Does financial distress suppress CSR gap? The moderating effect of state ownership and market competition

Abstract

AbstractCompanies will prioritize external corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices over internal ones, a phenomenon known as the corporate social responsibility gap (CSR gap). Previous studies have mostly focused on its consequences, little is known about its antecedents. We argue that such practice is illegitimate because it goes against stakeholder expectation that primary stakeholders' interests should be prioritized, but it also has potential to gain differentiation benefit for intense investment on external CSR. Drawing on compensatory orchestration logic and the three types of firm legitimacy, we argue that firms that have gained high pragmatic legitimacy are more likely to engage in morally illegitimate but differentiation gaining activities such as CSR gap. Using financial distress to indicate low pragmatic legitimacy, we predict that distressed firms are inclined to practice low CSR gap. Considering the competing logics in China, we further argue that this negative relationship will be less pronounced if firms are state‐owned or operating in a competitive industry. Using Chinese listed firms from 2010 to 2019 as an empirical sample, the results provide support for our arguments.