Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35465450›Full record

ArticleCorporate social responsibility and environmental management2022

The philanthropic response of substantive and symbolic corporate social responsibility strategies to COVID-19 crisis: Evidence from China.

Ma Zhong, Weiqi Zhao, Yasir Shahab

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Air Pollution and Corporate Green Financial Constraints: Evidence from China's Listed Companies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ma ZhongSchool of Economics and Management Nanjing Forestry University Nanjing China.
Weiqi ZhaoSchool of Economics and Management Nanjing Forestry University Nanjing China.
Yasir ShahabSchool of Accounting Xijing University Xi'an Shaanxi China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5140-9453

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 epidemic broke out in China in January 2020, which triggered the largest wave of corporate philanthropic donations since the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Based on A-share listed firms in the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges in 2020, we study whether substantive and symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies affect corporate philanthropic responses during the COVID-19 crisis. We use the lagged annual donation and technical dimension scores (T scores) of rankins ratings (RKS) as proxies of CSR performance and CSR disclosure and then define the CSR gap as the gap between the two. The results show that substantive and symbolic strategies cause firms to have material differential responses in the COVID-19 crisis. Specifically, the CSR gap is negatively related to the possibility and the level of crisis donation. In addition, (1) this difference is more pronounced in the earlier period of the COVID-19 crisis; (2) the negative correlation is more pronounced in private firms; and (3) the crisis donation of firms with either strategy obtains no different response from the capital market. Our evidence suggests that the established CSR strategy influences the substantive response of Chinese firms to public emergencies, but their substantive response does not result in different reactions in the capital market.

Indexed as

corporate philanthropyCOVID‐19 crisisCSR decouplingESGsustainability management

Identifiers

PMID35465450
PMCPMC9015402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.