमाण यह दिखता है कि कॉर्पोरेट लोकोपकार का फर्म के प्रदर्शन पर सकारात्मक प्रभाव होता है, तथापि कॉर्पोरेट लोकोपकार से बेहतर वित्तीय परिणाम देने कि प्रक्रिया अस्पष्ट है. हमारा यह मत है कि कॉर्पोरेट लोकोपकार का मूल्य आंकने में एक प्रभावी हिस्सेदार के रूप में कर्मचारी एक महत्वपूर्ण वर्ग हैं. हमने इस शोध को सामाजिक अस्मिता सिद्धांत पर केंद्रित कर यह अनुसंधान किया कि क्या कर्मचारी उत्पादकता बढ़ा कर लोकोपकार का समर्थन करते हैं. हमने साथ में यह भी अनुसंधान किया कि के फर्म के वेतन स्तरव बाज़ारी साख का कोई नियंत्रक प्रभाव है. चीनी सूचीबद्ध फर्मों से प्राप्त साक्ष्यों के अनुसार कॉर्पोरेट लोकोपकार का मज़दूर उत्पादकता पर सकारात्मक प्रभाव होता है. साथ ही स्व-तुलनात्मक वेतन व फर्म के बाज़ारी साख भी कॉर्पोरेट लोकोपकार व मज़दूर उत्पादकता का सम्बन्ध सुदृढ़ करते हैं, जिससे कॉर्पोरेट लोकोपकार के महत्व पर कर्मचारियों जैसे महत्वपूर्ण हिस्सेदारों का प्रभाव लक्षित होता है.

Sumário:

Embora pesquisas anteriores geralmente reconheçam o efeito positivo da filantropia corporativa (CP) sobre o desempenho da empresa, os mecanismos subjacentes sobre como ou por que CP leva a um melhor desempenho financeiro permanecem obscuros. Argumentamos que os funcionários, como um grupo de stakeholders influente da empresa, podem atuar como fator importante na realização do valor da CP. Fundamentamos especificamente este estudo na teoria da identidade social, a fim de investigar se os empregados apoiam ou não a CP por meio do aumento da produtividade do trabalho, bem como se o nível salarial e a visibilidade do mercado da empresa moderam tal efeito. Evidências de empresas listadas chinesas sugerem que CP influencia positivamente a produtividade do trabalho. Além disso, os salários auto-comparados e a visibilidade da firma reforçam a ligação entre CP e a produtividade do trabalho, sugerindo que o valor da CP depende do apoio de stakeholders chave, como os funcionários.

АННОТАЦИЯ:

Хотя предварительные исследования в целом подтверждают положительный эффект корпоративной филантропии на производительность компаний, основные механизмы, объясняющие как и почему корпоративная филантропия приводит к улучшению финансовых показателей, остаются неясными. Мы считаем, что сотрудники как влиятельная группа заинтересованных лиц в компании могут выступать в качестве важного фактора в реализации значения корпоративной филантропии. В данном исследовании, мы опираемся на теорию социальной идентичности, чтобы изучить, поддерживают ли сотрудники корпоративную филантропию за счет повышения производительности труда, а также влияет ли уровень заработной платы в компании и прозрачность рынка на эту ситуацию. Данные из китайских публичных компаний свидетельствует о том, что корпоративная филантропия положительно влияет на производительность труда. Кроме того, самостоятельное сравнение зарплаты и прозрачность в компании усиливают зависимость между корпоративной филантропией и производительностью труда, и соответственно значение корпоративной филантропии зависит от поддержки ключевых заинтересованных лиц, таких как сотрудники.

RESUMEN:

Mientras que la investigación previa generalmente reconoce los efectos positivos de la filantropía corporativa en el desempeño de la empresa, los mecanismos subyacentes en relación al cómo y al por qué la filantropía corporativa puede llevar a aumentar el rendimiento de la empresa sigue siendo poco claro. Argumentamos que los empleados como un grupo de interés influyente de la empresa puede actuar como un factor importante en comprender el valor de la filantropía corporativa. Específicamente basamos este estudio en la teoría de identidad social con el fin investigar si los empleados apoyan o no la filantropía corporativa través de aumentar la productividad, también como si el nivel salarial de la empresa y la visibilidad en el mercado moderarán este efecto. La evidencia de las empresas chinas cotizadas en bolsa sugiere que la filantropía corporativa influencia positivamente la productividad laboral. Adicionalmente, los salarios auto-comparados y la visibilidad de la empresa fortalecen el vínculo entre la filantropía corporativa y la productividad laboral, sugiriendo que el valor de la filantropía corporativa depende del apoyo de los grupos de interés clave como los empleados.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Abdullah A. A., & Wan H. L. 2013. Relationships of non-monetary incentives, job satisfaction and employee job performance. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2 (4): 10851091.
Adams J. S. 1963. Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 (5): 422436.
Adams J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: 267299. New York: Academic Press.
Adams M., & Hardwick P. 1998. An analysis of corporate donations: United Kingdom evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 35 (5): 641654.
Aguilera R., Rupp D. E., Ganapathi J., & Williams C. A. 2006. Justice and social responsibility: A social exchange model. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology Annual Meeting, Berlin.
Aguilera R.V., Rupp D., Williams C. A., & Ganapathi J. 2007. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multi-level theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32 (3): 836863.
Aguinis H. 2011. Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In Zedeck S. (Ed.). APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 3: 855879. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
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): 932968.
Aiken L. S., & West S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ali I., Rehman K. U., Ali S. I., Yousaf J., & Zia M. 2010. Corporate social responsibility influences employees’ commitment and organizational performance. African Journal of Business Management, 4 (12): 27962801.
Ashforth B. E., & Mael F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14 (1): 2039.
Atkinson A. A., Banker R., Kaplan R. S., & Young S. M. 2001. Management accounting (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barnett M. L., & Salomon R. M. 2012. Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33 (11): 13041320.
Bonner S. E., & Sprinkle G. B. 2002. The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: Theories, evidence, and a framework for research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27 (4–5): 303345.
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): 13251343.
Brammer S., & Pavelin S. 2005. Corporate community contributions in the United States and the United Kingdom. Journal of Business Ethics, 56 (1): 1526
Brammer S., Millington A., & Pavelin S. 2006. Is philanthropy strategic? An analysis of the management of charitable giving in large UK companies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15 (3): 234245.
Brammer S., Millington A., & Rayton B. 2007. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18 (10): 17011719.
Branco M. C., & Rodrigues L. L. 2006. Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69 (2): 111132.
Brown T. J., & Dacin P. A. 1997. The company and the product: Corporate association and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61 (1): 6884.
Burt R. S. 1983. Corporate profits and co-optation: Networks of market constraints and directorate ties in the American economy. New York: Academic Press.
Chen J. C., Patten D. M., & Roberts R. W. 2008. Corporate charitable contributions: A corporate social performance or legitimacy strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 82 (1): 131144.
Chen G., Firth M., & Xu L. 2009. Does the type of ownership control matter? Evidence from China's listed companies. Journal of Banking & Finance, 33: 171181.
Condly S. J., Clark R. E., & Stolovitch H. D. 2003. The effects of incentives on workplace performance: A meta-analytic review of research studies. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16 (3): 4663.
Deci E. L., Koestner R., & Ryan R. M. 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (6): 627668.
Dutton J. E., & Dukerich J. M. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3): 517554.
Fombrun C., & Shanley M. 1990. What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33 (2): 233258.
Fombrun C. J. 1996. Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Freeman R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Frey B. S., & Jegen R. 2000. Motivation crowding theory: A survey of empirical evidence. CESifo Working Paper, No. 245.
Frey B. S. 1994. How intrinsic motivation is crowded out and in. Rationality and Society, 6 (3): 334352.
Galaskiewicz J., & Burt R. 1991. Interorganization contagion in corporate philanthropy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (1): 88105.
Gao Y. 2011. Philanthropic disaster relief giving as a response to institutional pressure: Evidence from China. Journal Business Research, 64 (12): 13771382.
Gardberg N. A., & Fombrun C. J. 2006. Corporate citizenship: Creating intangible assets across institutional environments. Academy of Management Review, 31 (2): 329346.
Godfrey P. C. 2005. The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30 (4): 777798.
Griffin J. J., & Mahon J. F. 1997. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36 (1): 531.
Heckman J. J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47 (1): 153162.
Hogg M., & Turner J. 1987. Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26 (4): 325340.
Horngren C. T., Foster G., & Datar S. M. 2000. Cost accounting: A managerial emphasis (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kahneman D., & Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47 (2): 263292.
Khan I., Shahid M., Nawab S., & Wali S. S. 2013. Influence of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards on employee performance: The banking sector of Pakistan. Academic Research International, 4 (1): 282292.
Kim H. R., Lee M., Lee H. T., & Kim N. M. 2010. Corporate social responsibility and employee–company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95 (4): 557569.
Li J. J., Poppo L., & Zhou K. Z. 2008. Do managerial ties in China always produce value? Competition, uncertainty, and domestic vs. foreign firms. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (4): 383400.
Maslow A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4): 370396.
Mason W., & Watts D. J. 2010. Financial incentives and the performance of crowds. ACM SigKDD Explorations Newsletter, 11 (2): 100108.
McWilliams A., & Siegel D. 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21 (5): 603609.
Olsen J. M., Breckler S. J., & Wiggins E. C. 2008. Social psychology alive (First Canadian ed.). Toronto: Thomson Nelson.
Orlitzky M., Schmidt F. L., & Rynes S. L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta analysis. Organization Studies, 24 (3): 403441.
Peloza J. 2009. The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 35 (6): 15181541.
Peterson D. K. 2004. The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and organizational commitment. Business and Society, 43 (3): 269319.
Porter M. E., & Kramer M. R. 2002. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, December: 5–16.
Rhee M., & Haunschild P. R. 2006. The liability of good reputation: A study of product recalls in the U.S. automobile industry. Organization Science, 17 (1): 101117.
Riordan C. M., Gatewood R. D., & Bill J. B. 1997. Corporate image: Employee reactions and implications for managing corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 16 (4): 401412.
Rodrigo P., & Arenas D. 2008. Do employees care about CSR programs? A typology of employees according to their attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 83 (2): 265283.
Rosenstiel L. V. 1975. Die motivationalen grundlagen des verhaltens in organisationen. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Rowley T., & Berman S. 2000. A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business and Society, 39 (4): 397418.
Saiia D. H. 2002. Philanthropy and corporate citizenship: Strategic philanthropy is good corporate citizenship. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 1 (2): 5774.
Saiia D. H., Carroll A. B., & Buchholtz A. K. 2003. Philanthropy as strategy: When corporate charity ‘begins at home.’ Business & Society, 42 (2): 169201.
Sánchez C. M. 2000. Motives for corporate philanthropy in El Salvador: Altruism and political legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 27 (4): 363375.
Schifferstein H. N. J., & Oudejans I. M. 1996. Determinants of cumulative successive contrast in saltiness intensity judgments. Perception & Psychophysics, 58 (5): 713724.
Seifert B., Morris S. A., & Bartkus B. R. 2004. Having, giving, and getting: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial performance. Business and Society, 43 (2): 135161.
Stancu A., Grigore G. F., & Rosca M. I. 2011. The impact of corporate social responsibility on employees. International Conference on Information and Finance IPEDR, 21: 1116.
Stuebs M., & Sun L. 2010. Business reputation and labor efficiency, productivity, and cost. Journal of Business Ethics, 96 (2): 265283.
Stutzer A. 2004. The role of income aspirations in individual happiness. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 54 (1): 89109.
Tajfel H., & Turner J. C. 1985. The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In Worchel S. & Austin W. G. (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations: 724. Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Tajfel H., & Turner J. C. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin W. G. & Worchel S. (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations: 3347. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Thaler R. H., & Johnson E. J. 1990. Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36 (6): 643660.
Turban D. B., & Greening D. W. 1997. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (3): 658673.
Turban D. B., & Cable D. M. 2003. Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24 (6): 733751.
Turner J., & Oakes P. 1986. The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25 (3): 237252.
Tyler T. R., & Blader S. 2000. Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity and behavioural engagement. New York: Psychology Press.
Valentine S., & Fleischman G. 2008. Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction, Journal of Business Ethics, 77 (2): 159172.
Wahba M. A., & Bridwell L. G. 1976. Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15 (2): 212240.
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): 143159.
Wang H., & Qian C. 2011. Corporate philanthropy and financial performance of Chinese firms: The roles of social expectations and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (6): 11591181.
Warner M., & Zhu Y. 2002. Human resource management ‘with Chinese characteristics’: A comparative study of People's Republic of China and Taiwan. In Warner M. (Ed.), The Future of Chinese Management: 2142. London: Frank Cass.
Williams R. J. 2003. Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42 (1): 110.
Wood D. J., & Jones R. E. 1995. Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3 (3): 229267.
Wood D. J. 2010. Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12 (1): 5084.
Wu R., & Wardman R. H. 2007. Proposed modification to the CIECAM02 colour appearance model to include the simultaneous contrast effect. Color Research and Application, 32 (2): 121129.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Management and Organization Review
  • ISSN: 1740-8776
  • EISSN: 1740-8784
  • URL: /core/journals/management-and-organization-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 8
Total number of PDF views: 115 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 507 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.