Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure has gained substantial prominence in the academic scholarship in the twenty-first century (Aguilera et al. 2006, 2007; Jo and Harjoto 2012; McWilliams and Siegel 2001; Reverte 2009). It is delineated as ‘‘actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law’’ (McWilliams and Siegel 2001, p. 17). Former scholarships have probed peculiar aspects of CSR in connection with distinct dimensions of corporate governance in both developed and emerging economies and unearthed intriguing results due to the diverse stages of CSR reporting and guidelines in the investigated country (e.g. Aguilera et al. 2007; Ntim and Soobaroyen 2013; Starik and Marcus 2000; Zhang et al. 2013). Nevertheless, there is a need to incorporate an integrative approach while inspecting firm’s societal activities (Aguilera et al. 2007; Lau et al. 2016; Starik and Marcus 2000). Lau et al. (2016) argued that majority of the debates on CSR have taken only single perspective and integrative empirical inquiries for theoretical developments are scarce particularly in the setting of evolving economies. Earlier research has employed diverse approaches (e.g. stakeholder theory, agency theory) in exploring the significance of firm’s CSR, though, in the context of emerging economy, the institutional view is considered the unique approach (Campbell 2007; Hoskisson et al. 2000; Margolis and Walsh 2003). Institutional approach accentuates imitative pressures and exterior lawfulness in obliging firms to perform ethically and responsibly. Moreover, precise mechanisms, e.g. environmental and governance strategies, at companies also influence the drive to social performance (Child and Tsai 2005; Hoffman 1999; Lau et al. 2016). Theoretical scholarships (e.g. DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Scott 1987, 2001) on neo-institutional theory illuminates that institutional factors (e.g. social, economic, political) can assimilate to cultivate, restraint or support the development practices and novelties in the present era businesses. Legitimation (moral) and efficiency (instrumental) are considered to be the two primary drivers for the aforementioned institutional antecedents (Aguilera et al. 2007; Zattoni and Cuomo 2008). Previous investigations (Judge et al. 2010; Zattoni and Cuomo 2008) have effectually employed neo-institutional theory in clarifying the implementation of corporate practices, e.g. employment of different international accounting standards (IAS) and corporate governance principles. Still, there is an urgent need to examine the institutional precursors of the global dispersion of CSR in organisations due to limited literature in this field. This scholarship is such an endeavour to fill this gap by stressing CSR disclosure in organisations with the implementation of neo-institutional theory in the context of Chinese firms. This study extensively examines the impact of corporate governance dimensions, e.g. ownership structure and board characteristics on the CSR disclosure from the neo-institutional perspective, and has augmented the contemporary literature on CSR in several ways.