Next Article in Journal
Does a Logging Ban Policy Increase Socio-Ecological Resilience? A Case Study of Key State-Owned Forest Areas in Northeast China
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Digital Finance on the Urban–Rural Income Gap in China: The Mediating Role of Employment Structural Transformation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 19
10.3390/su16198366
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Resilience in Construction Firms—A Study from China

by
Teng Ma
,
Huiling Wang
* and
Ying Qu
College of Economics and Management, Hebei University of Science and Technology, Shijiazhuang 050091, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(19), 8366; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198366
Submission received: 15 August 2024 / Revised: 17 September 2024 / Accepted: 19 September 2024 / Published: 26 September 2024
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Construction industry enterprises involve many stakeholders and are highly vulnerable to systemic risk. Whether managers can pay attention to the implementation of social responsibility in construction enterprises and achieve the synergistic development of stakeholders and organizational resilience is crucial to the future of their enterprises. However, how construction companies can achieve a resilient organization by fulfilling social responsibility is still a “black box problem”. Based on a fixed effects model that eliminates time trends from influencing the results, this study explores the role of the mechanism in the relationships among CSR performance, disclosure, and organizational resilience in the construction industry. This study finds that the disclosure of CSR reports enhances organizational resilience in the construction industry, making companies more resistant and resilient. Subdividing the different dimensions of CSR reveals that the fulfillment of social responsibility to shareholders, society, and employees has a significant effect on the organizational resilience of construction firms. This study deepens the understanding of the relationship between CSR activities and the organizational resilience of construction firms, contributing to the theoretical foundations and managerial references for achieving sustainable corporate development.

1. Introduction

Construction firms are an important part of the real economy and bear the burden of coping with population growth and urbanization and improving housing and infrastructure in developing countries [1]. Construction firms are characterized by many related parties, long production cycles, and high degrees of mobility, which makes them highly vulnerable to systemic risk. Especially since 2020, the increase in costs due to the increase in the use of raw materials and the lack of labor dynamics triggered by COVID-19 have further led to difficulties for construction firms [2]. Problems such as rising construction costs and difficulties in securing resource inputs and in project outputs have led to a break in the sustainable development of some construction industry firms. In this case, the formation of a community of destiny between enterprises and shareholders, stakeholders, social groups, etc., is a key way in which to enhance organizational resilience.
Organizational resilience is the ability of a system to reorganize, integrate, configure, and even anticipate a response to a crisis [3] and is also the core competence of an enterprise to survive a crisis in the volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) context [4]. On the one hand, to achieve a win-win situation for enterprises, society, and the environment, construction enterprises should integrate their internal resource management processes, clarify their social responsibility goals, and fulfill their economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities [5]. On the other hand, construction firms should build competitive advantage and sustainability based on the concept of organizational resilience [6]. Therefore, the fulfillment of social responsibility internally helps enterprises identify potential external risks and externally portrays an image of enterprises operating in compliance with the law and running well economically to all relevant stakeholders, which has a wide impact on the development of the organizational resilience among construction industry enterprises.
Resources, capabilities, and relationships are the three major perspectives from which to construct organizational resilience, and the construction of corporate organizational resilience based on corporate social responsibility (CSR) should be considered from the relationship perspective. In the current literature on organizational resilience in construction firms, some scholars, based on the resource perspective, explore the resources affecting organizational resilience in the construction industry, such as network density and scale [7] and digital technology integration [8]. Some scholars, based on the capability perspective, consider the leadership and employee dedication of the firm, organizational learning capability [9], and management strategy adjustment capability [10] as playing significant roles in organizational resilience in the construction industry. Scholars, based on the relationship perspective, discuss the conditions for the formation of organizational resilience from the viewpoint of business stakeholders [11]. Compared with the more mature theoretical system of the resource and capability perspectives, from the relational perspective, scholars focus on conceptual expression or case studies, mostly in the qualitative and descriptive stage and based mostly on the Western political system and cultural background of the research. However, the research on the conditions of the construction industry in China in terms of enterprise organizational toughness is limited, especially regarding the effects of CSR disclosure and multidimensional CSR fulfillment on organizational resilience. In particular, the effects of CSR disclosure and multidimensional CSR performance on organizational toughness are unknown. Does the disclosure of social responsibility fulfillment by construction industry enterprises have an impact on organizational toughness? How does CSR fulfillment for different stakeholders affect organizational resilience? These are the core questions addressed in this work.
To address the above issues, this study chooses CSR disclosure and the inputs of different dimensions of CSR as independent variables to determine the relationship between CSR and organizational toughness and the impact of CSR fulfillment on organizational toughness in the construction industry. This study aims to explore the relationship between CSR disclosure and organizational resilience, focusing on the construction industry in China, to actively promote the fulfillment of CSR, and to contribute to the theoretical foundation and provide a managerial reference for construction industry enterprises in enhancing organizational resilience and achieving sustainable development.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a review of the relevant literature; Section 3 formulates the hypothesis; Section 4 introduces the variables and constructs the model; Section 5 conducts the empirical analysis; and finally, Section 6 analyzes the results and makes recommendations.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. CSR

The term CSR was coined by Sheldon [12]. Zhu et al. state that corporate social responsibility is categorized as economic, ethical, legal, and charitable [13]. According to stakeholder theory, CSR requires enterprises to create profits and be responsible for shareholders, employees, etc., as well as to take corresponding responsibility for the environment and consumers [14]. Enterprises should pay particular attention to environmental protection, community programs, charitable donations, and employee welfare [15].
There are many factors that affect the fulfillment of corporate social responsibility. In terms of macro-factors, the regional economy [16], social trust [17], and so on in terms of their effects on the CSR of enterprises. Big data and artificial intelligence have put pressure on enterprises and, based on the social responsiveness and instrumental competition viewpoints, enterprises are more or less likely to fulfill their social responsibility. Moreover, regions with good economic environments provide high-quality resources to enterprises, fostering conditions for them to fulfill their social responsibilities. In terms of micro factors, CSR is influenced by the external status of entrepreneurs [18] and boards of directors [19].
Fulfilling CSR also has many implications. Firstly, the fulfillment of CSR by enterprises is a positive factor for all stakeholders [20]. Secondly, for companies, CSR affects a company’s corporate efficiency [21], technological innovation [22], and sustainable performance growth [23]. The fulfillment of social responsibility by enterprises not only reflects the moral standards of individual enterprise operators but also promotes the development of the enterprise itself. Enterprises that fulfill their social responsibility in the long term can build a successful platform for future growth and sustainable development [24].

2.2. Organizational Resilience

Organizational resilience is used in different ways in different disciplines; therefore, this study explains organizational resilience by first presenting it from the perspective of management, and subsequently explaining the application of organizational resilience in the construction industry firms from the perspective of this industry.

2.2.1. The Connotation of Organizational Resilience

Resilience was initially thought to be a physical concept, and the concept of organizational resilience was first introduced into the field of management by Meyer [25]. The current concept of organizational resilience has a fragmented character and has not yet formed a systematic perspective, and research on organizational resilience is still in the preliminary stage. The definition of organizational resilience is based on three perspectives—resistance, resilience, and transcendence—as shown in Table 1.

2.2.2. Organizational Resilience of Construction Companies

Organizational resilience applied to construction industry enterprises has derived concepts such as supply chain resilience, economic resilience, project resilience, safety attitude resilience, etc., and scholars have focused on organizational resilience in different areas, which can be approximately divided into two categories based on capabilities and processes given different research focuses and methods.
Capability-based scholars emphasize that the construction industry possesses certain competencies that make it more organizationally resilient. Shiha and Dorra [33] argue that in developing countries, construction firms remain resilient. Miao Xin et al. [34] state that highly resilient construction firms have a greater ability to transform scientific and technological achievements, thus contributing to the growth of operating revenue and the realization of economic benefits, compared to less resilient construction firms. Zhao et al. [35] emphasize that construction firms have efficient management systems to survive and thrive in dynamic environments.
Process-based scholars emphasize the organizational resilience of construction industry firms through management and communication during the construction process. Wang et al. [36] argued that the focus of organizational resilience in construction firms is project resilience, where each project enables the collective to cope with risk and recover quickly through positive interactions. Based on the perspective of safety management, Qian et al. [37] state that resilient construction firms are able to resist risks and also predict and avoid risks through safety management during construction. Based on the perspective of engineering system resilience, Cai et al. [38] established a set of indicators for assessing resilience, which facilitates the provision of implementation guidance for engineering planning, design, operation, construction, and management of construction industry enterprises.

3. Hypothesis Development

3.1. CSR Disclosure and Organizational Resilience

Some scholars believe that CSR disclosure is strongly related to managers [39]; other scholars correlate such disclosure with certain firm characteristics, such as firm size [40] and capital structure [41].
There are two main views on the impact of CSR disclosure on organizational resilience, as illustrated in Figure 1. One view is that CSR disclosure does not have a positive effect on the firm. Duque and Aguilera [42] argue that there is a strong externality in the performance of social responsibility and that managers may use this externality as a self-interested tool to the detriment of firm development. Zheng Li [43] state that CSR can negatively affect corporate value in the current period.
Another viewpoint suggests that CSR activities can significantly increase firm resilience, and this enhancement is both direct and indirect, with indirect effects (i.e., social responsibility disclosure impacts firm value and performance through various mediating effects). For example, CSR disclosure affects corporate reputation [44], brand image, and brand capital [45], which in turn can have an impact on the long-term growth of the firm. Wang and Ning [46] find that CSR disclosure can drive a firm’s green transformation, which in turn improves its financial performance. Among the extant direct impact studies, Hashem et al. [47] indicate that CSR disclosure in terms of different aspects positively affects corporate profitability, while Chen et al. [48] indicate that CSR disclosure has a positive and significant effect on corporate financial performance but that this effect is characterized by a lag [49].
In summary, the effect of corporate disclosure of social responsibility on organizational resilience is not clearly defined. Although the fulfillment of social responsibility will bring costs to enterprises, it does not mean that there are only negative impacts on enterprises, and the act of disclosure of social responsibility by enterprises may be an opportunity for enterprises to turn costs into capabilities. Accordingly, to further validate the effect of corporate social responsibility disclosure on organizational resilience, this paper proposes the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). 
The corporate disclosure of social responsibility is positively related to the organizational resilience of firms.

3.2. CSR Inputs and Organizational Resilience

CSR plays a crucial role in corporate microeconomic activities [50,51] and based on the social responsibility reports and financial reporting information of listed companies in China, as well as on the actual fulfillment of CSR in the construction industry, CSR is generalized into three aspects, namely, society, shareholders, and employees.
(1)
Corporate responsibility to shareholders
Shareholders are the most important stakeholders of a firm; it is difficult for a firm to grow without shareholders, and the traditional shareholder return model is still dominant in today’s firms [52]. Georgios et al. [53] point out that shareholder-oriented firms actively fulfilling their responsibilities to shareholders may realize high profits in the short term. The fulfillment of responsibilities to shareholders is the primary task and basis for the existence and development of firms, which implies that firms must continuously generate profits, expand reproduction and, accordingly, promote the expansion of firms and their development.
(2)
Corporate Responsibility to Employees
Enterprises should pay attention to CSR-oriented human resource management (HRM), which is one of the most effective initiatives through which to promote business performance and maintain enterprise sustainability, improving sustainable performance and value perception both inside and outside the company [54]. This facilitation is achieved through a certain process whereby firms establish long-term mechanisms through which to eliminate employee-related problems, increase employee satisfaction and productivity, and therefore improve firm operational efficiency and financial performance [55]. Zhao et al. [56] state that firms’ active commitment to their responsibilities to their employees can generate behaviors that contribute to organizational competitiveness and that the effectiveness of HRM implementation depends not only on the system itself but also on the quality of the relationships between leadership members.
(3)
Corporate responsibility to society
Corporate responsibility to society includes the active participation in charitable activities; the sponsorship of community, education, and culture, as well as environmental protection, consumer protection, and the fulfillment of economic responsibility [57]. The proactive contribution of enterprises to public welfare is conducive to the improvement in the competitive environment, which leads to an enormous amount of and stable clientele and support from the state [58]. A firm’s long-term involvement in public welfare activities leads to longer media discussions, more exposure, and better quality as time grows, as well as a good corporate image and improved corporate performance [59]. George [60] states that by being socially responsible, firms develop an advantage in terms of profitability. In other words, CSR can be used as a driver—an agent of change and development—and ultimately develop and nurture a resilient business.
According to the existing literature, CSR inputs at the shareholder, employee, and societal levels all have a positive impact on firms, contributing to benefit creation, expansion, and organizational resilience.
Therefore, this paper proposes the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2 (H2). 
Shareholder-level social responsibility is positively related to corporate organizational resilience.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). 
Employee-level social responsibility is positively related to corporate organizational resilience.
Hypothesis 4 (H4). 
Society-level social responsibility is positively related to corporate organizational resilience.

4. Research Design

4.1. Sample Selection and Data Sources

The initial disclosure of social responsibility reports by Chinese construction companies was concentrated between 2010 and 2015 and the data on social responsibility scores in Hexun.com is only updated to 2020. This study examines the impact of social responsibility disclosure and CSR investment on organizational resilience based on data on A-share listed companies in the construction industry in the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets from 2010 to 2020. Companies categorized by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as being part of the construction industry are exported from the WIND database, and 767 observations are obtained by integrating all the data after removing anomalies and financially missing data.

4.2. Variable Selection

4.2.1. Organizational Resilience

According to previous studies, financial performance is an important indicator of organizational resilience, while financial growth is an important indicator of a firm’s financial performance. The organizational resilience of a firm is cumulative over time, and thus, in calculating the financial growth of a firm, this paper refers to Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal [61] and Lv et al. [62] and uses the cumulative growth of a firm’s operating revenue (in millions of dollars) over three years (OR).

4.2.2. Social Responsibility Disclosure

This study sets the Treat variable so that when Treat = 0, the enterprise does not publish a CSR report in that year, and when Treat = 1, the enterprise discloses its fulfillment of social responsibility in that year. The data are obtained from the China Stock Market & Accounting Research (CSMAR) database, corporate annual reports, and social responsibility reports.

4.2.3. CSR Inputs

Hexun.com relies on the China Securities Market Research Center to provide the most authoritative and cutting-edge CSR scores. Drawing on Liu and Tan [63], this study categorizes the variables into the following three dimensions: Shareholder CSR, Employee CSR, and Social CSR.

4.2.4. Control Variables

To improve the accuracy of the results, this study controls for some variables. Newly created firms lack operational relationships, operational prestige, and the resilience needed to face an uncertain environment [64]. In contrast, older firms have survived years of competition and risk and have a greater level of adaptability compared to younger firms [65]. Therefore, this study controls for the age of the firm (Age).
Organizational redundancy is the amount of excess resources a firm maintains to manage uncertainty, which is expressed as total debt divided by total assets. Organizational redundancy is an important factor affecting organizational resilience [66], and managers are usually less risk averse when firms have more redundant resources than when they have less redundant resources [67]. However, having idle funds does not in and of itself increase organizational resilience, as such an increase also depends on the strategic arrangement of funds [68]. Therefore, this paper takes organizational redundancy (Slack) as a control variable.
Return on Assets (ROA), which measures how much net profit is generated per unit of assets and reflects the profitability of a business, expressed as net profit divided by the balance of total assets. Li et al. [69] note that ROA is a key determinant of a firm’s ability to cope with economic crises and negative events; therefore, this study adopts ROA as a control variable.
Corporate social capital is the ability of firms to access scarce resources through horizontal, vertical, and social linkages. Firms invest in relational networks through the construction of external resources and prior to a disaster, which strengthens their dynamic capabilities through relationships in both formal and informal networks, enabling these firms to quickly recover their capabilities after a disaster [70,71]. In this paper, we control for network size, which is measured by the total number of partners and the number of suppliers and customers per year, collected from the “Eyes on the Sky” website [72]; the missing values are filled in through the use of the interpolation method.
Organizational resilience relies on the city in which the firm is located in addition to its internal members, and the two can reinforce one another [73]. Therefore, this paper controls for provinces and uses provincial GDP growth (GDP growth) as the corresponding measure.
Sorting through the variables yields that the means and standard deviations of the variables are within reasonable limits. The specific calculations for each variable and the descriptive type analysis are shown in Table 2.

4.3. Measurement Model

According to the regression model, with long-term corporate performance growth as the dependent variable and CSR as the independent variable, this paper constructs the following model:
ORit = α0 + α1Treatit + α2Social CSRit + α3Shareholder CSRit + α4Employee CSRit + Xit + μit
In the model, ORit refers to the cumulative amount of operating income growth in year t for firm i. Social CSR, Shareholder CSR, and Employee CSR refer to social responsibility at the social, shareholder, and employee levels, respectively; Xit refers to the control variables; and μit refers to the random perturbation term.

5. Empirical Research

5.1. Correlation Analysis

The data are first standardized with a 1% reduction before data analysis. The correlation analyses of the variables are shown in Table 3. Pearson’s two-sided test is used to test for the existence of multicollinearity among the variables. As shown in Table 2, the correlation coefficient fluctuates around 0.15 for the vast majority of the values, which are less than 0.8, and thus, there is no multicollinearity. Through correlation analysis, we preliminarily derive the relationship between the variables and conclude that there is a positive and significant relationship between OR and Treat (H1), Social CSR (H2), Shareholder CSR (H3), and Employee CSR (H4) from Table 3, and preliminarily verify H1, H2, H3, and H4.

5.2. Analysis of Regression Results

Table 4 presents the results of the regression of CSR and organizational resilience in the construction industry. The regression is analyzed using Stata by applying a fixed effects regression model and controlling for year variables. Models 1–4 are the results of adding the explanatory variables Treat, Social CSR, Shareholder CSR, and Employee CSR in sequence; Model 5 is the result after adding all explanatory variables; and Model 6 adds control variables based on Model 5.
According to Models 1–4, CSR disclosure significantly affects a company’s financial growth at the 1% (p < 0.01) level, indicating that such disclosure increases organizational toughness. According to H1, social CSR, shareholder CSR and employee CSR are positively correlated with a company’s financial growth, and all of these factors are significantly related to organizational toughness at the 1% level. This finding also verifies H2–H4, further confirming that the fulfillment of social CSR, employee CSR, and shareholder CSR increases the degree of corporate resistance to risk. In Model 6, after adding control variables to Model 5, we find that the significance of the explanatory and interpreted variables, although there are slight changes, does not affect the overall results.
Through the above tests, we can conclude that CSR disclosure affects the organizational resilience of construction firms and H1 is validated. Meanwhile, the benchmark regression results show that Social CSR, Shareholder CSR, and Employee CSR are positively correlated with OR, validating Hypothesis 2, Hypothesis 3, and Hypothesis 4.

5.3. Endogeneity Test

Firms generally perform social responsibility first and then make any associated disclosures, and there is a time lag in terms of the firm’s financial growth, which may have a lagged effect. To solve the endogeneity problem arising from reverse causality, this paper re-regresses and lags by one period the explanatory and control variables. The results obtained are shown in Table 5, from which it can be concluded that H1, H2, H3, and H4 are still validated and that there is no endogeneity problem.

5.4. Robustness Check

To make the empirical test results more robust, this paper replaces the explanatory variables and uses the total corporate tax payment divided by operating income (Tax/Revenue) as the replacement variable for CSR. As shown in Table 6, Model 1 is the result after adding the social responsibility input variable, Model 2 adds the social responsibility disclosure variable on this same basis, and Models 3 and 4 add control variables on the basis of Models 1 and 3, respectively. The replacement of CSR and whether or not to disclose CSR still significantly affect OR, indicating the robustness of the results, which further validates H1, H2, H3, and H4.

6. Conclusions and Implications of the Study

6.1. Conclusions and Discussion

To explore the impact of CSR on organizational resilience in the construction industry and to improve organizational resistance and resilience in the face of crisis, this study combines the development of Chinese construction industry enterprises based on the theory of CSR, examines the impact of CSR disclosure on the organizational resilience of construction industry enterprises; defines CSR in three dimensions—shareholders, employees, and society, and explains the mechanism of the relationship between CSR activities and the organizational resilience of construction industry enterprises.
This study finds that first, support for H1 is confirmed by research on CSR disclosure and organizational resilience—the disclosure of CSR reports by construction firms enhances organizational resilience. At the corporate level, companies that fully disclose their CSR reports enable stakeholders to fully understand the companies’ culture, philosophy, and values. Therefore, the corporate disclosure of CSR reports attracts and retains consumers and ultimately expands market share, increases operating income, and improves organizational resilience. From the consumer perspective, construction industry enterprises are related to the safety of the work being carried out as well as the associated property, and consumers pay more attention to corporate reputation [74]. There is no corporate reputation, and it is difficult to survive when choosing builders.
Second, H2, H3, and H4 are confirmed—CSR investment in the shareholder, social, and employee dimensions enhances organizational resilience of construction firms [75,76]. First, as H2 predicted, Shareholder CSR has a significant positive impact on OR. We also found that among Shareholder CSR, Employee CSR, and Social CSR, shareholder CSR has the greatest impact on OR, indicating that the construction industry in China is still shareholder oriented. Firms are established by shareholders’ contributions, with shareholders also being the largest bearers of the risk faced by firms [77]. If shareholders do not receive their due compensation, then the risk of shareholders’ divestment arises, which has a direct impact on firm survival [78].
There is a significant relationship between social CSR and OR. This finding supports Hypothesis 3, which predicts a significant positive relationship between Social CSR and OR. As an energy-intensive industry, three of the most important aspects of a company in the construction industry’s responsibility to society are greenness, safety, and quality. CSR investment in the social dimension caters to the government and consumers and enables companies to gain support in a crisis.
Finally, the regression results reveal that employee CSR significantly affects OR, which confirms H4 based on the employee dimension. On the one hand, the supervision and protection of employees during the construction process can prevent hazardous matters from occurring [79], reduce the resulting costs, such as compensation, and increase the dynamic capacity of the enterprise. On the other hand, the fulfilment of Employees CSR demonstrates the importance companies place on human rights, which contributes to improving corporate performance and sustaining the long-term [80] and sustainability development of the enterprise.

6.2. Theoretical and Practical Insights

This study makes three important theoretical contributions. First, this study expands the research on the antecedent variables of organizational resilience. This study specifies the research perspective of organizational resilience to the construction industry and empirically investigates the impact of CSR on organizational resilience based on data from 2011 to 2020. Second, this study provides new perspectives for CSR research. Restricted by the context or research interval of the study, CSR research has focused more on empirical studies of how much CSR is invested in [81]. This study explores the impact of CSR disclosure behavior on organizational resilience. Finally, this study explains the impact of different levels of social responsibility on organizational resilience by constructing a new theoretical framework. Many previous studies have ignored the multiplicity of corporate fulfillment of social responsibility [82]. This study emphasizes that firms should deploy their resources in the appropriate way to increase organizational resilience.
Accordingly, the following recommendations are made to managers of construction industry enterprises. First, the management mechanism of social responsibility reports should be improved. When publishing social responsibility reports, enterprises should disclose them in accordance with the trial preparation guidelines issued by the China Construction Association and strictly abide by the corresponding principles. Second, an effective HRM system should be established internally. Moreover, the protection of employees’ salary, labor time, workplace, etc., should be addressed, and the psychological construction of employees should be considered so as to guide them in forming harmonious employment relationships. Third, companies should actively fulfill their responsibilities to society. Enterprises should aim to comply with international standards and engage in green construction. Raw materials should be strictly controlled, product quality should be considered, and environmental protection should become a focus.

6.3. Limitations

This study explores the impact of CSR on organizational resilience based only on its outcomes and does not focus on the purpose of CSR activities among firms. In fact, different motivations for CSR activities have different impacts on firms’ organizational resilience [83]. Future research should therefore differentiate between the purposes of firms in adopting CSR and explore their impacts on organizational resilience separately. In addition, this study is conducted from the perspective of Chinese construction firms, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other contexts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.M., H.W. and Y.Q.; Methodology, T.M.; Investigation, H.W.; Resources, T.M. and H.W.; Data curation, H.W.; Writing—original draft, T.M. and H.W.; Writing—review & editing, T.M. and H.W.; Funding acquisition, T.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Major Project of Hebei Provincial Department of Education (ZD202208) and the Shijiazhuang Science and Technology Bureau Project of China (235790105A).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Leslie, M. Construction Industry Innovation Takes Aim at Reducing Carbon Emissions. Engineering 2022, 19, 7–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Xu, X.C.; Tang, Y.; Jing, Q.Y. Analysis of China’s Economic Situation in 2021 and Outlook for 2022. Econ. Perspect. 2022, 63, 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  3. Su, K.; Liu, C.; Zhang, M. The optimization of a corporate social responsibility management system based on service-orientated architecture under the concept of sustainable development. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2024, 200, 123102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Xie, Y.; Chen, R.; Cheng, J. How can new-energy vehicle companies use organizational resilience to build business ecological advantages? The role of ecological niche and resource orchestration. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 415, 137765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mirghaderi, S.A.; Aboumasoudi, A.S.; Amindoust, A. Developing an open innovation model in the startup ecosystem industries based on the attitude of organizational resilience and blue ocean strategy. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2023, 181, 109301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Li, P.; Zhu, J.Z. Organizational resilience: An updated literature review. Foreign Econ. Manag. 2021, 43, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhou, J.N.; Yang, L. Network-Based Research on Organizational Resilience in Wuhan Thunder God Mountain Hospital Project during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bühler, M.M.; Hollenbach, P.; Michalski, A.; Meyer, S.; Birle, E.; Off, R.; Lang, C.; Schmidt, W.; Cudmani, R.; Fritz, O.; et al. The Industrialisation of Sustainable Construction: A Transdisciplinary Approach to the Large-Scale Introduction of Compacted Mineral Mixtures (CMMs) into Building Construction. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. AlMaian, R.; Qammaz, A.B. The Organizational Learning Role in Construction Organizations Resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yapicioglu, B. Navigating Turbulent Environments: Exploring Resilience in SMEs through Complex Adaptive Systems Perspective. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, Y.X.; Ren, J.L.; Zhang, L.; Liu, D.L. Research on Resilience Evaluation of Green Building Supply Chain Based on ANP-Fuzzy Model. Sustainability 2023, 15, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sheldon, O. The Philosophy of Management. Sir I. Pitman & Sons: London, UK, 1923; pp. 145–296. [Google Scholar]
  13. Zhu, W.M.; Chen, X.Y. Corporate Social Responsibility: The Basis for Strategic Corporate PR. Contemp. Financ. Econ. 2004, 65–68+73. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/nzkhtml/xmlRead/trialRead.html?dbCode=CJFD&tableName=CJFDTOTAL&fileName=DDCJ200408011&fileSourceType=1&invoice=o6BMCstvhFcdZwgb0Mp4tMrynIExz3CUQiFRyHE2NY4HiJCFkjvGzXNthVqH1UictG%2f8IldF1kGwxy0rIR8wi0NDb0w3iERCxJP2wWxNFP36mQzHK3TBxayer8G9NIG%2bNI1g2XnRx%2f%2bLPnsIt2%2fw3Q2k9YHaFK5nTetRNEwqIxM%3d&appId=KNS_BASIC_PSMC (accessed on 18 September 2024).
  14. Neal, R.; Cochran, P.L. Corporate social responsibility, corporate governance, and financial performance: Lessons from finance. Bus. Horiz. 2008, 51, 535–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Carter, C.R.; Kale, R.; Grimm, C.M. Environmental purchasing and firm performance: An empirical investigation. Transp. Res. Part E 2000, 36, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Shi, F.A.; Li, X.D.; Ma, Y.J. Research on the driving model of corporate social responsibility in the context of ESG. Financ. Account. Mon. 2023, 44, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yang, Z.; Ling, H.C.; Chen, J. Does social trust help companies to fulfill their social responsibility? Sci. Res. Manag. 2021, 42, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Xiao, H.J.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, Z. The effect of party organization embeddedness and entrepreneurial status on corporate social responsibility in private firms. Chin. J. Manag. 2022, 19, 495–505. [Google Scholar]
  19. Govindan, K.; Kilic, M.; Uyar, A.; Karaman, A.S. Drivers and value-relevance of CSR performance in the logistics sector: A cross-country firm-level investigation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 231, 107835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, G.M. The Construction of Social Responsibility Power Mechanism of Small and Medium-sized Private Enterprises under the Goal of Common Wealth. Enterp. Econ. 2023, 42, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Minh, T.N.; Quang, T.T. The effects of corporate social responsibility on firm efficiency: Inside the matrix of corporate finance. Financ. Res. Lett. 2022, 46, 102500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tuyen, B.Q.; Phuong Anh, D.V.; Mai, N.P.; Long, T.Q. Does corporate engagement in social responsibility affect firm innovation? The mediating role of digital transformation. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2023, 84, 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Khan, S.A.R.; Sheikh, A.A.; Ahmad, Z. Developing the interconnection between green employee behavior, tax avoidance, green capability, and sustainable performance of SMEs through corporate social responsibility. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 419, 138236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Streimikiene, D.; Simanaviciene, Z.; Kovaliov, R. Corporate social responsibility for implementation of sustainable energy development in Baltic States. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 813–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Meyer, A. Adapting to Environmental Jolts. Adm. Sci. Q. 1983, 27, 515–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, Q. Highly Resilient Organizations in the Digital Age: People as a Single Unit. Tsinghua Bus. Rev. 2020, 10, 96–100. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hu, Y.Y.; Chen, S.M.; Qiu, F.J. Digital Strategy Orientation, Market Competitiveness and Organizational Resilience of Enterprises. China Soft Sci. 2021, 36, 214–225. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lengnick-Hall, C.A.; Beck, T.E.; Lengnick-Hall, M.L. Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2011, 21, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, X.L.; Mi, Y.X. Exploring the Path of Cultivating Organizational Resilience in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in the Context of Digitalization. Trade Fair Econ. 2023, 42, 75–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Madni, A.M.; Jackson, S. Towards a Conceptual Framework for Resilience Engineering. IEEE Syst. J. 2009, 3, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shan, Y.; Xu, H.; Zhou, L.X.; Zhou, Q. Digital Intelligence Empowerment: How is Organizational Resilience Formed in Crisis Situations? An exploratory case study based on Lin Ching-Hsien’s turnaround from crisis to opportunity. J. Manag. World 2021, 37, 84–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, L.; Zhong, W.G.; Peng, S.Q.; Hao, D.H.; Wang, Y.F. Business Resilience and Entrepreneurship under the Crisis of the New Crown Pneumonia Epidemic—A Special Investigation Report on the Growth and Development of Chinese Entrepreneurs in 2021-China. Nankai Bus. Rev. 2022, 25, 50–64. [Google Scholar]
  33. Shiha, A.; Dorra, E.M. Resilience Index Framework for the Construction Industry in Developing Countries. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2023, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Miao, X.; Fu, Y.; Liu, J.W.; Chen, S.; Xi, W.Q.; Wu, S.R. Research on Science and Technology Innovation Efficiency of Listed Construction Enterprises in China Based on Innovation Value Chain Theory. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res. 2023, 43, 73–79. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhao, X.; Liu, Y.M.; Jiang, W.C.; Wei, D.R. Study on the Factors Influencing and Mechanisms Shaping the Institutional Resilience of Mega Railway Construction Projects. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, D.D.; Wang, P.; Liu, Y.J. The Emergence Process of Construction Project Resilience: A Social Network Analysis Approach. Buildings 2022, 12, 822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Qian, Y.T.; Liu, H.; Mao, P.; Zheng, X.D. Evaluation of Safety Management of Smart Construction Sites from the Perspective of Resilience. Buildings 2023, 13, 2205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cai, B.P.; Xie, M.; Liu, Y.H.; Liu, Y.L.; Feng, Q. Availability-based engineering resilience metric and its corresponding evaluation methodology. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2018, 172, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nie, X. Research on the Motivation and Quality Influencing Factors of Corporate Social Responsibility Information Disclosure. Mod. Econ. Inf. 2019, 40, 80–81. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nguyen, T.H.; Vu, Q.T.; Nguyen, D.M.; Le, H.L. Factors Influencing Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure and Its Impact on Financial Performance: The Case of Vietnam. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Li, Q.J.; Yin, S. Research on the Influencing Factors of Social Responsibility Information Disclosure of Listed Companies on Growth Enterprise Market. Commun. Financ. Account. 2014, 35, 99–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Duque-Grisales, E.; Aguilera-Caracuel, J. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Scores and Financial Performance of Multilatinas: Moderating Effects of Geographic International Diversification and Financial Slack. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 168, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, Z. A Study on the Correlation between Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Value—Empirical Evidence from Shanghai Listed Companies. China Ind. Econ. 2006, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ninlaphay, S.; Mahatham, A. Social responsibility disclosure quality and ongoing firm sustainability: Evidence from ISO 14,000 businesses in Thailand. J. Int. Bus. Econ. 2014, 14, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Araújo, J.; Pereira, I.V.; Santos, J.D. The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Brand Image and Brand Equity and Its Impact on Consumer Satisfaction. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, X.Q.; Ning, J.H. Can Mandatory Social Responsibility Disclosure Drive Corporate Green Transformation?—Evidence based on green patent data of listed companies in China. J. Audit. Econ. 2020, 35, 69–77. [Google Scholar]
  47. Hashem, A.; Husam, A.; Huthaifa, A.-H.; Obeid, A.S.M. Do different dimensions of corporate social responsibility disclosure have different economic consequence: Multi-approaches for profitability examination. Compet. Rev. Int. Bus. J. 2023, 33, 240–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chen, C.; Wang, Z.J.; Ye, Y. A Study on the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure on Financial Performance from the Perspective of Signaling Theory. Chin. J. Manag. 2019, 16, 408–417. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhang, Z.G.; Jin, X.C.; Li, G.Q. An Empirical Study on the Interactive Cross-period Effect between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Account. Res. 2013, 8, 32–39+96. [Google Scholar]
  50. Megumi, S.; Hitoshi, T. Impact of corporate social responsibility intensity on firm-specific risk and innovation: Evidence from Japan. Soc. Responsib. J. 2022, 18, 484–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhu, D.Y.; Li, X.H. A study of the impact of CSR investment on organizational resilience in manufacturing firms. Chin. J. Manag. 2023, 20, 1023–1033. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zhu, Y.M.; Li, J.; Li, J. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Corporate Performance: Based on Meta-Analysis. Financ. Account. Mon. 2021, 42, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Angelopoulos, G.; Parnell, J.A.; Scott, G.J. Performance satisfaction, shareholder and stakeholder orientations: Managers’ perceptions in three countries across continents. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 2013, 16, 199–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pham, N.T.; Tuan, T.H.; Le, T.D.; Nguyen, P.N.D.; Usman, M.; Ferreira, G.T.C. Socially responsible human resources management and employee retention: The roles of shared value, relationship satisfaction, and servant leadership. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 414, 137704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lee, P.K.C.; Lau, A.K.W.; Cheng, T.C.E. Employee rights protection and financial performance. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1861–1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhao, D.H.; Chen, Y.H.; Zheng, W.B. Perceived Social Responsibility Oriented Human Resource Management and Employee Advocacy Behavior: Based on Social Exchange Theory. Hum. Resour. Dev. China 2019, 36, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jin, L.Y. Empirical Study on the Measurement Indicator System of Corporate Social Responsibility Movement: Consumer Perspective. China Ind. Econ. 2006, 24, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, H.M.; Song, T. An Empirical Study on Social Responsibility and Corporate Performance of Listed Companies in China: Empirical Evidence from SSE 180 Index. J. Nanjing Norm. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2007, 52, 58–62+75. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/nzkhtml/xmlRead/trialRead.html?dbCode=CJFD&tableName=CJFDTOTAL&fileName=NJSS200702009&fileSourceType=1&invoice=YtD0o%2booUb%2bci0%2bOj%2b9c9Q7EHoOF0lhc7ETc2w8DXptvX07%2frNKcx7RIj8r2XfunTeCpltPkPdjh4vESQeHE1wdlVwAIJBn4tOzIoEhtICoN0U4e1%2f5%2bAdzmGo4OJq53%2fhIWgZlYDzns6gSKp2r0YePhr1TQo7TdUSo2kK9LrgI%3d&appId=KNS_BASIC_PSMC (accessed on 18 September 2024).
  59. Wei, W.C. A Study of the Relationship between Drivers and Performance of Corporate Philanthropy Activities. J. Commer. Econ. 2012, 31, 84–85. [Google Scholar]
  60. George, A.K.; Kayal, P.; Maiti, M. Nexus of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) and financial performance: Indian banks. Q. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2023, 90, 190–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N.; Bansal, P. The long-term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices. Strateg. Manag. J. 2015, 37, 1615–1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lv, W.; Wei, Y.; Li, X.; Lin, L. What Dimension of CSR Matters to Organizational Resilience? Evidence from China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liu, B.; Tan, S.L. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Resilience Innovation—A Multidimensional Empirical Analysis Based on Listed Companies in the Chinese Manufacturing Industry. Enterp. Econ. 2022, 41, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wang, Y. A Study of the Relationship Between Organizational Resilience, Strategic Capabilities, and the Growth of New Ventures. J. Univ. Chin. Acad. Soc. Sci. 2019, 41, 68–77. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ambulkar, S.; Blackhurst, J.; Grawe, S. Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions: Scale development and empirical examination. J. Oper. Manag. 2015, 33–34, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nayal, O.E.; Slangen, A.; Oosterhout, J.H.; Essen, M. Towards a Democratic New Normal? Investor Reactions to Interim—Regime Dominance during Violent Events Studies. J. Manag. 2020, 57, 505–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Xie, W.M.; Wei, H.Q. Market Competition, Organizational Redundancy and Corporate R&D Investment. China Soft Sci. 2016, 31, 102–111. [Google Scholar]
  68. Essuman, D.; Bruce, P.A.; Ataburo, H.; Asiedu-Appiah, F.; Boso, N. Linking resource slack to operational resilience: Integration of resource-based and attention-based perspectives. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 254, 108652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Li, H.; Pournader, M.; Fahimnia, B. Servitization and organizational resilience of manufacturing firms: Evidence from the COVID-19 outbreak. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 250, 108685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhang, M.Y.; Zhang, S.T. The Impact of Relationship Networks on Organizational Resilience—The Mediating Role of Dual Innovation. Sci. Res. Manag. 2022, 43, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Tanner, S.; Prayag, D.G.; Coelho Kuntz, D.J. Psychological capital, social capital and organizational resilience: A Herringbone Model perspective. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 78, 103149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Li, Y.; Wang, X.; Gong, T.; Wang, H. Breaking out of the pandemic: How can firms match internal competence with external resources to shape operational resilience? J. Oper. Manag. 2022, 69, 384–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bai, X.Y.; Zhai, G.F.; He, Z.Y. International Experiences and Insights on Organizational Resilience Enhancement. J. Catastrophol. 2017, 32, 183–190. [Google Scholar]
  74. Song, X.Z.; Hu, J.; Li, S.H. Social Responsibility Disclosure and Stock Price Crash Risk—A Path Analysis Based on Information Effect and Reputation Insurance Effect. J. Financ. Res. 2017, 60, 161–175. [Google Scholar]
  75. Inoue, Y.; Lee, S. Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 790–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, X.W.; Chen, H. A Study on the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Value Based on Stakeholders. J. Manag. Sci. 2011, 24, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
  77. Li, X.H.; Zhou, C. The Meaning of Corporate Survival: From Shareholder Interest Theory to Corporate Interest Theory. Financ. Res. 2022, 08, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yan, Y.J.; Wang, X.J.; Zhang, G. The Effect of Highly Distributive Dividend Policies on Firm Performance. Co-Oper. Econ. Sci. 2023, 39, 88–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Koo, J.E.; Ki, E.S. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Safety: Evidence from Korea. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ding, D.H.; Chen, X.M. An empirical study on the relationship between social responsibility and corporate performance: Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Study Explor. 2013, 35, 101–106. [Google Scholar]
  81. Inoue, Y.; Kent, A.; Lee, S. CSR and the Bottom Line: Analyzing the Link Between CSR and Financial Performance for Professional Teams. J. Sport Manag. 2011, 25, 531–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Flammer, C. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Lead to Superior Financial Performance? A Regression Discontinuity Approach. Manag. Sci. 2015, 61, 2549–2568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Aguinis, H.; Glavas, A. Embedded Versus Peripheral Corporate Social Responsibility: Psychological Foundations. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2013, 6, 314–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 08366 g001
Figure 1. Mechanisms of Social Responsibility Disclosure on Organizational Resilience.
Figure 1. Mechanisms of Social Responsibility Disclosure on Organizational Resilience.
Sustainability 16 08366 g001
Table 1. Concepts of Organizational Resilience.
Table 1. Concepts of Organizational Resilience.
DimensionDelegateDefinition
ResistanceWang [26]Ability to survive a crisis
Hu et al. [27]Resilience of firms to systemic shocks
ResilienceLengnick-Hall [28] Extent to which the system can withstand sustained interference
Chen and Mi [29] Ability of an enterprise to respond quickly and maintain normal order and stable productivity
TranscendenceMadni and Jackson [30] Dynamic capability that needs to be continuously strengthened and invested in
Shan et al. [31] Dynamic ability of an organization to reinvent and upgrade in the VUCA context
Li et al. [32] Ability to recover from setbacks and even grow through them
Table 2. Data description and statistical description of the variables.
Table 2. Data description and statistical description of the variables.
VariableVariable SymbolMeasurement IndicatorMeanStd. Dev
Organizational ResilienceORThree Years of Financial Growth−0.0120.900
Social Responsibility DisclosureTreatTreat = 0,the enterprise does not publish a CSR report; Treat = 1, discloses it 0.8060.396
Social CSR InputsSocial CSRCSR Scores4.3103.545
Shareholder CSR InputsShareholder CSRCSR Scores13.3155.394
Employee CSR InputsEmployee CSRCSR Scores3.2813.450
Firm AgeAgeAge of Business Establishment18.4526.245
Organizational RedundancySlackTotal Borrowing/Total Assets0.1980.124
Return on AssetsROANet Profit/Total Assets0.0220.044
Corporate Social CapitalNetwork sizeThe total number of partners and the number of suppliers and customers per year16.30916.043
Provincial GDP GrowthGDP growth 0.0950.049
Table 3. Correlation Analysis.
Table 3. Correlation Analysis.
Variable(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)
(1) OR1
(2) Treat0.126 **1
(3) Social CSR0.152 **−0.022 *1
(4) Shareholder CSR0.214 **0.0530.233 **1
(5) Employee CSR0.190 **0.167 **0.105 **0.293 **1
(6) Age−0.335 **0.118 **0.0080.197 **−0.254 **1
(7) Slack−0.008−0.0620.084 *−0.235 **−0.059−0.0681
(8) ROA0.014−0.0650.199 **0.735 **0.084 *−0.080 *−0.237 **1
(9) Network size0.128 **0.117 **−0.0130.074 *−0.132 **0.137 **0.0540.0211
(10) GDP growth0.023−0.290 **0.084 *0.0360.101 **−0.251 **0.0340.116 **−0.0601
** At the 0.01 level (two-tailed), the correlation was significant. * At the 0.05 level (two-tailed), the correlation was significant.
Table 4. Regression Analysis Results.
Table 4. Regression Analysis Results.
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6
Treat0.2982 ***
(3.51)		 0.256 ***
(3.18)		0.1793 **
(2.32)
Social CSR 0.0459 ***
(3.98)		 0.0261 **
(2.58)		0.0358 ***
(3.54)
Shareholder CSR 0.0559 ***
(6.10)		 0.0272 ***
(5.34)		0.0414 ***
(5.00)
Employee CSR 0.0461 ***
(4.12)		0.0345 ***
(2.69)		0.0208 *
(1.81)
Age−0.0611 ***
(−7.61)		−0.0647 ***
(−7.80)		−0.0539 ***
(−6.72)		−0.0596 ***
(−7.52)		 −0.0545 ***
(−7.28)
Slack−0.1710
(−0.90)		−0.3675 ***
(−2.01)		−0.0052
(−0.03)		−0.083
(−0.45)		 −0.1243
(−0.68)
ROA−0.0967 ***
(−0.29)		−0.9307 **
(−2.36)		−5.0317 ***
(−5.31)		−0.2208
(−0.63)		 −4.4141 ***
(−4.95)
Network Size0.0074 ***
(2.85)		0.0076 ***
(2.95)		0.0059 *
(2.37)		0.0075 ***
(2.92)		 0.0066 ***
(2.64)
GDP Growth0.5174
(0.71)		0.4122
(0.56)		0.6387
(0.86)		0.7121
(0.337)		 0.5758
(0.80)
△R20.18740.20540.22040.20170.10060.2518
F4.855.695.695.144.155.02
FEYesYesYesYesYesYes
*, ** and *** denote significance levels of 10%, 5% and 1%, respectively, which is the same as in the following tables.
Table 5. Lagged One-Period Regression Results.
Table 5. Lagged One-Period Regression Results.
Model 1Model 2
Treat0.189 **
(2.29)		0.213 ***
(2.63)
Social CSR0.020 **
(2.08)		0.028 ***
(3.06)
Shareholder CSR0.021 ***
(3.16)		0.038 ***
(3.98)
Employee CSR0.026 ***
(2.64)		0.009
(0.87)
Control VariableNoYes
△R20.0540.190
F10.6418.47
** and *** denote significance levels of 5% and 1%, respectively, which is the same as in the following tables.
Table 6. Regression Results with the Replacement of Explanatory Variables.
Table 6. Regression Results with the Replacement of Explanatory Variables.
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
Treat 0.4958 ***
(5.29)		 0.3771 ***
(4.27)
Tax/Revenue0.2971 ***
(3.54)		0.3208 ***
(8.05)		0.2900 ***
(3.99)		0.3084 ***
(4.24)
Control VariableNoNoYesYes
△R20.07390.09290.23670.2563
F2.207.044.754.75
FEYesYesYesYes
*** denote significance levels of 1%, respectively, which is the same as in the following tables.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ma, T.; Wang, H.; Qu, Y. Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Resilience in Construction Firms—A Study from China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8366. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198366

AMA Style

Ma T, Wang H, Qu Y. Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Resilience in Construction Firms—A Study from China. Sustainability. 2024; 16(19):8366. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198366

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ma, Teng, Huiling Wang, and Ying Qu. 2024. "Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Resilience in Construction Firms—A Study from China" Sustainability 16, no. 19: 8366. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198366

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop