Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Consumer Responses to Corporate Environmental Actions in China: An Environmental Legitimacy Perspective

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As a result of the increasing public attention to environmental crises, corporate environmental actions and their effects are a current research hotspot. This study examines how two types of corporate environmental actions (symbolic and substantial environmental actions) influence consumers’ perceptions of environmental legitimacy and subsequent purchase intentions. Using experimental method, this study finds that (1) substantial environmental action induces significantly higher perceptions of environmental legitimacy than symbolic environmental action, (2) this effect can be attenuated by corporate environmental reputation, and (3) consumer-based environmental legitimacy has a significantly positive effect on consumers’ purchase intentions. These findings have interesting implications for both researchers and practitioners involved in green marketing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aerts, W., & Cormier, D. (2009). Media legitimacy and corporate environmental communication. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 28(3), 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Hunter, T. (2003). Strategic explanations for the early adoption of ISO 14001. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(3), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartikowski, B., & Walsh, G. (2011). Investigating mediators between corporate reputation and customer citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 39–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Gelabert, L., & Fosfuri, A. (2009). The impact of symbolic and substantive actions on environmental legitimacy. IESE Business School Working Paper No. 778, IESE Business School, University of Navarra.

  • Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 103–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonini, S. M., Hintz, G., & Mendonca, L. T. (2008). Addressing consumer concerns about climate change. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bortree, D. S. (2009). The impact of green initiatives on environmental legitimacy and admiration of the organization. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 133–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, R. Y. K. (2001). Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 18(4), 389–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Guidry, R. P., Hageman, A. M., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Do actions speak louder than words? An empirical investigation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(1), 14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2006). Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards- determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 863–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 329–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A., & Montes-Sancho, M. J. (2010). Voluntary agreements to improve environmental quality: Symbolic and substantive cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(6), 575–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J. P., Howton, S. D., Howton, S. W., & Siegel, D. S. (2010). Does the market respond to an endorsement of social responsibility: The role of institutions, information, and legitimacy. Journal of Management, 36(6), 1461–1685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einwiller, S. A., Fedorikhin, A., Johnson, A. R., & Kamins, M. A. (2006). Enough is enough! When identification no longer prevents negative corporate associations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 185–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D. (1994). Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 57–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frick, J., Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2004). Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: Exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(8), 1597–1613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilley, K. M., Worrell, D. L., Davidson, W. N., & El-Jelly, A. (2000). Corporate environmental initiatives and anticipated firm performance: The differential effects of process-driven versus product-driven greening initiatives. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1199–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (2001). Linking organizational and field-level analyses: The diffusion of corporate environmental practice. Organization & Environment, 14(2), 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, T., & Bansal, P. (2007). How standard is standardized MNC global environmental communication? Journal of Business Ethics, 71(2), 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussainey, K., & Salama, A. (2010). The importance of corporate environmental reputation to investors. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 11(3), 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. N., Bach, S. B., & Clelland, I. J. (2007). Symbolic or behavioral management? Corporate reputation in high-emission industries. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2), 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, E. & Lyon, T. P. (2012). Beyond the dichotomy of symbolic versus substantive actions: Evidence from corporate environmental management. Working Paper, University of Michigan.

  • King, B. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2008). Rethinking the relationship between reputation and legitimacy: A social actor conceptualization. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(3), 192–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuran, T. (1997). Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livesey, S., & Kearins, K. (2002). Transparent and caring corporations? A study of sustainability reports by the Body Shop and Royal Dutch/Shell. Organization and Environment, 15(3), 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. P., & Covin, J. G. (2000). Environmental marketing: A source of reputational, competitive, and financial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 299–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishina, Y., Block, E. S., & Mannor, M. J. (2012). The path dependence of organizational reputation: How social judgment influences assessments of capability and character. Strategic Management Journal, 33(5), 459–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., & Paladino, A. (2014). Perceived greenwashing: The interactive effects of green advertising and corporate environmental performance on consumer reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 693–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, D., & Raiborn, C. (2001). Sustainable development: The ethics support the economics. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(2), 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robers, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990 s: Profile and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36(3), 217–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1077–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management, 40(3), 534–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. California: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Management legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vergne, J. (2011). Toward a new measure of organizational legitimacy: Method, validation, and illustration. Organizational Research Methods, 14(3), 484–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K., & Wan, F. (2012). The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: Corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, G., Mitchell, V. W., Jackson, P. R., & Beatty, S. E. (2009). Examining the antecedents and consequences of corporate reputation: A customer perspective. British Journal of Management, 20(2), 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, K., & Simpson, B. (2013). When do (and don’t) normative appeals influence sustainable consumer behaviors? Journal of Marketing, 77(2), 78–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Z., Su, C., & Fam, K. S. (2012). Dealing with institutional distances in international marketing channels: governance strategies that engender legitimacy and efficiency. Journal of Marketing, 76(3), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 70–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhonghua renmin gonghe guo xunhuan jingji cujin fa (Circular Economy Promotion Law of the People's Republic of China, promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, August 29, 2008, effective on January 1, 2009). (2008). Beijing: China Legal Publishing House.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript. This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71402010) and National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 14BGL067).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, School of Economics and Management, Changsha University of Science and Technology, Changsha, 410114, China

    Jianxin Li, Hao He & Hongshen Liu

  2. Department of Marketing, College of Business, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Chenting Su

Authors
  1. Jianxin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hao He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hongshen Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chenting Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hao He.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Experimental Stimulus

Experimental Scenario One: Symbolic Environmental Action

News Coverage: H-W Paper Co. Ltd. Takes an Active Part in “Earth Hour”

Earth Hour, organized by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), is a worldwide movement to tackle global climate change. The event is held annually calling for individuals, communities, and businesses to turn off their non-essential lights for 1 h, from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m. on the last Saturday in March, as a symbol for their commitment to the planet. In response to Earth Hour, H-W launched various activities among the companies, partners, shareholders, and all sectors of society in March 2014, and the call was well answered and applauded.

Text messages and proposals with the theme of “How to Go Beyond One Hour” were sent out to publicize awareness of energy conservation and environmental protection among its stakeholders. H-W then informed its staff and all of its subsidiary corporations of the same, which served as the internal and external platform of the Earth Hour appeal during March 19–31, 2014. On March 23 and 24, H-W invited all teachers and students from No.1 Middle School and the local Normal University to tour the H-W Paper Headquarter, which is located in the economic and technological development zone. During the tour, H-W representatives showed the students some of the things the company was doing about environmental protection, and then organized a “Me and Earth Hour” painting activity.

Through this series of activities, H-W popularized awareness of environmental protection among its partners, shareholders, and society. As a result, people’s awareness of environmental protection increased, and the company’s social impact increased.

Experimental Scenario Two: Substantial Environmental Action

News Report: H-W Paper Co. Ltd. Imports Advanced Sewerage Technology to Achieve Both Environmental Protection and Efficiency

For a long time, the influence of sewage disposal on water resources in papermaking enterprises has been the most serious challenge to environment protection. However, sewage disposal is no longer a burden for H-W Paper, which has a new channel to redeploy resources and increase income. The company has achieved a balance between environmental protection and efficiency by importing advanced pollution discharge equipment.

Recently, drawing on Western practices, H-W Paper bought and installed the CQJ super-efficient shallow gas floatation processing technology and equipment from Taiwan, valued at over RMB10000000, thus providing a better solution to the problem of waste water discharge from papermaking. As a result, the company’s ability to deal with sewage disposal has reached the international standard for the paper industry. After sewage treatment, the fiber is recovered first, then after filtration treatment the sewage can be recycled. In the past, the company’s paper machines consumed more than 10,000 tons of water a day. Now, the sewage treatment system recycles 9000 tons of water, which means that only about 1000 tons of fresh water is needed for the next day’s production. By means of this technology, the water consumption per ton of paper can be kept below 10 tons. Through sewage recycling, the company can save more than 4 million tons of water per year, which results in a profit of RMB6000000 for the company. Meanwhile, about 6 million tons of fiber per day can be recycled and reprocessed by the sewage treatment system, and these reprocessed materials can be sold to small paper mills for producing culture paper or low-end paper for daily use.

According to the journalist, after adopting the new technology and equipment, the major environmental monitoring indices of H-W Paper, such as water consumption per unit of GDP, water environmental quality, and chemical oxygen demand (COD) emission intensity, have significantly exceeded the requirements of the relevant national regulations. Such improvements will make an important contribution to the protection of river water and the water quality in the area where the company is located.

Appendix 2: Measurement Items

Manipulation Check for Environmental Action

  1. (1)

    In general, how much resource does the firm spend on such environmental action?

  2. (2)

    To what degree does such environmental action change the firm’s production and management processes?

Manipulation Check for Environmental Reputation

  1. (1)

    According to the information presented above, how would you score the company’s environmental performance?

Measurement for Consumer-Based Environmental Legitimacy

  1. (1)

    The action taken by the company helps relieve the current environmental problems.

  2. (2)

    The company effectively solves the environmental problems it is facing.

  3. (3)

    The company acts to benefit the sustainable development of the society.

  4. (4)

    The company has made significant progress in environmental protection.

  5. (5)

    The action of the company benefits nothing for the environment (reversed coded).

  6. (6)

    The company struggles to cope with environmental problems that the society is concerned about.

  7. (7)

    The company bears environmental responsibility.

  8. (8)

    The company effectively deals with the environmental problems.

  9. (9)

    The company makes efforts to protect environment.

Measurement for Product Buying Intention

  1. (1)

    I will purchase products made by the company.

  2. (2)

    If possible, I will buy products from the company again.

  3. (3)

    I would like to recommend the company’s products to others.

Measurement for Environmental Knowledge

  1. (1)

    Causes and consequences of greenhouse effect;

  2. (2)

    Causes and consequences of white pollution;

  3. (3)

    Causes and consequences of acid rain;

  4. (4)

    Causes and consequences of ozone depletion;

  5. (5)

    Implications and effect of ISO14000 certification;

  6. (6)

    Implications of green foods and their certification marks;

  7. (7)

    Implications of environmental labeling products and their certification marks;

  8. (8)

    The meaning of “a resource-economical and environment-friendly society.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, J., He, H., Liu, H. et al. Consumer Responses to Corporate Environmental Actions in China: An Environmental Legitimacy Perspective. J Bus Ethics 143, 589–602 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2807-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2807-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation