How Owners Matter? An Examination of Ownership Type in Corporate Disaster Relief Giving

• Date: 01 March 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1478
• Published date: 01 March 2019

How Owners Matter? An Examination of

Ownership Type in Corporate Disaster Relief

Giving

Yongqiang Gao*

Huazhong University of Science and Technology

Taïeb Hafsi

HEC, University of Montreal

Abstract

Little research has investigated the effect of ownership

identity (or type) and corporate philanthropy experience

on giving. In this research, relying on legitimacy theory,

we f‌irst assess the effect of ownership identity on corporate

philanthropy (CP) in the context of the 2008 earthquake in

China. Then we explore moderation effects of f‌irms’prior

CP experience and size as proxies for perceived legitimacy

on owners’efforts at increasing giving and legitimacy. We

f‌ind that state and CEO ownership are deterrents, while

non-SOE and institutional ownership enhances giving

probability and amount. In addition, there is evidence that

f‌irm size and prior CP weaken the effects of institutional

ownership on CP.This study provides a complete assessment

of owner behaviour. Copyright © 2018 ASAC. Published by

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: corporate philanthropy, state ownership, indi-

vidual ownership, institutional ownership, CEO ownership,

legitimacy theory

Résumé

Il y a eu peu d’études sur l’effet de l’identité (ou le type) des

propriétaires et de l’expérience en matière de philanthropie

corporative, sur l’importance des dons. En puisant à la

théorie de la légitimité, nous évaluons d’abord l’effet de

l’identité des propriétaires sur la philanthropie corporative

en utilisant des données sur le grand tremblement de terre

de 2008 en Chine. Puis, nous étudions les effets modérateurs

de l’expérience philanthropique et de la taille de

l’entreprise, considérés comme des indicateurs de la

légitimité perçue, sur les actions des propriétaires

d’augmentation des dons et de la légitimité. Nos résultats

indiquent que la propriété par l’État et le CEO découragent,

tandis que la propriété institutionnelle et celle par des

acteurs autres que l’État améliorent la probabilité et le

montant des dons. De plus, la taille de l’entreprise et ses

dons précédents affaiblissent les effets de la propriété

institutionnelle sur la philanthropie corporative. Cette étude

fournit une première évaluation du comportement

philanthropique de tous les propriétaires corporatif. Copy-

right © 2018 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mots-clés: Philanthropie corporative, propriété étatique,

propriété individuelle, propriété institutionnelle, propriété du

CEO, théorie de la légitimité

Introduction

In most studies about the drivers of corporate social

responsibility, in particular its corporate philanthropy (CP)

component, the focus is on such determinants as organiza-

tional and top managers’characteristics. Principals, espe-

cially owners, who could make or exert a signif‌icant

inf‌luence on CP decisions, have to a large extent been

overlooked (see Song, Gianiodis, & Li, 2016; Zhang,

Rezaee, & Zhu, 2009). This may be an acceptable oversight

if owners exerted little effect on corporate decisions. But this

is rarely the case, especially in transition economies such as

China (Wu et al., 2011). In these economies, institutions are

*Please address all correspondence to: Yongqiang Gao, School of Manage-

ment, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan city, P.R.

China (430074). Email: yqgao@hust.edu.cn

The authors acknowledge the f‌inancial support of the National Natural

Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (No. 71372131, 71772071) and the

Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (No. 435-

2013-1179).

Contract/grant sponsor: National Natural Science Foundation of China

(NSFC); contract/grant numbers: 71372131, 71772071.

Contract/grant sponsor: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

of Canada; contract/grant number: 435-2013-1179.

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences

Revue canadienne des sciences de l’administration

36:70–83 (2019)

Published online 22 January 2018 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/CJAS.1478

Can J Adm Sci

36(1), 70–83 (2019)Copyright © 2018 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 70