Drawing on institutional theory and property rights literature, this paper examines how different types of ownership adopt norm-conforming environmental practices in China. We propose that compared to governmental owners and institutional investors, which align themselves with the state and financial logics, respectively, family owners will adhere to a community logic, given their emphasis on socioemotional elements and property expropriation concerns. Thus, they are prone to norm-conforming environmental practices. Using a sample of 622 Chinese firms over six years, we find general support for the notion that ownership types are strongly associated with the adoption of norm-conforming environmental practices.
AguileraR. V.Aragón-CorreaJ. A.MaranoV.TashmanP. A. (2021). The corporate governance of environmental sustainability: A review and proposal for more integrated research. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1468–1497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206321991212
2.
AguinisH.Gomez-MejiaL. R.MartinG. P.JooH. (2018). CEO pay is indeed decoupled from CEO performance: Charting a path for the future. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 16(1), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/mrjiam-12-2017-0793
3.
AlmandozJ. (2012). Arriving at the starting line: The impact of community and financial logics on new banking ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1381–1406. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0361
4.
Aragón-CorreaJ. A.MarcusA. A.VogelD. (2020). The effects of mandatory and voluntary regulatory pressures on firms’ environmental strategies: A review and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 339–365. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0014
5.
AravindD.ChristmannP. (2011). 2011) Decoupling of standard implementation from certification: Does quality of ISO 14001 implementation affect facilities’ environmental performance?Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 73–102. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20112114
6.
AshforthB. E.GibbsB. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.2.177
7.
BansalP.HunterT. (2003). Strategic explanations for the early adoption of ISO 14001. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(3), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025536731830
8.
BarzelY. (1997). Economic analysis of property rights. Cambridge University Press.
9.
BattilanaJ.BesharovM.MitzinneckB. (2017). On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. In GreenwoodROliverCLawrenceTB (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd ed., pp. 133–169). Sage.
10.
BattilanaJ.SengulM.PacheA.-C.ModelJ. (2015). Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1658–1685. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0903
11.
BaùM.ChiricoF.PittinoD.BackmanM.KlaessonJ. (2019). Roots to grow: Family firms and local embeddedness in rural and urban contexts. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(2), 360–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718796089
12.
BerroneP.CruzC.Gomez-MejiaL. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25(3), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486511435355
13.
BerroneP.CruzC.Gomez-MejiaL.Larraza-KintanaM. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less?Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82–113. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.1.82
14.
BerroneP.DuranP.Gómez-MejíaL.HeugensP. P. M. A. R.KostovaT.van EssenM. (2020). Impact of informal institutions on the prevalence, strategy, and performance of family firms: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies. in presshttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00362-6
15.
BerroneP.FosfuriA.GelabertL. (2017). Does greenwashing pay off? Understanding the relationship between environmental actions and environmental legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2816-9
16.
BerroneP.Gomez-MejiaL. (2009). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency–institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.36461950
17.
BrutonG. D.PengM. W.AhlstromD.StanC.XuK. (2015). State-owned enterprises around the world as hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1), 92–114. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0069
CampbellJ. L.LindbergL. N. (1990). Property rights and the organization of economic activity by the state. American Sociological Review, 55(5), 634–647. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095861
20.
CaoX.LemmonM.PanX.QianM.TianG. (2019). Political promotion, CEO incentives, and the relationship between pay and performance. Management Science, 65(7), 2947–2965. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2966
21.
CennamoC.BerroneP.CruzC.Gomez–MejiaL. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth and proactive stakeholder engagement: Why family-controlled firms care more about their stakeholders. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1153–1173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00543.x
22.
CertoS. T.WithersM. C.SemadeniM. (2017). A tale of two effects: Using longitudinal data to compare within-and between-firm effects. Strategic Management Journal, 38(7), 1536–1556. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2586
23.
ChanK. S.DangV. Q.YanI. K. (2012). Chinese firms’ political connection, ownership, and financing constraints. Economics Letters, 115(2), 164–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.12.008
24.
ChenC. H.Al-NajjarB. (2012). The determinants of board size and independence: Evidence from China. International Business Review, 21(5), 831-846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.09.008
25.
ChenM.XiaoJ. Z.ZhaoY. (2021). Confucianism, successor choice, and firm performance in family firms: Evidence from China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 69, 102023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.102023
26.
ChiricoF.Gómez-MejiaL. R.HellerstedtK.WithersM.NordqvistM. (2020). To merge, sell, or liquidate? Socioemotional wealth, family control, and the choice of business exit. Journal of Management, 46(8), 1342–1379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318818723
27.
ChizemaA.LiuX.LuJ.GaoL. (2015). Politically connected boards and top executive pay in Chinese listed firms. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 890–906. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2253
ChoiB. B.LeeD.ParkY. (2013). Corporate social responsibility, corporate governance and earnings quality: Evidence from Korea. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(5), 447–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12033
30.
Christensen-SalemA.MesquitaL. F.HashimotoM. (2021). Family firms are indeed better places to work than non-family firms! Socioemotional wealth and employees’ perceived organizational caring. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1)100412.
31.
ClaessensS.DjankovS.FanJ. P.LangL. H. P. (2002). Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholdings. Journal of Finance, 57(6), 2741–2771. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00511
32.
CoffeyB. S.FryxellG. E. (1991). Institutional ownership of stock and dimensions of corporate social performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(6), 437–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00382826
33.
ConnellyB. L.TihanyiL.CertoS. T.HittM. A. (2010). Marching to the beat of different drummers: The influence of institutional owners on competitive actions. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 723–742. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.52814589
34.
CrillyD.ZolloM.HansenM. (2012). Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1429–1448. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0697
35.
CruzC.JustoR.Larraza-KintanaM.Garces-GaldeanoL. (2019). When do women make a better table? Examining the influence of women directors on family firm’s corporate social performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(2), 282–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718796080
36.
CruzC.Larraza-KintanaM.Garcés-GaldeanoL.BerroneP. (2014). Are family firms really more socially responsible?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(6), 1295–1316. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12125
37.
DeephouseD. L.CarterS. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 329–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00499.x
DelmasM. A.GergaudO. (2014). Sustainable certification for future generations: The case of family business. Family Business Review, 27(3), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486514538651
DiMaggioP. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In ZuckerLG (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations culture and environment (pp. 3–32). Ballinger.
42.
DiMaggioP.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
43.
DouJ.SuE.WangS. (2019). When does family ownership promote proactive environmental strategy? The role of the firm’s long-term orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3642-z
44.
DurandR.JourdanJ. (2012) Jules Or Jim: Alternative conformity to minority logics. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1295–1315. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0345
45.
EdwardsF. R.HubbardR. G. (2000). The growth of institutional stock ownership: A promise unfulfilled. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 13(3), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2000.tb00069.x
46.
ErhemjamtsO.HuangK. (2019). Institutional ownership horizon, corporate social responsibility and shareholder value. Journal of Business Research, 105, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.05.037
47.
FamaE. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288–298. https://doi.org/10.1086/260866
48.
FossK.FossN. J.KleinP. G. (2007). Original and derived judgment: An entrepreneurial theory of economic organization. Organization Studies, 28(12), 1893–1912. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606076179
GarciaP. R. J. M.SharmaP.De MassisA.WrightM.ScholesL. (2019). Perceived parental behaviors and next-generation engagement in family firms: A social cognitive perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(2), 224–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718796087
52.
GeninA. L.TanJ.SongJ. (2021). State governance and technological innovation in emerging economies: State-owned enterprise restructuration and institutional logic dissonance in China’s high-speed train sector. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(4), 621–645. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00342-w
53.
Gomez-MejiaL.BascoR.GonzalezA. C.MullerC. G. (2020). Family business and local development in Iberoamerica. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 27(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/ccsm-02-2020-223
54.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.CampbellJ. T.MartinG.HoskissonR. E.MakriM.SirmonD. G. (2014a). Socioemotional wealth as a mixed gamble: Revisiting family firm R&D investments with the behavioral agency model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(6), 1351–1374. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12083
55.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.ChiricoF.MartinG. (2022a). Best among the worst or worst among the best? Socioemotional wealth and risk–performance returns for family and non-family firms under financial distress. Entrepreneurship Theory and practice. In press.
56.
Gomez-MejiaL.CruzC.ImperatoreC. (2014b). Financial reporting and the protection of socioemotional wealth in family-controlled firms. European Accounting Review, 23(3), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2014.944420
57.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.HaynesK.Nuñez-NickelM.JacobsonK. J. L.Moyano-FuentesJ. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.1.106
58.
Gomez-MejiaL.HerreroI. (2022). Back to square one: The measurement of socioemotional wealth (SEW) in a Spanish context. Journal of Family Business Strategy. in press.
59.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.Larraza-KintanaM.MakriM. (2003). The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled public corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 226–237. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040616
60.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.MakriM.KintanaM. L. (2010). Diversification decisions in family‐controlled firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 223–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00889.x
61.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.MendozaA.CruzC. (2022b). Socioemotional wealth in volatile, uncertain, and ambiguous contexts: The case of family firms in Latin America and the Caribbean. Journal of Family Business Strategy. In press.
62.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.NeacsuI.MartinG. (2019). CEO risk-taking and socioemotional wealth: The behavioral agency model, family control, and CEO option wealth. Journal of Management, 45(4), 1713–1738. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317723711
63.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.PalichL. E. (1997). Cultural diversity and the performance of multinational firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2), 309–335. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490103
64.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.PatelP. C.ZellwegerT. M. (2018). In the horns of the dilemma: Socioemotional wealth, financial wealth, and acquisitions in family firms. Journal of Management, 44(4), 1369–1397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315614375
65.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.TosiH.HinkinT. (1987). Managerial control, performance, and executive compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.5465/255895
66.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.WisemanR. M. (2007). Does agency theory have universal relevance? A reply to Lubatkin, Lane, Collin, and very. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(1), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.407
67.
Gomez-MejiaLRCruzCBerronePDe CastroJ. (2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 653–707. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.593320
68.
GrantD. S.JonesA. W.BergesenA. J. (2002). Organizational size and pollution: The case of the U.S. chemical industry. American Sociological Review, 67(3), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088963
69.
GravesS. B.WaddockS. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 1034–1046. https://doi.org/10.5465/256611
70.
GreeneWH (2010). Econometric analysis. Pearson.
71.
GreenwoodR.DíazA. M.LiS. X.LorenteJ. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521–539. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0453
72.
GreveH. R.ZhangC. M. (2017). Institutional logics and power sources: Merger and acquisition decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 671–694. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0698
73.
GuthrieD. (2001). Dragon in a three-piece suit: The emergence of capitalism in China. Princeton University Press.
74.
HansenG. S.HillC. W. L. (1991). Are institutional investors myopic? A time-series study of four technology-driven industries. Strategic Management Journal, 12(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120102
75.
HansmannH. (2000). The ownership of enterprise. Harvard University Press.
76.
HenriquesI.SadorskyP. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.5465/256876
77.
IngramP.SilvermanB. S. (2002). The new institutionalism in strategic management. In IngramPSilvermanBS (Eds.), Advances in strategic management (pp. 1–32). JAI Press.
78.
JiaN.HuangK. G.Man ZhangC. (2019). Public governance, corporate governance, and firm innovation: An examination of state-owned enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 62(1), 220–247. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0543
79.
JirapornP.ChintrakarnP. (2013). How do powerful CEOs view corporate social responsibility (CSR)? An empirical note. Economics Letters, 119(3), 344–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.03.026
80.
JohnsonR. A.GreeningD. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 564–576. https://doi.org/10.5465/256977
KassinisG.VafeasN. (2006). Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20785799
KingD. R.MeglioO.Gomez-MejiaL.BauerF.De MassisA. (2022). Family business restructuring: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 59(1), 197–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12717
LaevenL.LevineR. (2008). Complex ownership structures and corporate valuations. Review of Financial Studies, 21(2), 579–604. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhm068
87.
La PortaR.Lopez-de-SilanesF.ShleiferA. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, 54(2), 471–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00115
88.
La PortaR.Lopez-de-SilanesF.ShleiferA.VishnyR. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106(6), 1113–1155. https://doi.org/10.1086/250042
89.
La PortaR.Lopez-de-SilanesF.ShleiferA.VishnyR. (2002). Investor protection and corporate valuation. Journal of Finance, 57(3), 1147–1170. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00457
LeeM.-D. P.LounsburyM. (2015). Filtering institutional logics: Community logic variation and differential responses to the institutional complexity of toxic waste. Organization Science, 26(3), 847–866. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0959
92.
LiJ.YiT. (2010). CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48036912
93.
LiX. C.ChenL.ChuaJ. H.KirkmanB. L.Rynes-WellerS.Gomez-MejiaL. (2015). Research on Chinese family businesses: Perspectives. Management & Organization Review, 11(4), 579–597. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2015.60
94.
LinL.MihovA.SanzL.StoyanovaD. (2019). Property rights institutions, foreign investment, and the valuation of multinational firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 134(1), 214–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.03.001
95.
LounsburyM. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069295
96.
LuJ. W.LiangX.ShanM. (2015). Internationalization and performance of Chinese family firms: The moderating role of corporate governance. Management and Organization Review, 11(4), 645–678. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2015.32
97.
LuiseC.BuckleyP. J.VossH.PlakoyiannakiE.BarbieriE. (2022). A bargaining and property rights perspective on the Belt and Road Initiative: Cases from the Italian port system. Journal of International Business Policy, 5(2), 172–193. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-021-00122-9
98.
LuoX. R.WangD.ZhangJ. (2017). Whose call to answer: Institutional complexity and firms’ CSR reporting. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 321–344. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0847
99.
MaJ.KhannaT. (2016). Independent directors’ dissent on boards: Evidence from listed companies in China. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8), 1547–1557. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2421
100.
MaoW.WangW.SunH. (2020). Optimization path for overcoming barriers in China’s environmental protection institutional system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 251, 119712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119712
101.
MargolisJ. D.WalshJ. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–304. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556659
102.
MarquisC.QianC. (2014). Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance?Organization Science, 25(1), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0837
103.
MazzelliA.KotlarJ.De MassisA. (2018). Blending in while standing out: Selective conformity and new product introduction in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(2), 206–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717748651
104.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
105.
MicelottaE.RaynardM. (2011). Concealing or revealing the family?: Corporate brand identity strategies in family firms. Family Business Review, 24(3), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486511407321
106.
MillerD.Breton-MillerI. L.LesterR. H. (2013). Family firm governance, strategic conformity, and performance: Institutional vs. strategic perspectives. Organization Science, 24(1), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0728
107.
MillerD.Le Breton-MillerI. (2005). Managing for the long run: Lessons in competitive advantage from great family businesses. Harvard Business School Press.
108.
MorganT. J.Gomez-MejiaL. R. (2014). Hooked on a feeling: The affective component of socioemotional wealth in family firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(3), 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.07.001
109.
MuniandyPTanewskiGJohlSK (2016). Institutional investors in Australia: Do they play a homogenous monitoring role?Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 40, 266-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2016.01.001
110.
NeubaumD. O.ZahraS. A. (2006). Institutional ownership and corporate social performance: The moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination. Journal of Management, 32(1), 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277797
111.
NorthD. C. (1981). Structure and change in economic history. Norton.
PacheA.-C.SantosF. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0405
114.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource-dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
115.
PhilippeD.DurandR. (2011). The impact of norm-conforming behaviors on firm reputation. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 969–993. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.919
116.
RamusT.VaccaroA.BerroneP. (2021). Time matters! How hybrid organizations use time to respond to divergent stakeholder demands. Organization Studies, 42(10), 1529–1555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619900341
117.
RaoH.MorrillC.ZaldM. N. (2000). Power plays: How social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22(1), 237–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(00)22007-8
118.
RaudenbushS.BrykA.CheongY. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Scientific Software International.
119.
ReayT.HiningsC. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609104803
120.
RichardsM.ZellwegerT.GondJ. P. (2017). Maintaining moral legitimacy through worlds and words: An explanation of firms’ investment in sustainability certification. Journal of Management Studies, 54(5), 676–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12249
121.
RichterA.SchröderK. (2008). Determinants and performance effects of the allocation of ownership rights in consulting firms. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(8), 1049–1074. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.555
122.
RingP. S.PerryJ. L. (1985). Strategic management in public and private organizations: Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints. Academy of Management Review, 10(5), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/257969
123.
RussoM. V.HarrisonN. S. (2005). Organizational design and environmental performance: Clues from the electronics industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 582–593. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17843939
124.
ShleiferA.VishnyR. W. (1990). Equilibrium short horizons of investors and firms. American Economic Review, 80(2), 148–153.
125.
SirmonD. G.HittM. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.t01-1-00013
126.
StefanadisC. (2010). Appropriation, property rights institutions, and international trade. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(4), 148–172. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.2.4.148
ThorntonP. H.OcasioW.LounsburyM. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
130.
TosiH. L.Gomez-MejiaL. R. (1989). The decoupling of CEO pay and performance: An agency theory perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(2), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.2307/2989894
131.
VillalongaB.AmitR. (2006). How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value?Journal of Financial Economics, 80(2), 385–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.12.005
132.
WallsJ.BerroneP.PhanP. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link?Strategic Management Journal, 33(8), 885–913. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1952
133.
WangM.QiuC.KongD. (2011). Corporate social responsibility, investor behaviors, and stock market returns: Evidence from a natural experiment in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(1), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0713-9
134.
WangR.WijenF.HeugensP. P. M. A. R. (2018). Government’s green grip: Multifaceted state influence on corporate environmental actions in China. Strategic Management Journal, 39(2), 403–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2714
135.
WernerS.TosiH. L.Gomez-MejiaL. (2005). Organizational governance and employee pay: How ownership structure affects the firm’s compensation strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 26(4), 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.452
136.
XuD.LuJ. W.GuQ. (2014). Organizational forms and multi-population dynamics: Economic transition in China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3), 517–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214541866
137.
XuK.HittM. A.MillerS. R. (2020). The ownership structure contingency in the sequential international entry mode decision process: Family owners and institutional investors in family-dominant versus family-influenced firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(2), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00250-8
138.
YanS.AlmandozJ.FerraroF. (2021). The impact of logic (in)compatibility: Green investing, state policy, and corporate environmental performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(4), 903–944. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392211005756
139.
ZellwegerT.KellermannsF. W.ChrismanJ.ChuaJ. H. (2012). Family control and family firm valuation by family CEOs: The importance of intentions for transgenerational control. Organization Science, 23(3), 851–868. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0665
140.
ZhaoM. (2012). CSR-based political legitimacy strategy: Managing the state by doing good in China and Russia. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(4), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1209-6
141.
ZhouK. Z.GaoG. Y.ZhaoH. (2017). State ownership and firm innovation in China: An integrated view of institutional and efficiency logics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 375–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216674457
142.
ZhuH.YoshikawaT. (2016). Contingent value of director identification: The role of government directors in monitoring and resource provision in an emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8), 1787–1807. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2408
143.
ZietsmaC.GroenewegenP.LogueD. M.Bob HiningsC. R. (2017). Field or fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 391–450. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0052
