4.7 Article

Business group affiliation and corporate sustainability performance in emerging economies: Evidence from South Korea

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bse.3378

关键词

affiliate centrality; business group affiliation; corporate sustainability performance; institutional theory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines the impact of business group (BG) affiliation on corporate sustainability performance (CSP) in emerging economies. Despite BGs' ability to protect their affiliate firms from external shocks and pressures by internalizing resources, they also face institutional pressures for enhanced CSP. The study suggests that BG affiliates generally have higher CSP than non-affiliated firms due to the stronger institutional pressures exerted on them by their unique roles and history in emerging economies. However, affiliate centrality and foreign ownership weaken the positive effect of BG affiliation on CSP in emerging economies due to agency behaviors exercised by BG firms in response to institutional pressures.
Does business group (BG) affiliation enhance corporate sustainability performance (CSP) in emerging economies? This paper focuses on the unique roles of BG affiliation in enhancing CSP amid increasing institutional pressures for more contributions to the society and stakeholders. The empirical evidence on the relationship between BG affiliation and CSP is inconclusive. Although BGs effectively insulate their affiliate firms from external shocks and pressures by internalizing various resources, they are vulnerable to institutional pressures for enhanced CSP. We argue that BG affiliates tend to have higher CSP than their non-affiliated counterparts because their unique roles and history of BG development in emerging economies exert stronger institutional pressures on them. However, affiliate centrality and foreign ownership reduce the positive effect of BG affiliation on CSP in emerging economies because BG firms can exercise agency in response to institutional pressures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据