This study examines how board interlocks influence firms’ CSR performance in China through a legitimacy-nonconformity cost framework. It aims to explain CSR heterogeneity by analyzing network positions (centrality/structural holes) and network pluralism (central/local government connections) as contingencies. Results indicate that board interlocks enhance CSR performance, with central network positions or central connections strengthening firm responses due to higher nonconformity costs, while local connections weaken this effect. By integrating social cost mechanisms with legitimacy perspectives, this study advances institutional theory in explaining CSR performance heterogeneity and offers novel insights into how board interlocks shape non-market strategies in emerging markets.
AguinisHGlavasA (2012) What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: a review and research agenda. Journal of Management38(4): 932–968.
2.
AhsanFMGubbiSRPopliM (2023) Do board interlocks affect the frequency and pace of cross-border acquisitions by emerging market firms?Long Range Planning56(6): 102346.
3.
AminAChourouLKamalS, et al. (2020) It’s who you know that counts: board connectedness and CSR performance. Journal of Corporate Finance64: 101662.
4.
BeckmanCMHaunschildPR (2002) Network learning: the effects of partners' heterogeneity of experience on corporate acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly47(1): 92–124.
5.
BitektineA (2011) Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: the case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review36(1): 151–179.
6.
BonacichP (2007) Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Social Networks29(4): 555–564.
7.
BorgattiSPFosterPC (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology. Journal of Management29(6): 991–1013.
8.
BorgattiSPEverettMGFreemanLC (2002) Ucinet for Windows: software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies6: 12–15.
9.
BoseSAliMJHossainS, et al. (2022) Does CEO–audit committee/board interlocking matter for corporate social responsibility?Journal of Business Ethics179(3): 819–847.
10.
Briseño-GarcíaAHustedBWArango-HereraE (2022) Do birds of a feather certify together? The impact of board interlocks on CSR certification homophily. Journal of Business Research144: 336–344.
11.
BundersonJS (2003) Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: a status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly48: 557–591.
12.
BurtRS (1976) Positions in networks. Social Forces55(1): 93–122.
13.
BurtRS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
BurtRS (1997) The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly42: 339–365.
15.
CampbellJL (2007) Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review32(3): 946–967.
16.
CasanuevaCCastroIGalánJL (2013) Informational networks and innovation in mature industrial clusters. Journal of Business Research66(5): 603–613.
17.
CertoST (2003) Influencing initial public offering investors with prestige: signaling with board structures. Academy of Management Review28(3): 432–446.
18.
ChenLLiYFanD (2018) How do emerging multinationals configure political connections across institutional contexts?Global Strategy Journal8(3): 447–470.
19.
ChengZRaiATianF, et al. (2021) Social learning in information technology investment: the role of board interlocks. Management Science67(1): 547–576.
20.
ChiuPCTeohSHTianF (2013) Board interlocks and earnings management contagion. The Accounting Review88(3): 915–944.
21.
ChizemaALiuXLuJ, et al. (2015) Politically connected boards and top executive pay in Chinese listed firms. Strategic Management Journal36(6): 890–906.
22.
ColemanJS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology94: S95–S120.
23.
DavisGF (1991) Agents without principles? The spread. Administrative Science Quarterly36(4): 583–613.
24.
DavisGFGreveHR (1997) Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s. American Journal of Sociology103(1): 1–37.
25.
DavisGRobbinsG (2005) Nothing but net: network and status in corporate governance. In: CetinaKKPredaA (eds) The Society of Financial Markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 290–312.
26.
DeephouseDLSuchmanMC (2008) Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In: GreenwoodR (ed) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London, UK: Sage, 49–77.
27.
DelmasMAToffelMW (2008) Organizational responses to environmental demands: opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal29(10): 1027–1055.
28.
DiMaggioPJPowellWW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48(2): 147–160.
29.
DingHHuYYangX, et al. (2022) Board interlock and the diffusion of corporate social responsibility among Chinese listed firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management39: 1287–1320.
30.
FaccioMMasulisRWMcConnellJJ (2006) Political connections and corporate bailouts. The Journal of Finance61(6): 2597–2635.
31.
FanGWangXLZhuHP (2011) NERI index of marketization of China’s provinces, 2011 Report. Beijing: Economic Science Press.
32.
FilatotchevIBishopK (2002) Board composition, share ownership, and ‘underpricing’of UK IPO firms. Strategic Management Journal23(10): 941–955.
33.
FilatotchevIChahineSBrutonGD (2018) Board interlocks and initial public offering performance in the United States and the United Kingdom: an institutional perspective. Journal of Management44(4): 1620–1650.
34.
FreemanLC (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks1(3): 215–239.
35.
Garcia‐CastroRFrancoeurC (2016) When more is not better: complementarities, costs and contingencies in stakeholder management. Strategic Management Journal37(2): 406–424.
36.
GnyawaliDRMadhavanR (2001) Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: a structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review26(3): 431–445.
37.
GreenwoodRSuddabyR (2006) Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: the big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal49(1): 27–48.
38.
GulatiR (1998) Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal19(4): 293–317.
39.
GulatiRGargiuloM (1999) Where do interorganizational networks come from?American Journal of Sociology104(5): 1439–1493.
40.
GulatiRWestphalJD (1999) Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly44(3): 473–506.
41.
HallenBL (2008) The causes and consequences of the initial network positions of new organizations: from whom do entrepreneurs receive investments?Administrative Science Quarterly53(4): 685–718.
42.
HannanMT (2010) Partiality of memberships in categories and audiences. Annual Review of Sociology36(1): 159–181.
43.
HaunschildPR (1993) Interorganizational imitation: the impact of interlocks on corporate acquisition activity. Administrative Science Quarterly38: 564–592.
44.
HaunschildPR (1994) How much is that company worth? Interorganizational relationships, uncertainty, and acquisition premiums. Administrative Science Quarterly39(3): 391–411.
45.
HaunschildRRBeckmanCM (1998) When do interlocks matter? Alternate sources of information and interlock influence. Administrative Science Quarterly43: 815–845.
46.
HeckmanJJ (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica47: 153–161.
47.
HillmanAJ (2005) Politicians on the board of directors: do connections affect the bottom line?Journal of Management31(3): 464–481.
48.
HoskissonREEdenLLauCM, et al. (2000) Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal43(3): 249–267.
49.
HowardMDWithersMCTihanyiL (2017) Knowledge dependence and the formation of director interlocks. Academy of Management Journal60(5): 1986–2013.
50.
IbarraH (1993) Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal36: 471–501.
51.
IurkovVBenitoGR (2020) Change in domestic network centrality, uncertainty, and the foreign divestment decisions of firms. Journal of International Business Studies51(5): 788–812.
52.
JacksonGBartoschJAvetisyanE, et al. (2020) Mandatory non-financial disclosure and its influence on CSR: an international comparison. Journal of Business Ethics162: 323–342.
53.
JensenM (2008) The use of relational discrimination to manage market entry: when do social status and structural holes work against you?Academy of Management Journal51(4): 723–743.
54.
JeongYCKimTY (2019) Between legitimacy and efficiency: an institutional theory of corporate giving. Academy of Management Journal62(5): 1583–1608.
55.
JiaN (2014) Are collective political actions and private political actions substitutes or complements? Empirical evidence from China’s private sector: collective & private political actions: substitutes or complements?Strategic Management Journal35(2): 292–315.
56.
JiaX (2020) Corporate social responsibility activities and firm performance: the moderating role of strategic emphasis and industry competition. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management27(1): 65–73.
57.
JiangHXiaJCannellaAA, et al. (2018) Do ongoing networks block out new friends? Reconciling the embeddedness constraint dilemma on new alliance partner addition. Strategic Management Journal39(1): 217–241.
58.
JonesTMHarrisonJSFelpsW (2018) How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review43(3): 371–391.
59.
KaticIVHillmanA (2023) Corporate political activity, reimagined: revisiting the political marketplace. Journal of Management49(6): 1911–1938.
60.
KaulALuoJ (2018) An economic case for CSR: the comparative efficiency of for‐profit firms in meeting consumer demand for social goods. Strategic Management Journal39(6): 1650–1677.
61.
LambNHRoundyP (2016) The “ties that bind” board interlocks research: a systematic review. Management Research Review39(11): 1516–1542.
62.
LiHZhouLA (2005) Political turnover and economic performance: the incentive role of personnel control in China. Journal of Public Economics89(9-10): 1743–1762.
63.
LiSSongXWuH (2015) Political connection, ownership structure, and corporate philanthropy in China: a strategic-political perspective. Journal of Business Ethics129: 399–411.
64.
LinZYangHDemirkanI (2007) The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science53(10): 1645–1658.
65.
LuJMahmoudianFYuD, et al. (2021a) Board interlocks, absorptive capacity, and environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment30(8): 3425–3443.
66.
LuJYuDMahmoudianF, et al. (2021b) Board interlocks and greenhouse gas emissions. Business Strategy and the Environment30(1): 92–108.
67.
LuJYuDMahmoudianF, et al. (2024) The influence of board interlocks and sustainability experience on transparent sustainability disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment33: 3769–3793.
68.
LuoXRWangDZhangJ (2017) Whose call to answer: institutional complexity and firms’ CSR reporting. Academy of Management Journal60(1): 321–344.
69.
MacaulayCDRichardOCPengMW, et al. (2018) Alliance network centrality, board composition, and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics151: 997–1008.
70.
MarquisCQianC (2014) Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: symbol or substance?Organization Science25(1): 127–148.
71.
MarquisCRaynardM (2015) Institutional strategies in emerging markets. The Academy of Management Annals9(1): 291–335.
72.
McWilliamsASiegelD (2000) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification?Strategic Management Journal21(5): 603–609.
73.
MeyerJWRowanB (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology83(2): 340–363.
74.
MitchellRKAgleBRWoodDJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review22: 853–886.
75.
MizruchiMS (1996) What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology22(1): 271–298.
76.
MizruchiMSFeinLC (1999) The social construction of organizational knowledge: a study of the uses of coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly44: 653–683.
77.
MuttakinMBKhanAMihretDG (2018) The effect of board capital and CEO power on corporate social responsibility disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics150: 41–56.
78.
NasonRSBacqSGrasD (2018) A behavioral theory of social performance: social identity and stakeholder expectations. Academy of Management Review43(2): 259–283.
79.
OkhmatovskiyI (2010) Performance implications of ties to the government and SOEs: a political embeddedness perspective. Journal of Management Studies47(6): 1020–1047.
80.
OliverC (1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review16(1): 145–179.
81.
OrlitzkyMSchmidtFLRynesSL (2003) Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organization Studies24(3): 403–441.
82.
Ortiz‐de‐MandojanaNAragon‐CorreaJA (2015) Boards and sustainability: the contingent influence of director interlocks on corporate environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment24(6): 499–517.
83.
PangXEgriCLoCWH, et al. (2024) Why do CSR ratings of firms diverge in China? The role of CSR information cues and non-CSR information. Asia Pacific Journal of ManagementApril: 1–39.
84.
PengMW (2000) Business Strategies in Transition Economies. Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage.
85.
PengMW (2003) Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review28: 275–96.
86.
PhillipsNLawrenceTBHardyC (2000) Inter‐organizational collaboration and the dynamics of institutional fields. Journal of Management Studies37(1): 23–43.
87.
PhillipsNLawrenceTBHardyC (2004) Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review29(4): 635–652.
88.
PodolnyJM (1993) A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology98(4): 829–872.
89.
PodolnyJM (1994) Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly39: 458–483.
90.
PodolnyJ (2001) Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology107: 33–60.
91.
PodolnyJMBaronJN (1997) Resources and relationships: social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review62: 673–693.
92.
PurdyJMGrayB (2009) Conflicting logics, mechanisms of diffusion, and multilevel dynamics in emerging institutional fields. Academy of Management Journal52(2): 355–380.
93.
RiccaboniMWangXZhuZ (2021) Firm performance in networks: the interplay between firm centrality and corporate group size. Journal of Business Research129: 641–653.
94.
RowleyTJ (1997) Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influence. Academy of Management Review22(4): 887–910.
95.
SeeG (2009) Harmonious society and Chinese CSR: is there really a link?Journal of Business Ethics89: 1–22.
96.
SharmaSHenriquesI (2005) Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal26(2): 159–180.
97.
SharmaPChengLTLeungTY (2020) Impact of political connections on Chinese export firms' performance–Lessons for other emerging markets. Journal of Business Research106: 24–34.
98.
ShiWMarkóczyLStanCV (2014) The continuing importance of political ties in China. Academy of Management Perspectives28(1): 57–75.
99.
ShinkleGA (2012) Organizational aspirations, reference points, and goals: building on the past and aiming for the future. Journal of Management38(1): 415–455.
100.
ShipilovAVGreveHRRowleyTJ (2010) When do interlocks matter? Institutional logics and the diffusion of multiple corporate governance practices. Academy of Management Journal53: 846–864.
101.
ShipilovAGulatiRKilduffM, et al. (2014) Relational pluralism within and between organizations. Academy of Management Journal57(2): 449–459.
102.
SodaGUsaiAZaheerA (2004) Network memory: the influence of past and current networks on performance. Academy of Management Journal47(6): 893–906.
103.
SuchmanMC (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review20(3): 571–610.
104.
SunWZhaoCChoCH (2019) Institutional transitions and the role of financial performance in CSR reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management26(2): 367–376.
105.
SunWLiXGengY, et al. (2020) Board interlocks and the diffusion of CSR reporting practices: the role of market development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management27(3): 1333–1343.
106.
SurrocaJTribóJAZahraSA (2013) Stakeholder pressure on MNEs and the transfer of socially irresponsible practices to subsidiaries. Academy of Management Journal56(2): 549–572.
107.
TihanyiLAguileraRVHeugensP, et al. (2019) State ownership and political connections. Journal of Management45(6): 2293–2321.
108.
TilcsikA (2010) From ritual to reality: demography, ideology, and decoupling in a post-communist government agency. Academy of Management Journal53(6): 1474–1498.
109.
TrounstineJ (2009) All politics is local: the reemergence of the study of city politics. Perspectives on Politics7(3): 611–618.
110.
TuschkeASandersWGHernandezE (2014) Whose experience matters in the boardroom? The effects of experiential and vicarious learning on emerging market entry. Strategic Management Journal35(3): 398–418.
111.
UseemM (1979) The social organization of the American business elite and participation of corporation directors in the governance of American institutions. American Sociological Review44(4): 553–572.
112.
Van de VenWPVan PraagBM (1981) The demand for deductibles in private health insurance: a probit model with sample selection. Journal of Econometrics17(2): 229–252.
113.
WangHQianC (2011) Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: the roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management Journal54(6): 1159–1181.
114.
WangRWijenFHeugensPP (2018) Government's green grip: multifaceted state influence on corporate environmental actions in China. Strategic Management Journal39(2): 403–428.
115.
WeiYJiaNBonardiJP (2023) Corporate political connections: a multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management49(6): 1870–1910.
116.
WestphalJDZajacEJ (1997) Defections from the inner circle: social exchange, reciprocity, and the diffusion of board independence in U.S. corporations. Administrative Science Quarterly42: 161–183.
117.
WestphalJDZajacEJ (2001) Decoupling policy from practice: the case of stock repurchase programs. Administrative Science Quarterly46(2): 202–228.
118.
WestphalJDGulatiRShortellSM (1997) Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly42(2): 366–394.
119.
WestphalJDBoivieSMing ChngDH (2006) The strategic impetus for social network ties: reconstituting broken CEO friendship ties. Strategic Management Journal27(5): 425–445.
120.
WongWYHooyCW (2018) Do types of political connection affect firm performance differently?Pacific-Basin Finance Journal51: 297–317.
121.
XuJ (2020) The role of corporate political connections in commercial lawsuits: evidence from Chinese courts. Comparative Political Studies53(14): 2321–2358.
122.
YildizHEMorgulis‐YakushevSHolmU, et al. (2023) Directionality matters: board interlocks and firm internationalization. Global Strategy Journal13(1): 90–110.
123.
ZaheerABellGG (2005) Benefiting from network position: firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal26(9): 809–825.
124.
ZaheerAGözübüyükRMilanovH (2010) It's the connections: the network perspective in interorganizational research. Academy of Management Perspectives24(1): 62–77.
125.
ZajacEJWestphalJD (2004) The social construction of market value: institutionalization and learning perspectives on stock market reactions. American Sociological Review69(3): 433–457.
126.
ZhaoYLeeJ (2023) How does board interlock network matter for sustainability? A social learning approach to corporate environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment32(8): 5889–5908.
127.
ZhengWSinghKMitchellW (2015) Buffering and enabling: the impact of interlocking political ties on firm survival and sales growth. Strategic Management Journal36(11): 1615–1636.
128.
ZhouKZGaoGYZhaoH (2017) State ownership and firm innovation in China: an integrated view of institutional and efficiency logics. Administrative Science Quarterly62(2): 375–404.
129.
ZouHXieXMengX, et al. (2019) The diffusion of corporate social responsibility through social network ties: from the perspective of strategic imitation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management26(1): 186–198.
130.
ZuckermanEW (1999) The categorical imperative: securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology104(5): 1398–1438.
