Eco-Efficiency and Private Firms’ Relationships with Heterogeneous Public Stakeholders in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theory and Hypotheses
2.1. Eco-Efficiency
2.2. Heterogeneity in Relationships with Public Stakeholders
2.3. Eco-Efficiency and Relationship with Government
2.4. Eco-Efficiency and Relationships with NGOs
2.5. Moderating Effects of Firm Size
3. Research Method
3.1. Data and Sample Selection
3.2. Measurement
3.2.1. Dependent Variable
3.2.2. Independent Variables
3.2.3. Control Variables
3.3. Normality Test
3.4. Model Design
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Koskela, M.; Vehmas, J. Defining Eco-efficiency: A Case Study on the Finnish Forest Industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2012, 21, 546–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caiado, R.G.G.; de Freitas, D.R.; Mattos, L.V.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Leal, F.W. Towards sustainable development through the perspective of eco-efficiency-A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 890–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helminen, R.R. Developing tangible measures for eco-efficiency: The case of the Finnish and Swedish pulp and paper industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2000, 9, 196–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russo, M.V. Explaining the impact of ISO 14001 on emission performance: A dynamic capabilities perspective on process and learning. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2009, 18, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabongo, J.D.; Boiral, O. Doing More with Less: Building Dynamic Capabilities for Eco-Efficiency. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 956–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muñoz-Pascual, L.; Galenda, J. Ambidextrous Relationships and Social Capability as Employee Well-Being: The Secret Sauce for Research and Development and Sustainable Innovation Performance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020, 17, 3072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, L.; Tan, J.; Lin, L.; Xu, D. Understanding sustainable disaster mitigation of stakeholder engagement: Risk perception, trust in public institutions, and disaster insurance. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 885–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheng, J.; Zhou, W.; Zhu, B. The coordination of stakeholder interests in environmental regulation: Lessons from China’s environmental regulation policies from the perspective of the evolutionary game theory. J. Clean Prod. 2020, 249, 119385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broadstock, D.C.; Managi, S.; Matousek, R.; Tzeremes, N.G. Does doing “good” always translate into doing “well”? An eco-efficiency perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 1199–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, R.K.; Agle, B.R.; Wood, D.J. Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts. Acad. Managy Rev. 1997, 22, 853–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarkis, J.; Gonzalez-Torre, P.; Adenso-Diaz, B. Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: The mediating effect of training. J. Oper. Manag. 2010, 28, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eesley, C.; Lenox, M.J. Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strateg. Manag. J. 2006, 27, 765–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thijssens, T.; Bollen, L.; Hassink, H. Secondary Stakeholder Influence on CSR Disclosure: An Application of Stakeholder Salience Theory. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 132, 873–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agle, B.R.; Mitchell, R.K.; Sonnenfeld, J.A. Who Matters to Ceos? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corpate Performance, and Ceo Values. Acad. Manag. J. 1999, 42, 507–525. [Google Scholar]
- Cassells, S.; Lewis, K. SMEs and environmental responsibility: Do actions reflect attitudes? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2011, 18, 186–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikolaou, I.E.; Matrakoukas, S.I. A framework to measure eco-efficiency performance of firms through EMAS reports. Sustain. Prod. Consump. 2016, 8, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korhonen, J.; Seager, T.P. Beyond eco-efficiency: A resilience perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2008, 17, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juntunen, J.K.; Halme, M.; Korsunova, A.; Rajal, R. Strategies for integrating stakeholders into sustainability innovation: A configurational perspective. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2019, 36, 331–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tovar, B.; Tichavska, M. Environmental cost and eco-efficiency from vessel emissions under diverse SOx regulatory frameworks: A special focus on passenger port hubs. Transp. Res. Part D-Transp. Environ. 2019, 69, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paço, A.; Lavrador, T. Environmental knowledge and attitudes and behaviours towards energy consumption. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 197, 384–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Hoof, B. Organizational learning in cleaner production among Mexican supply networks. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamdoun, M.; Jabbour, C.; Othman, H.B. Knowledge transfer and organizational innovation: Impacts of quality and environmental management. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 759–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, C.W.Y.; Lai, K.; Shang, K.-C.; Lu, C.-S.; Leung, T.K.P. Green operations and the moderating role of environmental management capability of suppliers on manufacturing firm performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 140, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasi, I.B.; King, B.G. Social Movements, Risk Perceptions, and Economic Outcomes: The Effect of Primary and Secondary Stakeholder Activism on Firms’ Perceived Environmental Risk and Financial Performance. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2012, 77, 573–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neville, B.A.; Bell, S.J.; Whitwell, G.J. Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 102, 357–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, L.; Hsu, A.Y.; Scharlach, A.; Kuo, H. Examining Stakeholder Perspectives: Process, Performance and Progress of the Age-Friendly Taiwan Program. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boaventura, G.; Bosse, A.; de Mascena, C.; Sarturi, G. Value distribution to stakeholders: The influence of stakeholder power and strategic importance in public firms. Long Range Plan. 2020, 53, 101883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, J.; Bachor, V.; Matos, S. The impact of stakeholder heterogeneity on risk perceptions in technological innovation. Technovation 2014, 34, 410–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, Z.; Zhang, M.; Mao, Q.; Yu, B.; Ma, B. Improvement of Eco-Efficiency in China: A Comparison of Mandatory and Hybrid Environmental Policy Instruments. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2018, 15, 1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pfeffer, J. Power in Organizations; Pitman Marshfield: Massachusetts, MA, USA, 1981; Volume 33. [Google Scholar]
- Suchman, M.C. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 571–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jamali, D.; Karam, C. Corporate social responsibility in developing countries as an emerging field of study. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 32–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vuorinen, L.; Martinsuo, M. Value-oriented stakeholder influence on infrastructure projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 750–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zietsma, C.; Winn, M.I. Building Chains and Directing Flows: Strategies and Tactics of Mutual Influence in Stakeholder Conflicts. Bus. Soc. 2008, 47, 68–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heyes, A.; King, B. Understanding the organization of green activism: Sociological and economic perspectives. Organ. Environ. 2020, 33, 7–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elmagrhi, M.H.; Ntim, C.G.; Elamer, A.A.; Zhang, Q. A study of environmental policies and regulations, governance structures, and environmental performance: The role of female directors. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2019, 28, 206–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, P.; Mellahi, K.; Wright, M. The Contingent Value of Corporate Political Ties. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2012, 26, 68–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wickert, C. “Political” corporate social responsibility in small-and medium-sized enterprises: A conceptual framework. Bus. Soc. 2016, 55, 792–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Y. Political behavior, social responsibility, and perceived corruption: A structuration perspective. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2006, 37, 747–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, Z.; Tang, J. Stakeholder—Firm power difference, stakeholders’ CSR orientation, and SMEs’ environmental performance in China. J. Bus. Vent. 2012, 27, 436–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoskisson, R.E.; Eden, L.; Lau, C.M.; Wright, M. Strategy in Emerging Economies. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 249–267. [Google Scholar]
- Van Tulder, R.; Keen, N. Capturing collaborative challenges: Designing complexity-sensitive theories of change for cross-sector partnerships. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 315–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Masud, A.K.; Rashid, H.; Khan, T.; Bae, S.; Kim, J. Organizational Strategy and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Mediating Effect of Triple Bottom Line. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hao, Z.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, X. Political connection, corporate philanthropy and efficiency: Evidence from China’s anti-corruption campaign. J. Comp. Econ. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, M. CSR-Based Political Legitimacy Strategy: Managing the State by Doing Good in China and Russia. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 111, 439–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevens, C.E.; Xie, E.; Peng, M.W. Toward a legitimacy-based view of political risk: The case of Google and Yahoo in China. Strateg. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 945–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marquis, C.; Qian, C. Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in China: Symbol or Substance? Organ. Sci. 2014, 25, 127–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, W.R. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Marano, V.; Tashman, P. MNE/NGO partnerships and the legitimacy of the firm. Int. Bus. Rev. 2012, 21, 1122–1130. [Google Scholar]
- Shumate, M.; Hsieh, Y.P.; O’Connor, A.A. Nonprofit perspective on business–nonprofit partnerships: Extending the symbiotic sustainability model. Bus. Soc. 2018, 57, 1337–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gifford, E.; James, M. Effective Shareholder Engagement: The Factors that Contribute to Shareholder Salience. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 92, 79–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kivleniece, I.; Quelin, B.V. Creating and Capturing Value in Public-Private Ties: A Private Actor’s Perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2012, 37, 272–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mzembe, A.N. Doing Stakeholder Engagement Their own Way: Experience from the Malawian Mining Industry. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2014, 23, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korbi, F.B.; Chouki, M. Knowledge transfer in international asymmetric alliances: The key role of translation, artifacts, and proximity. J. Knowl. Manag. 2017, 21, 1272–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Easterby-Smith, M.; Lyles, M.A.; Tsang, E.W. Inter-Organizational Knowledge Transfer: Current Themes and Future Prospects. J. Manag. Stud. 2008, 45, 677–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, Z.; Shenkar, O.; Lew, Y.K. Knowledge transfer from international joint ventures to local suppliers in a developing economy. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2015, 46, 656–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desai, V.M. Collaborative stakeholder engagement: An integration between theories of organizational legitimacy and learning. Acad. Manag. J. 2018, 61, 220–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, K.Z.; Gao, G.Y.; Zhao, H. State Ownership and Firm Innovation in China: An Integrated View of Institutional and Efficiency Logics. Adm. Sci. Q. 2017, 62, 375–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Reimsbach, D.; Braam, G. Political embeddedness and the diffusion of corporate social responsibility practices in China: A trade-off between financial and CSR performance? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 1185–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, A.; Kennedy, S.; Philipp, F.; Whiteman, G. Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research. J. Clean Prod. 2017, 148, 866–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Berends, H.; Antonacopoulou, E. Time and Organizational Learning: A Review and Agenda for Future Research. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2014, 16, 437–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.M.; Greve, H.R. Delayed Adoption of Rules: A Relational Theory of Firm Exposure and State Cooptation. J. Manag. 2018, 44, 3336–3363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nehrt, C. Timing and intensity effects of environmental investments. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 17, 535–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, K.J.; Leek, S. Learning to Build a Supply Network: An Exploration of Dynamic Business Models. J. Manag. Stud. 2008, 45, 774–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirvis, P.; Herrera, M.E.B.; Googins, B.; Albareda, L. Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5014–5021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sagawa, S.; Segal, E. Common Interest, Common Good: Creating Value through Business and Social Sector Partnerships. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2000, 42, 105–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Ber, M.J.; Branzei, O. (Re) Forming Strategic Cross-Sector Partnerships: Relational Processes of Social Innovation. Bus. Soc. 2010, 49, 140–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arya, B.; Salk, J.E. Cross-Sector Alliance Learning and Effectiveness of Voluntary Codes of Corporate Social Responsibility. Bus. Ethics Q. 2015, 16, 211–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seles, P.; de Sousa Jabbour, L.; Jabbour, C.; Latan, C.; Roubaud, D. Do environmental practices improve business performance even in an economic crisis? Extending the win-win perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 163, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shumate, M.; O’Connor, A. The Symbiotic Sustainability Model: Conceptualizing Ngo—Corporate Alliance Communication. J. Commun. 2010, 60, 577–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Tulder, R.; Seitanidi, M.M.; Crane, A.; Brammer, S. Enhancing the Impact of Cross-Sector Partnerships. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 135, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gadenne, D.L.; Kennedy, J.; McKeiver, C. An Empirical Study of Environmental Awareness and Practices in SMEs. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 84, 45–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waxin, M.F.; Knuteson, S.L.; Bartholomew, A. Drivers and challenges for implementing ISO 14001 environmental management systems in an emerging Gulf Arab country. Environ. Manag. 2019, 63, 495–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baylis, R.; Connell, L.; Flynn, A. Company size, environmental regulation and ecological modernization: Further analysis at the level of the firm. Bus. Strategy Environ. 1998, 7, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elsayed, K. Reexamining the Expected Effect of Available Resources and Firm Size on Firm Environmental Orientation: An Empirical Study of UK Firms. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 65, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J. The Alignment of Contract Terms for Knowledge-Creating and Knowledge-Appropriating Relationship Portfolios. J. Mark. 2011, 7, 110–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burisch, R.; Wohlgemuth, V. Blind spots of dynamic capabilities: A systems theoretic perspective. J. Innov. Knowl. 2016, 1, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peng, B.; Tu, Y.; Elahi, E.; Wei, G. Extended Producer Responsibility and corporate performance: Effects of environmental regulation and environmental strategy. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 218, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atkinson, S.; Schaefer, A.; Viney, H. Organizational structure and effective environmental management. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2000, 9, 108–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lepoutre, J.; Heene, A. Investigating the Impact of Firm Size on Small Business Social Responsibility: A Critical Review. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 67, 257–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laforet, S. Organizational innovation outcomes in SMEs: Effects of age, size, and sector. J. World Bus. 2013, 48, 490–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Zhang, F.; Liu, L.; Zhu, L. Does environmental responsibility matter in cross-sector partnership formation? A legitimacy perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 612–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, G.; Wang, X.; Zhu, H. 2011. NERI Index of Marketization of China’s Provinces 2011 Report; Economic Science Press: Beijing, China, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Wooldridge, J.M. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 5th ed.; Centage Learning: Mason, OH, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Gimenez-Fernandez, E.M.; Sandulli, F.D.; Bogers, M. Unpacking liabilities of newness and smallness in innovative start-ups: Investigating the differences in innovation performance between new and older small firms. Res. Policy 2020, 49, 104049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Salience in Public Stakeholder Relationships | Government | NGO |
---|---|---|
Power asymmetry | Direct power | Indirect power |
Legitimacy conferral | Political legitimacy | Normative legitimacy |
Issue urgency | Time-sensitivity | Criticality |
Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Relationship with the government | −0.845 *** | −0.934 *** | −0.876 *** | −0.956 *** | ||
(0.132) | (0.137) | (0.134) | (0.139) | |||
Relationship with NGO | 0.369 * | 0.515 *** | 0.498 *** | 0.585 *** | ||
(0.145) | (0.148) | (0.149) | (0.160) | |||
Relationship with the government × Firm size | −0.162 * | |||||
(0.0647) | ||||||
Relationship with NGO × Firm size | −0.221 ** | |||||
(0.075) | ||||||
Firm size | 0.164 *** | 0.258 *** | 0.131 ** | 0.223 *** | 0.290 *** | 0.308 *** |
(0.039) | (0.042) | (0.039) | (0.041) | (0.063) | (0.052) | |
Firm age | 0.025 | 0.036 ** | 0.021 | 0.032 * | 0.030 * | 0.031 * |
(0.013) | (0.013) | (0.014) | (0.014) | (0.014) | (0.014) | |
Leverage | −0.002 * | −0.002 * | −0.002 * | −0.002 * | −0.002 * | −0.002 * |
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | |
Export | 0.032 | 0.030 | 0.031 | 0.029 | 0.031 | 0.034 |
(0.026) | (0.026) | (0.026) | (0.026) | (0.026) | (0.026) | |
Foreign ownership | 0.579 | 0.581 | 0.607 | 0.621 | 0.569 | 0.630 |
(0.754) | (0.745) | (0.766) | (0.760) | (0.757) | (0.752) | |
Founder age | −0.002 | −0.001 | −0.001 | −0.001 | −0.001 | −0.001 |
(0.007) | (0.007) | (0.007) | (0.007) | (0.007) | (0.007) | |
Education | −0.034 | −0.024 | −0.039 | −0.029 | −0.029 | −0.027 |
(0.019) | (0.019) | (0.020) | (0.019) | (0.019) | (0.019) | |
Gender | −0.028 | −0.045 | −0.028 | −0.046 | −0.037 | −0.032 |
(0.163) | (0.163) | (0.163) | (0.162) | (0.162) | (0.162) | |
Institutional development | 0.004 | −0.005 | 0.012 | 0.004 | −0.005 | −0.018 |
(0.072) | (0.078) | (0.071) | (0.077) | (0.077) | (0.077) | |
Industry fixed effect | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Province fixed effect | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
_cons | 0.432 | 0.142 | 0.441 | 0.124 | 0.0169 | −0.0116 |
(0.646) | (0.687) | (0.636) | (0.674) | (0.681) | (0.675) | |
F value | 7.21 *** | 6.93 *** | 7.18 *** | 6.94 *** | 6.76 *** | 6.75 *** |
N | 3701 | 3701 | 3701 | 3701 | 3701 | 3701 |
Hypothesis | Results |
---|---|
H1:A firm’s relationship with the government is negatively associated with its eco-efficiency. | Supported |
H2:A firm’s relationships with NGOs is positively associated with its eco-efficiency. | Supported |
H3:Firm size strengthens the negative impact of a firm’s relationship with the government on its eco-efficiency. | Supported |
H4:Firm size weakens the positive impact on eco-efficiency of a firm’s relationships with NGOs. | Supported |
Variables | Model 7 | Model 8 | Model 9 | Model 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Relationship with the government | −0.773 *** | −0.820 *** | −0.868 *** | |
(0.128) | (0.129) | (0.133) | ||
Relationships with NGOs | 0.311 * | 0.435 ** | 0.498 ** | |
(0.141) | (0.144) | (0.154) | ||
Relationship with the government × Firm size | −0.084 * | |||
(0.041) | ||||
Relationships with NGOs × Firm size | −0.172 * | |||
(0.071) | ||||
Firm size | 0.129 *** | 0.015 | 0.134 * | 0.165 *** |
(0.038) | (0.036) | (0.058) | (0.048) | |
Firm age | 0.038 ** | 0.025 | 0.0342 * | 0.0346 ** |
(0.012) | (0.013) | (0.013) | (0.013) | |
Leverage | −0.001 | −0.001 | −0.001 | −0.001 |
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | |
Export | −0.001 | −0.004 | −0.005 | −0.002 |
(0.026) | (0.026) | (0.026) | (0.026) | |
Foreign ownership | 0.660 | 0.682 | 0.668 | 0.702 |
(0.718) | (0.736) | (0.729) | (0.724) | |
Founder age | −0.002 | −0.002 | −0.001 | −0.002 |
(0.007) | (0.007) | (0.007) | (0.007) | |
Education | −0.015 | −0.028 | −0.019 | −0.018 |
(0.018) | (0.019) | (0.018) | (0.018) | |
Gender | −0.024 | −0.009 | −0.021 | −0.015 |
(0.158) | (0.158) | (0.158) | (0.158) | |
Institutional development | −0.003 | 0.011 | −0.001 | −0.013 |
(0.066) | (0.058) | (0.066) | (0.067) | |
Industry fixed effect | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Province fixed effect | Y | Y | Y | Y |
_cons | −0.254 | 0.0193 | −0.325 | −0.375 |
(0.598) | (0.551) | (0.605) | (0.602) | |
F value | 1.73 ** | 1.74 ** | 1.99 *** | 2.05 *** |
N | 3701 | 3701 | 3701 | 3701 |
Variables | Model 11 | Model 12 | Model 13 | Model 14 | Model 15 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Relationship with the government | −0.831 *** | −0.869 *** | −0.978 *** | −1.142 *** | |
(0.134) | (0.135) | (0.195) | (0.221) | ||
Relationships with NGOs | 0.580 *** | 0.642 *** | 0.704 * | 0.350 * | |
(0.151) | (0.158) | (0.290) | (0.166) | ||
Relationship with the government × Firm size | −0.041 * | ||||
(0.022) | |||||
Relationships with NGOs × Firm size | −0.139 ** | ||||
(0.042) | |||||
Relationship with affiliated NGOs | 0.211 * | ||||
(0.074) | |||||
Relationship with independent NGOs | 0.423 ** | ||||
(0.113) | |||||
Firm size | 0.128 *** | 0.165 *** | 0.072 * | 0.097 *** | 0.016 |
(0.028) | (0.023) | (0.032) | (0.021) | (0.036) | |
Firm age | 0.034 * | 0.033 * | 0.066 ** | −0.006 | 0.0255 |
(0.013) | (0.013) | (0.024) | (0.016) | (0.013) | |
Leverage | −0.001 | −0.001 | −0.001 | −0.033 * | −0.001 |
(0.001 | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.014) | (0.001) | |
Export | 0.041 | 0.043 | −0.041 | 0.051 | −0.004 |
(0.026) | (0.026) | (0.058) | (0.029) | (0.026) | |
Foreign ownership | 0.566 | 0.570 | 0.903 | 0.364 | 0.689 |
(0.766) | (0.757) | (1.037) | (0.951) | (0.734) | |
Founder age | 0.001 | 0.001 | −0.011 | 0.007 | −0.002 |
(0.007) | (0.007) | (0.012) | (0.008) | (0.007) | |
Education | −0.027 | −0.025 | −0.006 | −0.062 * | −0.026 |
(0.019) | (0.019) | (0.024) | (0.026) | (0.018) | |
Gender | −0.081 | −0.075 | −0.315 | 0.475 | −0.009 |
(0.160) | (0.160) | (0.197) | (0.306) | (0.158) | |
Institutional development | −0.025 | −0.024 | 0.067 | −0.085 | 0.011 |
(0.072) | (0.075) | (0.043) | (0.111) | (0.058) | |
Industry fixed effect | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Province fixed effect | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
_cons | 0.320 | 0.0263 | 0.0176 | 1.695 | 0.021 |
(0.647) | (0.672) | (0.479) | (1.007) | (0.516) | |
F value | 7.10 *** | 7.25 *** | 4.10 *** | 3.61 *** | 1.79 ** |
N | 3701 | 3701 | 1866 | 1835 | 3701 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chen, J.; Liu, L. Eco-Efficiency and Private Firms’ Relationships with Heterogeneous Public Stakeholders in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6983. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17196983
Chen J, Liu L. Eco-Efficiency and Private Firms’ Relationships with Heterogeneous Public Stakeholders in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(19):6983. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17196983
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Jiawen, and Linlin Liu. 2020. "Eco-Efficiency and Private Firms’ Relationships with Heterogeneous Public Stakeholders in China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 19: 6983. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17196983