Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate Philanthropy and Tunneling: Evidence from China

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the association between corporate philanthropy and tunneling by controlling shareholders. Using a unique dataset from China, the paper finds evidence that firms donating more are less likely to tunnel. The negative association between philanthropy and tunneling is stronger when firms are faced with more severe agency conflicts, as indicated by lower largest shareholding, fewer growth opportunities, lower state ownership, and weaker product market competition. The results suggest that companies engaging in philanthropy have incentives to enhance their reputations and improve their relationships with stakeholders.

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

Notes

  1. It is also known as type II agency problem.

  2. Our study shows that philanthropy is negatively associated with tunneling. However, we are not suggesting that the cost of donation is lower than the benefits. Firms always need to make a trade-off when deciding whether to invest in philanthropic activities (McWilliams and Siegel 2001).

  3. We thank the reviewer for suggesting RELIGION as the instrument variable. Apart from 2SLS, we perform lead-lag change analysis and change model to assuage the endogeneity concerns. The results are unchanged.

  4. We find similar results when we measure RELIGION as the number of nation-widely famous Buddhist monasteries and Taoist temples within a 200 km radius around the firm’s registered addresses.

  5. Our sample starts in 2003, when firms began to disclose donation information in annual reports. Following Tu and Yu (2014) and Jiang et al. (2010), our sample ends in 2006, before which year other receivables were used extensively by controlling shareholders to transfer assets and profits out of listed companies.

  6. Our results are complementary to the findings of previous literature (e.g., Li and Zhang 2010). What we find in our paper is that the negative association between philanthropy and tunneling is stronger in non-SOEs, suggesting that philanthropic donations by non-SOEs are more strategic because these firms have more incentives to enhance public image. Our findings suggest that investors should take ownership type into consideration when they assess the consequence of corporate philanthropy. In the same vein, Li and Zhang (2010) find that corporate ownership dispersion is positively associated with corporate social responsibility (CSR) for non-SOEs while negatively associated with CSR for SOEs. Their study alerts investors to distinguish SOEs from non-SOEs when evaluating firms’ CSR behavior.

  7. We thank the reviewer for the suggestion of conducting lead-lag change analysis.

  8. We thank the reviewer for pointing this out.

  9. Asset acquisitions are transactions that involve the acquisition of tangible or intangible assets by the listed company from a connected person or from a private company majority-controlled by this person and calculated as the total acquisition amount divided by the total assets. Asset sales are transactions that involve the sale of tangible or intangible assets by the listed company to a connected person or to a private company majority-controlled by this person and calculated as the total sales amount divided by the total assets. Equity sales are transactions that involve the sale of an equity stake in the listed company to a connected person or a private company majority-controlled by this person and calculated as the total sales of equity stakes divided by the total assets. Trading relationships are transactions that involve the trade of goods and services between the listed company and a private company majority-controlled by a connected person and calculated as the total trading amount divided by the total assets. They can be purchases by the listed company or sales or both. (Cheung et al. 2006).

  10. To mitigate the concern that the four ratios have different ranges and variations and are not appropriate to aggregate them directly, we further used the following methods to improve the robustness: (1) regress on the four ratios separately; (2) calculate the fractional rank for the four ratios first and then sum up. When we regress on the four ratios separately, we found that corporate philanthropy is only significantly negative when related party transaction is trading relationships. This alleviates the aforementioned concern that firms doing corporate philanthropy turn to more implicit type of tunneling. When we use the sum of fractional rank of the four ratios, we get qualitatively same results. To keep brevity, these results are untabulated.

  11. We also use CP_SUM3 (calculated as the number of times a firm makes donations in year t − 2, t − 1, and t) to measure SUS, and our main results still hold.

  12. We use the period of [−2, +2] because the China Securities Regulatory Commission requires listed companies to disclose information in no more than two trading days from the transaction day. To increase robustness, we also use the period of [−1, +1] and [−3, +3]. The empirical results remain similar.

References

  • Abzug, R., & Webb, N. J. (1996). Rational and extra-rational motivations for corporate giving: Complementing economic theory with organization science. The New York Law School Law Review, 41, 1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aharony, J., Wang, J., & Yuan, H. (2010). Tunneling as an incentive for earnings management during the IPO process in China. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 29(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amato, L. H., & Amato, C. H. (2007). The effects of firm size and industry on corporate giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(3), 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (1988). Stock ownership and company contributions to charity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 82–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backhaus, K. B., Stone, B. A., & Heiner, K. (2002). Exploringthe relationship between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness. Business and Society, 41(3), 292–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkman, H., Cole, R. A., & Fu, L. J. (2009). Expropriation through loan guarantees to related parties: Evidence from China. Journal of Banking & Finance, 33(1), 141–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: a framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1325–1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. O., Helland, E., & Smith, J. K. (2006). Corporate philanthropic practices. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(5), 855–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. (1999). Beyond resources the mediating effect of top management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy. Business and Society, 38(2), 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, L., Gulas, C. S., & Gruca, T. S. (1999). Corporate giving behavior and decision-maker social consciousness. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(4), 375–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1991). Corporate social performance measurement: A commentary on methods for evaluating an elusive construct. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 12(42), 385–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D., Jian, M., & Xu, M. (2009). Dividends for tunneling in a regulated economy: The case of China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 17(2), 209–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. C., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. (2008). Corporate charitable contributions: a corporate social performance or legitimacy strategy? Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 131–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, Y.-L., Rau, P. R., & Stouraitis, A. (2006). Tunneling, propping, and expropriation: evidence from connected party transactions in Hong Kong. Journal of Financial Economics, 82(2), 343–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2008). The law and economics of self-dealing. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(3), 430–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, X. (2015). Is corporate philanthropy used as environmental misconduct dressing? Evidence from Chinese family-owned firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2), 341–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, X., Jian, W., Du, Y., Feng, W., & Zeng, Q. (2014). Religion, the nature of ultimate owner, and corporate philanthropic giving: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(2), 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, G., Wang, X., & Zhu, H. (2011). The report on the relative process of marketization of regions in China. Beijing: The Economic Science Press. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, R., & Li, X. (2004). Characteristics of a firm’s information environment and the information asymmetry between insiders and outsiders. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37(2), 229–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 173–178.

  • Galaskiewicz, J. (1991). Making corporate actors accountable: Institution-building in Minneapolis-St. Paul. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 293, 310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, F., Faff, R., & Navissi, F. (2012). Corporate philanthropy: Insights from the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 20(3), 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gautier, A., & Pache, A. C. (2015). Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 343–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giroud, X., & Mueller, H. M. (2011). Corporate governance, product market competition, and equity prices. The Journal of Finance, 66(2), 563–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 1034–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jian, M., & Wong, T. J. (2010). Propping through related party transactions. Review of Accounting Studies, 15(1), 70–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, G., Lee, C., & Yue, H. (2010). Tunneling through intercorporate loans: The China experience. Journal of Financial Economics, 98(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2011). Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(3), 351–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S., Boone, P., Breach, A., & Friedman, E. (2000a). Corporate governance in the Asian financial crisis. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1), 141–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2000b). Tunneling. American Economic Review, 90(2), 22–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: a synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. The Journal of Finance, 54(2), 471–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). Legal determinants of external finance. Journal of Finance, 52, 1131–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106, 1113–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lev, B., Petrovits, C., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2010). Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 182–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, W., & Zhang, R. (2010). Corporate social responsibility, ownership structure, and political interference: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(4), 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Q., & Lu, Z. J. (2007). Corporate governance and earnings management in the Chinese listed companies: A tunneling perspective. Journal of Corporate Finance, 13(5), 881–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, T., & Vijh, A. M. (1997). Do long-term shareholders benefit from corporate acquisitions? Journal of Finance, 52(5), 1765–1790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, R. C., & Galan, J. I. (2010). The effect of R&D intensity on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(3), 407–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D. M. (2008). Does the market value corporate philanthropy? Evidence from the response to the 2004 tsunami relief effort. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(3), 599–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrovits, C. M. (2006). Corporate-sponsored foundations and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 41(3), 335–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qian, C., Gao, X., & Tsang, A. (2015). Corporate philanthropy, ownership type, and financial transparency. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4), 851–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rising, B. (2000). SPHDIST: Stata module to compute spherical distances. In Statistical software components S372502. Boston College Department of Economics.

  • Saiia, D. H., Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Philanthropy as strategy when corporate charity “begins at home”. Business and Society, 42(2), 169–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, B., Morris, S. A., & Bartkus, B. R. (2004). Having, giving, and getting: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial performance. Business and Society, 43(2), 135–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, J., & He, J. (2010). Does giving lead to getting? Evidence from Chinese private enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J., & Tang, Y. (2014). Donate money, but whose? An empirical study of ultimate control rights, agency problems, and corporate philanthropy in China. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2386-2.

  • Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., Choi, J., & Li, J. (2008). Too little or too much? Untangling the relationship between corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance. Organization Science, 19(1), 143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., & Qian, C. (2011). Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1159–1181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, K., & Xiao, X. (2011). Controlling shareholders’ tunneling and executive compensation: Evidence from China. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 30(1), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werbel, J. D., & Carter, S. M. (2002). The CEO’s influence on corporate foundation giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 40(1), 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. J., & Barrett, J. D. (2000). Corporate philanthropy, criminal activity, and firm reputation: Is there a link? Journal of Business Ethics, 26(4), 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wokutch, R. E., & Spencer, B. A. (1987). Corporate saints and sinners—The effects of philanthropic and illegal activity on organizational performance. California Management Review, 29(2), 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, N., Yuan, Q., Jiang, X., & Chan, K. C. (2015). Founder’s political connections, second generation involvement, and family firm performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 33, 243–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, M., Ma, L., Su, J., & Zhang, W. (2014). Do suppliers applaud corporate social performance? Journal of Business Ethics, 121(4), 543–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, R., Rezaee, Z., & Zhu, J. (2010a). Corporate philanthropic disaster response and ownership type: Evidence from Chinese firms’ response to the Sichuan earthquake. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, R., Zhu, J., Yue, H., & Zhu, C. (2010b). Corporate philanthropic giving, advertising intensity, and industry competition level. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewer for the constructive suggestions. Jun Chen acknowledges financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Numbers NSFC-71102085 and NSFC-71572181) and the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (Grant Number Y7100206). Wang Dong (Corresponding Author) acknowledges financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Numbers NSFC-71302060 and NSFC-71332008). Jamie Y. Tong acknowledges the financial support of an AFAANZ research grant 2015/2016.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting and Finance, School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China

    Jun Chen & Wang Dong

  2. Accounting and Finance Discipline, UWA Business School, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

    Jamie Tong

  3. School of Management and Governance, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia

    Feida Zhang

Authors
  1. Jun Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wang Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jamie Tong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Feida Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wang Dong.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, J., Dong, W., Tong, J. et al. Corporate Philanthropy and Tunneling: Evidence from China. J Bus Ethics 150, 135–157 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3166-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3166-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation