Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sustainable Development and Corporate Environmental Responsibility: Evidence from Chinese Corporations

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

China is currently experiencing rapid economic growth. The price of this, however, is environment pollution. Many Chinese corporations are lacking in corporate environmental responsibility (CER). Therefore, this study employs data from Chinese and multinational corporations to identify why Chinese corporations seldom engage in CER by investigating their motivations and stakeholders. The results show that the most important reason why Chinese corporations do not engage in CER is the fact that their competitive strategy of cost cutting makes them limited in resources, such as money, employees, information, or added value. Further study implies that Chinese corporations face more survival pressure, though they are willing to take environmental responsibilities as multinational corporations do. The results also imply that government and social surroundings can play an important role to arouse CER consciousness of Chinese corporations in all stakeholders. Consequently, Chinese government has a heavy duty to promote corporations to respond to their CER in the long run.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • World Bank. (2005). China Quick Facts, (updated 2005; accessed 16 Dec. 2005) Available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/CHINAEXTN/,contentMDK:20680895~pagePK:1497618~piPK:217854~theSitePK:318950,00.html.

  • World Bank. (2007). Cost of pollution in China: Economic estimates of physical damages. Available online at www.worldbank.org/eapenvironment.

  • Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In Leonard Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 20 (pp. 65–122). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Towards the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (2004). Managing ethically with global stakeholders: A present and future challenge. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 114–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochius, T. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility in Dutch SMEs. Thesis, May 17, 2006.

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics: A European perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), 312–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enderle, G. (2004). Global competition and corporate responsibilities of small and medium sized enterprises. Business Ethics: A European View, 13(1), 51–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refinded. The Journal of Business Ethics. 84, 113–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 233–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. (2003). Lecture–stakeholder management revisited: What’s the state of the art? Leuven, 20 November.

  • Friedman, M. (1970, September). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13, 122–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(102), 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., & Fehr, E. (2003). Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K. E. (1996). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. In S. B. Rae & K. L. Wong (Eds.), Beyond integrity: A Judeo-Christian approach (pp. 246–254). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, S. P., Waddock, S., & Kelly, M. (2001). How do you measure corporate citizenship? Business Ethics 15(2), 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L. (2000). Beyond greening in Harvard business review on business and the environment. Boston: HBD Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamison, A., et al. (2005). Defining corporate environmental responsibility: Canadian ENGO perspectives. Working paper, October 2005.

  • Jensen, M. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klonoski, R. J. (1991). Foundational considerations in the corporate social responsibility debate. Business Horizons, 34(4), 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lantos, G. P. (2001). The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. Working paper, June 2001.

  • Longo, M., Mura, M., & Bonoli, A. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and corporate performance: The case of Italian SMEs. Corporate Governance, 5(4), 28–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from business’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazurkiewicz, P. (2008). Corporate environmental responsibility: Is a common CSR framework possible? Working paper of World Bank, 2008.1.

  • Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morimoto, R., Ash, J., & Hope, C. (2005). Corporate social responsibility audit: From theory to practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 315–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesqueux, Y., & Damak-Ayadi, S. (2005). Stakeholder theory in perspective. Corporate Governance, 5(2), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M., & van der Linde, C. (2000). Green and competitive, Harvard business review on business and the environment. Boston: HBD Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J., Preston, L., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), 6–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, L. E., & Post, J. E. (1981). Private management and public policy. California Management Review, 23(3), 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rae, S. B., & Wong, K. L. (Eds.). (1996). Beyond integrity: A Judeo-Christian approach. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyes, J., & Twose, N. (2002). Education-focused corporate social responsibility in El Salvador. Washington, DC: World Bank Technical Assistance Study.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprungli, D. C. (2005). Making the link between Sustainable Development and Corporate Social Responsibility. Sinomonitor International (updated Oct. 2005; cited 16 Dec. 2005). Available at: http://www.eldis.org/cf/search/disp/DocDisplay.cfm?Doc=DOC20158&Resource=f1csr.

  • van Marrewijk, M., & Werre, M. (2003). Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P. H., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Business ethics: The state of the art. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, M. (2001). Building stakeholder theory with a decision modelling methodology. Business & Society, 40(2), 133–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management & Economics, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, 650093, People’s Republic of China

    Mao He

  2. Ecotourism Faculty, Southwest Forestry University, Kunming, 650224, People’s Republic of China

    Juan Chen

Authors
  1. Mao He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mao He.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

He, M., Chen, J. Sustainable Development and Corporate Environmental Responsibility: Evidence from Chinese Corporations. J Agric Environ Ethics 22, 323–339 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-009-9147-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-009-9147-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation