Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T02:13:01.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corporate Philanthropy After Fraud Punishment: An Institutional Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2019

Lin Zhang ,
Yuehua Xu ,
Honghui Chen  and
Runtian Jing
Lin Zhang
Affiliation:
South China University of Technology, China
Yuehua Xu*
Affiliation:
Shandong University, China Sun Yat-sen University, China
Honghui Chen
Affiliation:
Sun Yat-sen University, China
Runtian Jing
Affiliation:
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
*
Corresponding author: Yuehua Xu ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines corporate philanthropy in the context of corporate wrongdoing punishment in emerging markets. Building on institutional theory, we propose that in emerging markets, after being punished for fraudulent behavior by the government, which is collectively the largest institution, convicted firms tend to use corporate philanthropy as an institutional strategy to regain legitimacy. Using data of Chinese-listed firms that were punished for financial fraud in the ten years from 2004 to 2013, our findings show the subsequent growth of corporate philanthropy to be positively related to punishment severity. Furthermore, convicted firms’ media visibility, dominant state ownership, and national political appointment strengthen the effect of punishment severity on corporate philanthropy increase. Our institutional perspective offers new insights into why firms engage in corporate philanthropy after fraud punishment.

摘要

摘要

本研究检验了在新兴市场背景下企业因财务舞弊而受到惩罚对企业慈善捐赠的影响。基于制度理论，我们提出在新兴市场中，因财务舞弊被政府处罚的企业会使用慈善捐赠这一制度战略来修复其合法性。以中国在2004年到2013年间因财务舞弊而受到处罚的上市公司为样本，本研究发现企业受到财务舞弊的处罚程度正向影响处罚后企业慈善捐赠的增长，而被处罚企业的媒体可见度、国有控股以及政治关联会强化上述效应。本研究以制度理论为视角构建的理论框架，对企业为何进行慈善捐赠提供了新的解释。

Аннотация

АННОТАЦИЯ

В данном исследовании рассматривается корпоративная благотворительность в контексте наказания за корпоративные правонарушения на развивающихся рынках. Опираясь на институциональную теорию, мы предполагаем, что на развивающихся рынках после наказания за мошенническое поведение, наложенное правительством, которое является в собирательном значении крупнейшим институтом, виновные компании склонны использовать корпоративную благотворительность в качестве институциональной стратегии для восстановления легитимности. На основании данных из китайских компаний, зарегистрированных на фондовой бирже, которые были наказаны за финансовое мошенничество в течение 10 лет, в период с 2004 по 2013 годов, наши выводы показывают, что последующий рост корпоративной благотворительности зависит от суровости наказания. Кроме того, внимание к виновным компаниям со стороны средств массовой информации, преобладание государственной собственности и национальное политическое управление усиливают влияние строгости наказания на рост корпоративной благотворительности. Наша институциональная перспектива предлагает новое понимание того, почему компании занимаются корпоративной благотворительностью после наказания за мошенничество.

Resumen

RESUMEN

Este estudio examina la filantropía corporativa en el contexto del castigo por haber obrado mal en mercados emergentes. Basándonos en la teoría institucional, proponemos que mercados emergentes, después de haber sido castigados por comportamiento fraudulento por el gobierno, el cual es colectivamente la institución más grande, las firmas condenadas tienden a usar la filantropía corporativa como una estrategia institucional para conseguir legitimidad. Usando datos de empresas chinas listadas en bolsa que fueron castigadas por fraude financiero en los 10 años desde 2004 al 2013, nuestros hallazgos muestran que el crecimiento posterior de la filantropía corporativa esta positivamente relacionado a la severidad del castigo. Además, la visibilidad en medios de comunicación de las firmas condenadas, la propiedad dominante del estado, y el nombramiento político nacional fortalecen el efecto de la severidad del castigo en el aumento de la filantropía corporativa. Nuestra perspectiva institucional ofrece nuestros conocimientos sobre por qué las empresas participan en filantropía corporativa después del castigo por fraude.

Keywords

corporate philanthropyemerging marketfraud punishmentinstitutional theorylegitimacy regaining strategypolitical embeddedness企业慈善捐赠新兴市场财务舞弊惩罚制度理论合法性修复战略政治嵌入корпоративная благотворительностьразвивающийся рынокнаказание за мошенничествоинституциональная теориястратегия восстановления легитимностиполитическая вовлеченностьfilantropía corporativamercado emergentecastigo por fraudeteoría institucionalestrategia para ganar legitimidadarraigo político
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 33 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The first two authors make equal contributions.

Accepted by: Senior Editor Xiaowei Rose Luo

References

REFERENCES

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): 932–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions- Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER). Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45(1): 119–120.Google Scholar
Allen, F., Qian, J., & Qian, M. 2005. Law, finance, and economic growth in China. Journal of Financial Economics, 77(1): 57–116.10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.06.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amato, L. H., & Amato, C. H. 2007. The effects of firm size and industry on corporate giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(3): 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apostolou, B., Hassell, J. M., & Webber, S. A. 2000. Forensic expert classification of management fraud risk factors. Journal of Forensic Accounting, 1(2): 181–191.Google Scholar
Arthaud-Day, M. L., Certo, S. T., Dalton, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. 2006. A changing of the guard: Executive and director turnover following corporate financial restatements. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6): 1119–1136.10.5465/amj.2006.23478165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. 2004. Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1): 93–103.Google Scholar
Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. 2006. Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11): 1101–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baucus, M. S., & Baucus, D. A. 1997. Paying the piper: An empirical examination of longer-term financial consequences of illegal corporate behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1): 129–151.Google Scholar
Bednar, M. K. 2012. Watchdog or lapdog? A behavioral view of the media as a corporate governance mechanism. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1): 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. 1981. Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 32(2): 157–158.Google Scholar
Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 2013. Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8): 891–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bian, Y., & Zhang, L. 2014. Corporate social capital in Chinese guanxi culture. In Brass, D. J., Labianca, G., Mehra, A., Halgin, D., & Borgatti, S. P. (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations, (Vol. 40): 421–443. Bingley, UK: Emerald Books.Google Scholar
Boisot, M., & Child, J. 1988. The iron law of fiefs: Bureaucratic failure and the problem of governance in the Chinese economic reforms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4): 507–527.10.2307/2392641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. 2005. Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1): 29–44.10.1007/s10551-005-7443-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. 2006. Firm size, organizational visibility and corporate philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(1): 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, M. E., Highhouse, S., Russell, S. S., & Mohr, D. C. 2003. Familiarity, ambivalence, and firm reputation: Is corporate fame a double-edged sword? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 904–914.10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.904CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burstein, P. 1998. Bringing the public back in: Should sociologists consider the impact of public opinion on public policy? Social Forces, 77(1): 27–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahan, S. F., Chen, C., Chen, L., & Nguyen, N. H. 2015. Corporate social responsibility and media coverage. Journal of Banking & Finance, 59(1): 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carberry, E. J., & King, B. G. 2012. Defensive practice adoption in the face of organizational stigma: Impression management and the diffusion of stock option expensing. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7): 1137–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. 2010. How firms respond to being rated. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9): 917–945.Google Scholar
Chen, G. M., Firth, M., Gao, D. N., & Rui, O. M. 2005. Is China's securities regulatory agency a toothless tiger? Evidence from enforcement actions. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(6): 451–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, G. M., Firth, M., Gao, D. N., & Rui, O. M. 2006. Ownership structure, corporate governance, and fraud: Evidence from China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(3): 424–448.10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2005.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S., Sun, S. Y. J., & Wu, D. 2010. Client importance, institutional improvements, and audit quality in China: An office and individual auditor level analysis. The Accounting Review, 85(1): 127–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiu, S. C., & Sharfman, M. 2011. Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation of the instrumental perspective. Journal of Management, 37(6): 1558–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cubbage, C. J., & Brooks, D. J. 2012. Corporate security in the Asia-Pacific region: Crisis, crime, fraud, and misconduct. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, W. N., Worrell, D. L., & Lee, W. C. 1994. Stock market reactions to announced corporate illegalities. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(12): 979–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deephouse, D. L. 1999. To be different, or to be the same? It's a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2): 147–166.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, B. J. 2003. Red capitalists in China: The party, private entrepreneurs, and prospects for political change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbin, F., & Sutton, J. R. 1998. The strength of a weak state: The rights revolution and the rise of human resources management divisions. American Journal of Sociology, 104(2): 441–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorobantu, S., Kaul, A., & Zelner, B. 2017. Nonmarket strategy research through the lens of new institutional economics: An integrative review and future directions. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1): 114–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, X., & Luo, J. H. 2016. Political connections, home formal institutions, and internationalization: Evidence from China. Management and Organization Review, 12(1), 103–133.10.1017/mor.2015.40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. 1992. Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4): 699–738.Google Scholar
Faccio, M. 2006. Politically connected firms. American Economic Review, 96(1): 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, L. 2000. Manpower restructuring in the state-owned railway industry of China: The role of the state in human resource strategy. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(5): 904–924.Google Scholar
Friedman, W. I. 2002. One country, two systems: The inherent conflict between China's communist politics and capitalist securities market. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 27(2): 519–529.Google Scholar
Gao, Y. 2011. Philanthropic disaster relief giving as a response to institutional pressure: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Research, 64(12): 1377–1382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godfrey, P. C. 2005. The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4): 777–798.10.5465/amr.2005.18378878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haveman, H. A., Jia, N., Shi, J., & Wang, Y. 2017. The dynamics of political embeddedness in China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(1): 67–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J. J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1): 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, J. M. 1968. Local government expenditures: A social welfare analysis. The Review of Economics of Statistics, 50(2): 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. 2000. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 249–267.Google Scholar
Jia, W., & Coffey, B. S. 1992. Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10): 771–778.Google Scholar
Jia, M., & Zhang, Z. 2013. The CEO's representation of demands and the corporation's response to external pressures: Do politically affiliated firms donate more? Management and Organization Review, 9(1): 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jia, M., & Zhang, Z. 2015. News visibility and corporate philanthropic response: Evidence from privately owned Chinese firms following the Wenchuan earthquake. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(1): 93–114.10.1007/s10551-014-2150-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpoff, J. M., & Lott, J. R. 1993. The reputational penalty firms bear from committing criminal fraud. Journal of Law & Economics, 36(2): 757–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. B. 1999. Institutional strategy. Journal of Management, 25(2): 161–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H., Meng, L., & Zhang, J. 2006. Why do entrepreneurs enter politics? Evidence from China. Economic Inquiry, 44(3): 559–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Song, X., & Wu, H. 2015. Political connection, ownership structure, and corporate philanthropy in China: A strategic-political perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2): 339–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, X., Wang, D., & Zhang, J. 2017. Whose call to answer: Institutional complexity and firms' CSR reporting. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1): 321–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manion, M. 2004. Corruption by design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Marquis, C., & Qian, C. 2014. Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance? Organization Science, 25(1): 127–148.10.1287/orsc.2013.0837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, C., & Raynard, M. 2015. Institutional strategies in emerging markets. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1): 291–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellahi, K., Frynas, J. G., Sun, P., & Siegel, D. 2016. A review of the nonmarket strategy literature: Toward a multi-theoretical integration. Journal of Management, 42(1): 143–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340–363.10.1086/226550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelson, E. 2007. Lawyers, political embeddedness, and institutional continuity in China's transition from socialism. American Journal of Sociology, 113(2): 352–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naughton, B. 2007. The Chinese economy: Transitions and growth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied linear statistical models. Chicago: McGraw Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Martynov, A. 2011. The effect of ownership structure on corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2): 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okhmatovskiy, I. 2010. Performance implications of ties to the government and SOEs: A political embeddedness perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6): 1020–1047.10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00881.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, C. 1997. Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9): 697–713.3.0.CO;2-C>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. 1951. The social system. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. 1997. Criteria for evaluating the legitimacy of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(3): 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peloza, J. 2006. Using corporate social responsibility as insurance for financial performance. California Management Review, 48(2): 52–72.10.2307/41166338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. 2000. Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 486–501.Google Scholar
Pfarrer, M. D., Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. 2010. A tale of two assets: The effects of firm reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors' reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5): 1131–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romani, S., Grappi, S., & Bagozzi, R. P. 2013. My anger is your gain, my contempt your loss: Explaining consumer responses to corporate wrongdoing. Psychology & Marketing, 30(12): 1029–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotnitzky, A., & Jewell, N. P. 1990. Hypothesis testing of regression parameters in semiparametric generalized linear models for cluster correlated data. Biometrika, 77(3): 485–497.10.1093/biomet/77.3.485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruef, M., & Scott, W. R. 1998. A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4): 877–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Seifert, B., Morris, S. A., & Bartkus, B. R. 2004. Having, giving, and getting: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial performance. Business & Society, 43(2): 135–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. 2006. The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2): 158–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheng, S., Zhou, K. Z., & Li, J. J. 2011. The effects of business and political ties on firm performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Marketing, 75(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. 1987. Social judgment and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4): 689–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. 1989. Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1): 131.10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, B. N., Haunschild, P., & Page, K. 2007. Organizations non gratae? The impact of unethical corporate acts on interorganizational networks. Organization Science, 18(1): 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, Y., Qian, C. L., Chen, G. L., & Shen, R., 2015. How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9): 1338–1357.10.1002/smj.2286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilcsik, A., & Marquis, C. 2013. Punctuated generosity: How mega-events and natural disasters affect corporate philanthropy in U.S. communities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(1): 111–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. 2016. Managing the consequences of organizational stigmatization: Identity work in a social enterprise. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3): 740–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. 1997. The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4): 303–319.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walls, J. L., Berrone, P., & Phan, P. H. 2012. Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal, 33(8): 885–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, P. 2010. Restructuring to repair legitimacy–A contingency perspective. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(1): 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H., & Qian, C. 2011. Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6): 1159–1181.10.5465/amj.2009.0548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Q., Wong, T. J., & Xia, L. 2008. State ownership, the institutional environment, and auditor choice: Evidence from China. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 46(1): 112–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, H. 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48: 817–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, J. M. 2003. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. 2005. Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Y. H., Zhang, L., & Chen, H. H. 2018. Board age and corporate financial fraud: An interactionist view. Long Range Planning, 51(6): 815–830.10.1016/j.lrp.2017.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yiu, D. W., Xu, Y., & Wan, W. P. 2014. The deterrence effects of vicarious punishments on corporate financial fraud. Organization Science, 25(5): 1549–1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, T. Y., Sengul, M., & Lester, R. H. 2008. Misery loves company: The spread of negative impacts resulting from an organizational crisis. Academy of Management Review, 33(2): 452–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., & Shapiro, D. L. 2012. Managing the message: The effects of firm actions and industry spillovers on media coverage following wrongdoing. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5): 1079–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Marquis, C., & Qiao, K. 2016. Do political connections buffer firms from or bind firms to the government? A study of corporate charitable donations of Chinese firms. Organization Science, 27(5): 1307–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, W., Singh, K., & Mitchell, W. 2015. Buffering and enabling: The impact of interlocking political ties on firm survival and sales growth. Strategic Management Journal, 36(11): 1615–1636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar