Notwithstanding the availability of a substantial body of literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR), the term has remained controversial and ambiguous in terms of its meaning, use, and usefulness. Specifically, the impact of CSR on tangible and intangible returns to Chinese manufacturers has remained uncertain. Drawing on stakeholder theory and CSR literature, we empirically develop an exploratory taxonomy of CSR practices in China’s manufacturing industries. By surveying the manufacturers operating in China’s food, pharmaceutical, automotive, and clothing industries, we identify three CSR clusters and examine how they are related to their financial, operational, reputational, and social capital performances. Our findings deepen the understanding of CSR adoption patterns by clarifying the consequences of CSR adoption in China’s manufacturing industry.

INTRODUCTION

Over the past few decades, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and related practices (corporate citizenship, sustainability etc.) have been recognized as strategic imperatives for organizations belonging to a variety of sectors, sizes, and country backgrounds (Panwara et al., 2016; Skouloudis & Evangelinos, 2012; Du et al., 2011; Berns et al., 2009; Porter & Kramer, 2002). Organizations pursuing CSR are expected to fulfill the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic expectations of the society that they are operating in (Carroll, 1991; Wood, 1991). They (especially manufacturers) are expected to implement a wide array of CSR practices such as environmental protection, employee management, responsible supply chain management, charitable donations, customer benefits, community development, occupational safety climate, and product risk mitigation (Zohar & Luria, 2005; Cacioppe et al., 2008; Turker, 2009; Lindgreen et al., 2009b; Speier et al., 2011; Skouloudis et al., 2015). Since CSR is a complex process involving the implementation of a wide range of concepts and practices, some firms may focus on specific CSR practices while ignoring those that they deem unimportant. For example, although Foxconn won the “۲۰۰۹ Guangdong Energy Conservation Award” in recognition of its commitment to natural environment protection (Foxconn CSR report, 2010), it paid very little attention to working conditions and labor rights. This culminated in numerous labor suicide cases (Chan & Pun, 2011). Similarly, although U.S. airline industry has long been plagued by serious labor problems, it has been judged to be performing well from diverse viewpoints (Godfrey et al., 2005). This multifaceted nature of CSR has led some researchers to criticize that it is not a “very useful” concept (Freeman et al., 2011, p.218) and point to the need for developing a better understanding of the practices underpinning CSR (Sodhi, 2015; Shafiq et al., 2014; Taneja et al., 2011; Wood, 2010; Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). Recent work by Skouloudis et al. (2015) addressed this issue partly by offering insights on the priority of multiple CSR activities. However, research into how companies implement diverse CSR practices comprehensively has been unduly sparse. We therefore pose the following research question: Research question 1: What are the major taxons of CSR engagement with respect to its multiple practices?” Furthermore, many CSR management researchers have examined the relationship between CSR and firm performance (Wood, 2010; Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010), albeit with mixed or inconclusive results (Margolis et al., 2007; Orlitzky et al., 2003).