IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/buseth/v33y2024i4p583-605.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The same or different? How optimal distinctiveness in corporate social responsibility affects organizational resilience during COVID‐19

Author

Listed:
  • Caini Yang
  • Jianling Wang
  • Lemuel Kenneth David

Abstract

This study explores how firms build organizational resilience (OR) through constructing their corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices. Based on the optimal distinctiveness theory, we propose that a firm may be able to simultaneously conform in scope and differentiate in emphasis in its CSR practices to meet the institutional and strategic needs of CSR, thus building OR. Using data collected from 574 Chinese listed firms during the unique setting of the COVID‐19 pandemic, we provide evidence that CSR scope conformity enhances organizational stability, whereas CSR emphasis differentiation enhances organizational flexibility during a transboundary pandemic period. Furthermore, firm competitive position strengthens the positive relationship between CSR scope conformity and organizational stability. Market concentration strengthens the positive relationship between CSR emphasis differentiation and organizational flexibility. This study contributes to the CSR and organizational resilience literature by highlighting the influence of CSR optimal distinctiveness on OR.

Suggested Citation

  • Caini Yang & Jianling Wang & Lemuel Kenneth David, 2024. "The same or different? How optimal distinctiveness in corporate social responsibility affects organizational resilience during COVID‐19," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(4), pages 583-605, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:buseth:v:33:y:2024:i:4:p:583-605
    DOI: 10.1111/beer.12627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12627
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/beer.12627?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:buseth:v:33:y:2024:i:4:p:583-605. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/26946424 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.