Antecedents of Responsible Leadership: Proactive and Passive Responsible Leadership Behavior

Abstract

Due to the massive global impact of the current COVID-19 pandemic, the call for social and environment responsibility has grown stronger, and discussion regarding responsible leadership has been aroused. Agreement on the antecedents of responsible leadership has not yet been reached, however, and most studies are theoretical and focus on the personal characteristics of leaders. In this paper, we explore the antecedents of responsible leadership behavior at the organizational and situational level, through case studies of companies in China. Based on the organizational strategy, organizational ownership, mass media, crisis, local community, and other influencing factors, we determine two types of responsible leadership behaviors: Proactive responsible leadership behavior, which involves leaders showing initiative in dealing with relationships with stakeholders both inside and outside the organization, as well as voluntarily striving to assume relevant responsibilities in order to achieve economic and/or social development goals; and passive responsible leadership behavior, which involves acts of being responsible to some stakeholders under pressure from external circumstances or when unexpected events occur, even though this behavior may go against the actor’s original intention. We further explore the influence mechanism of these factors on responsible leadership and discuss the development trend from passive to proactive responsible leadership behavior.

1. Introduction

Given the pressing social environment and public health issues, especially with respect to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the call for social and environmental responsibility has been growing stronger. Only organizations following responsible principles will survive and, as such, business leaders urgently need to show responsible leadership [1]. Pless (2007) has stated that the foundations of responsible leadership are based on social and moral phenomena, and that leaders have enormous potential to contribute to a better world [2]. Responsible leadership has emerged as a major theme in contemporary management scholarship [3,4,5,6], but this emerging leadership theory is still in an exploratory stage [7]. There are still many challenges for establishing responsible leadership, both in theory and in practice [8], which require further in-depth exploration [9]. Despite the growing corpus of literature on responsible leadership, responsible leadership styles, as well as individual characteristics, situational factors, and corporate social responsibility policy and practice associated with responsible leadership are still poorly understood [10]. Previous studies have mostly explored the possible outcomes of responsible leadership, especially in terms of employee and organizational performance. However, less research has focused on why and when this happens; that is, the antecedents and mechanisms of responsible leadership. During the most serious period of the COVID-19 outbreak in China, some supermarkets and shops raised the prices of anti-epidemic materials, such as masks and daily necessities, which triggered public protests. After the intervention of regulatory authorities, the CEOs of these enterprises apologized and promised not to raise prices; however, some supermarkets chose to cut prices, instead of increasing them, in order to supply goods to protect the livelihoods of people in this special period. Considering this phenomenon, what makes leaders make different decisions? Furthermore, what roles do the epidemic crisis, regulatory authorities, and other organizational and situational factors play?

Against this background, in this research, we aim to identify RL (Responsible Leadership) behavior and understand its antecedents at the organizational and situational level, along with how they impact responsible leadership dimensions and practice. More specifically, we build on the works of Stahl and Sully de Luque (2014) and Maak et al. (2016), identify two types of responsible leadership (i.e., proactive and passive responsible leadership behavior), and explain the link between antecedents and the two RL behaviors [11,12]. This study intends to fill several research gaps. First, it furthers our understanding of the antecedents of responsible leadership, thus enriching the theoretical framework of responsible leadership. Second, due to the fact that responsible leadership mainly originated in Western society, the existing research has mainly been developed in the Western context and, so, a gap exists regarding the understanding of responsible leadership in emerging countries. In this study, we attempt to enrich the present responsible leadership literature through case studies of Chinese enterprises, broadening the understanding of Western scholars with regard to responsible leadership in the context of globalization. Third, this research presents outcomes that will potentially present clear pathways for leaders and policy makers, in order to consider specific leadership styles and appropriate policies that can result in socially responsible actions, benefitting society as a whole. Moreover, we hope that our findings can open the door to more profound research on the antecedents of responsible leadership at the organizational and institutional level, facilitating further research on responsible leadership in the context of emerging countries.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a review of the relevant literature, which is beneficial for identifying and understanding the RL behaviors in various cases, serving as the basis for our analysis. Section 3 clarifies the used methodology in detail, including data collection, sampling, and analysis. In Section 4, we describe and identify two types of RL behavior (proactive and passive RL behavior) and discuss their antecedents. The final section deals with the implications and limitations of the present study, as well as suggestions for future research.

2. Theoretical Review

2.1. Responsible Leadership

Leadership is a major subject that has been widely researched and discussed. Leadership involves the development of a clear and complete system of expectations in order to identify, evoke, and utilize the strengths of all resources in an organization, influencing others to guide, structure, and facilitate activities and relationships, as well as the sharing of goals between leaders and their followers [13]. Traditional leadership research treats leadership as a leader–member dyadic relationship [3], while responsible leadership is an emerging concept that considers leadership as a leader–stakeholder multivalent relationship. Maak and Pless (2006) combined stakeholder theory [14] with the leadership perspective in the context of stakeholder theory [15], and defined responsible leadership as the art and ability to establish, cultivate, and maintain a relationship of mutual trust with stakeholders both inside and outside of the organization, as well as defining responsibility as working together to achieve a shared business vision of meaning. Responsible leadership is a phenomenon involving social relations and ethics, which occurs within the interactions between leaders and a wider range of stakeholders—both internal and external to the organization [16].

Voegtlin (2011) supplemented the definitions of Maak and Pless (2006): Taking the theories of discourse ethics and deliberative democracy as the philosophical basis of leadership ethics, they proposed that responsible leadership is a process of coordinating and weighing the interests and needs of all stakeholders through equal dialogue and democratic consultation, thus establishing a mutually beneficial and win–win relationship. This process includes: (1) Considering the possible consequences of their own decisions for all stakeholders; (2) promoting the active participation of stakeholders in the decision-making process through their own influence, and with equal words; and (3) weighing the opinions of all sides to reach an agreement [17]. This view defines responsible leadership as an awareness that enables leaders to fully consider the impact of individual actions on stakeholders. Based on strategic orientation, Waldman and Galvin (2008) classified two perspectives—a limited economic view emphasizing the interest of shareholders and an extended stakeholder view emphasizing the balanced interest of all stakeholders—and proposed four possible dimensions of responsible leadership: (1) Leading-by-example; (2) incorporating stakeholder values into core purpose and vision; (3) using intellectual stimulation to help followers implement stakeholder values; and (4) the demonstration of employee empowerment [18]. Similar to the views of Waldman and Galvin (2008), Miska et al. (2014) discussed the impact of the agent perspective and the stakeholder perspective on the concept of responsible leadership. The difference is that they did not consider the two views as opposing but attempted to reconcile the two different understandings of the concept of responsible leadership. They chose to integrate the views of agents and stakeholders, arguing that truly responsible leaders should flexibly use the logic of “doing good” at the strategic level to harmonize economic, social, and environmental responsibilities [19]. Specifically, in the process of assuming responsibility, leaders are guided by corporate strategy and combine the economic motivations to reward shareholders with the moral motivation to focus on stakeholders.

Against the basic understanding of responsible leadership, scholars have further studied the dimensions and characteristics of responsible leadership from different perspectives. Doh and Stumpf (2005) considered that there are three key dimensions of responsible leadership: (1) Value-based leadership; (2) ethical decision making; and (3) quality stakeholder relationships [20]. Maak and Pless (2006), focusing on relationship building, proposed the original model for responsible leadership roles, including steward, citizen, visionary, servant, architect, coach, storyteller and meaning-enabler, and change agent roles. Some recent studies have extended this model [16]. Jaén et al. (2020) proposed two new roles in their research on the base-of-the-pyramid market: Leaders-as-catalyst and social innovators [21]. Voegtlin et al. (2020) drew upon behavioral complexity theories to conceptualize the role of responsible leadership models as experts who display organizational expertise, facilitators who care for and motivate employees, and citizens who consider the consequences of their decisions for society [22]. Muff (2013) defined responsible leadership at the individual level as those leaders who reconcile their personal interests or those of their organization with the context of wider societal responsibility [23]. Pless et al. (2012) identified four orientations that leaders may use to demonstrate responsibility and implement corporate social responsibility, based on a qualitative analysis of 25 business leaders and entrepreneurs; namely, idealist, integrator, traditional economist, and opportunity seeker [4]. Stahl and Sully de Luque (2014) distinguished between two dimensions of RL behavior—namely, “Do good” (proscriptive morality) and “Avoid harm” (prescriptive morality) behavior—where “Do good” behavior refers to activities aimed at enhancing societal welfare, and “Avoid harm” behavior refers to decisions and actions taken by managers to avoid harmful consequences for stakeholders and society in a larger context [11]. Maak et al. (2016) discussed the relationship between responsible leadership style and political corporate social responsibility, and classified RL behavior as that of instrumental responsible leaders who pursue business performance and the maximization of shareholder values based on the moral responsibility to shareholders, as well as integrative responsible leaders who focus on the cooperation and integration of the organization’s various stakeholders based on the actor’s perceived moral responsibility to stakeholders [12]. Agarwal and Bhal (2020) proposed four dimensions of responsible leadership: Moral person (leader’s moral conduct); moral manager (leader’s moral conduct as a role model); sustainable growth focus (leader’s commitment to long-term goals); and multi-stakeholder consideration (leaders creating healthy relationships with stakeholders) [24]. Fraher (2020) argued that “disobeying an order” is a virtuous, responsible leadership strategy in some circumstances, through a historical analysis of the surrender of the British colony of Singapore to Japan during World War II [25]. Yao et al. (2020) proposed three dimensions of responsible leadership through the grounded theory research of Chinese enterprises: (1) Relationship building, which includes the establishment of relationships, opening communication, altruistic behavior, and expanding positive influence; (2) relational governance, including mutual trust, promoting cooperation, and coordination and balance; and (3) sharing orientation, which includes outcome sharing, risk sharing, and joint development [26]. Muff et al. (2020) constructed a responsible leadership competency model, including creating, managing, and securing good relations with multiple stakeholders, ethically correct and value-based behavior, highly developed self-awareness, good understanding of the interdependencies with larger systems, and the ability to lead change and innovation towards sustainable development [27].

Although scholars have not reached a consensus on the definition of responsible leadership, there is an agreement among scholars that responsible leadership emphasizes cooperation and interaction with all stakeholders. In this paper, we conceive responsible leadership as the behavior of leaders establishing and maintaining good relationships with stakeholders [7,16,28], and propose two dimensions of RL behavior, which are of great significance for the purposes of this study.

2.2. Antecedents of Responsible Leadership

Responsible leadership can bring benefits to society, while management misconduct can cause great losses. RL behavior is the result of the combination of and interactions among individual level and contextual factors [11].

At the individual level, one of the most widely discussed motivators is the personality traits of the leaders. Virtuousness, as a key attribute of responsible leadership, is interlinked with subjective experiences (e.g., happiness, pleasure, fulfilment, well-being) and the positive strength of individual traits (e.g., character, interests, talents, and values) inherent in leaders [29]. Virtuous leaders make decisions based on morality. The cognitive moral development level of leaders impacts their RL behavior [11]. Responsible leaders will inevitably face moral dilemmas, and a high level of cognitive moral development will help responsible leaders cope with these circumstances [30]. From the perspective of moral identity theory, leaders with high degrees of internalization and externalization of their moral identity are more likely to exhibit responsible leadership behavior, where internalization refers to the importance of moral characteristics in the individual’s self-concept and externalization refers to whether the individual expects these moral characteristics to be reflected in their external behavior [31]. Pless (2007) analyzed the behaviors of Anita Roddik (the leader of The Body Shop), who is commonly considered to be a responsible leader, in different periods through biographical analysis, and found that ethical motivation and personal self-actualization influenced her socially responsible behavior [2]. Chin et al. (2013), by moderating the power of leaders and the company’s recent performance, found that leaders with a liberal orientation show a stronger engagement in corporate social responsibility than leaders with a conservative orientation [32]. Maak et al. (2016) argued that fiduciary duty and social welfare orientation motivate leaders to apply instrumental or integrative responsible leadership approaches [12]. Voegtlin et al. (2020) verified the facilitating effects of leader empathy, positive affect, and universal value orientation on responsible leadership behavior through empirical research [22]. Sánchez et al. (2020) found that personal aspirations and anticipated workplace behavior patterns are associated with responsible leadership styles, through a study among future leaders [10]. However, Machiavellianism may encourage leaders to demonstrate irresponsible behavior [11]. Behavioral ability is also an important factor affecting RL behavior. Hind et al. (2009) conducted in-depth interviews with corporate executives, and found that leaders with high-level reflexive ability are more likely to demonstrate RL behavior under complex environments, including systemic thinking, embracing diversity and managing risk, balancing global and local perspectives, meaningful dialogue and developing a new language, and emotional awareness [33]. Pless et al. (2011) evaluated “Project Ulysses”, and found that the learning process of leaders is effective in cultivating responsible global leadership, including responsible mind-set, ethical literacy, cultural intelligence, global mind-set, self-development, and community building [8]. Miska et al. (2013) explored the relationships between intercultural competence and responsible leadership in the context of globalization through empirical research, and showed that intercultural competence is an important capability for responsible leaders when dealing with the needs of stakeholders in transnational operations [34].

There has been extensive discussion at the contextual and organizational level regarding the broader national and institutional contexts in which companies and their leaders operate. The approaches and orientations of leaders toward responsible leadership are likely to vary across institutional and cultural contexts. Organizational culture plays an important role in shaping and guiding behavior [35]. Galbreath (2009) studied a sample of heterogeneous firms in Australia, and found that firm culture influences a firm’s orientation towards the responsible treatment of stakeholders; in particular, a humanistic culture positively impacts corporate social responsibility [36]. Organizational strategy affects the focus of responsible leaders, to a certain extent. Miska et al. (2013) pointed out that, when dealing with the needs of different stakeholders, global responsible leaders usually follow three corporate social responsibility strategies: Global standardized, locally adapted, and transnational. When adopting the global standardized strategy, leaders give priority to the needs of shareholders; when using the locally adapted strategy, leaders give more consideration to the needs of local stakeholders; and when adopting the transnational strategy, leaders focus on the common needs of both [34]. Gond et al. (2011) discussed human resource management with respect to responsible leadership in the dimensions of human resource functional, practical, and relational contributions, and found that human resource management has a positive effect on responsible leadership [37]. Moreover, factors in the cultural context can affect the values and behavior of leaders; for example, power distance is a widely studied cultural factor that has been researched from the viewpoint of multiple disciplines [12]. Institutional context is also an important factor affecting whether leaders to behave responsibly or irresponsibly. Spencer and Gomez (2011) proposed that, when leaders perceive that bribery is a customary practice in the country where the company is located, they are likely to be involved [38]. Witt and Stahl (2016) comparatively analyzed three Asian and two Western societies (Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and the United States), and found that top-level executives in these societies hold fundamentally different beliefs about their responsibilities toward different stakeholders, which are closely aligned with institutional factors: leaders in liberal market economies are more likely to consider the needs of owners/shareholders, while leaders in coordinated market economies are more likely to consider the needs of a wider range of stakeholders, including employees, customers, and wider society [39]. Building on the institutional logic perspective, Pureza and Lee (2020) combined multiple aspects of institutional forces and a multi-level analysis, and identified two responsible leadership rationales among Brazilian enterprises: The reactionary and reputational self-oriented rationale, and the responsible and collaborative system-oriented rationale. The “self-oriented” rationale is linked to leadership with predominantly egotistic values and short-term thinking characteristics, while the “system-oriented” rationale is linked to leadership with predominantly altruistic values and long-term thinking characteristics [40]. Finally, mass media is an important factor in promoting RL behavior. Carroll and Buchholtz (2011) proposed that the development and popularization of mass media has made the reporting of corporate scandals more common and transparent [41]. Under such circumstances, leaders realize that it is more difficult to conceal unethical events, thereby forcing them to reduce unethical behavior and decision making, while consciously assuming the corresponding responsibilities. Zyglidopoulos et al. (2012) investigated the impact that media attention has on the strengths and weakness of a firm’s corporate social responsibility, where increases in media attention are related to increases in CSR strengths, while CSR weaknesses are not sensitive to changes in media attention [42].

Stahl and Sully de Luque (2014) detailed a model describing the linkages among individual (personality traits, cognition/reasoning, values/moral philosophies, affective, states and demographics), situational (proximity/distance, social consensus, probability of effect, and benefits to actor), organizational (CSR approach, code of conduct, rewards/sanctions, and ethical climate), institutional (national culture, legal system, role of stakeholders, and industry competition), and supranational (NGO activism, role of media, global governance, and UN global compact) influences on RL behavior [11].

Table 1. Summary for existing studies on antecedents of responsible leadership.

Individual level Cognition Personality Ability Subjective experience Values Moral identity Empathy Positive affect Personal aspirations Anticipated workplace behavior pattern	Behavior orientation Ethical motivation Personal self-actualization Liberal orientation Fiduciary duty Social welfare orientation Systemic thinking Embracing diversity Meaningful dialogue Risk management Emotional awareness Responsible mind-set Cultural intelligence Community building Self-oriented System-oriented
Contextual level Organizational culture Organizational strategy Human resource management Power distance Institutional context Mass media

provides a summary of existing studies on antecedents of responsible leadership. It can be seen that most of the existing research on responsible leadership has primarily focused on the micro-level perspective of managerial behavior and orientation [5]. In China, the operation of enterprises is largely influenced by the government and the institution, and the cultural background and public opinion environment also differ from those in the West. Thus, in this study, we attempt to deeply discuss why leaders implement responsible leadership behavior at the macro-level under the Chinese business environment, determine the factors that have not been mentioned previously, and illustrate the associated mechanisms.

3. Research Methodology

Qualitative research is effective for understanding the processes relevant to human behavior, as well as their meaning and purpose in carrying out activities [43]. A case study is defined as an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are not clearly evident [44]. The purpose of using the exploratory case study method is to modify or improve the existing theoretical system [44]. Case study methods have been gaining acceptance in the responsible leadership research area [2,21,40,45,46,47], and a growing number of studies have used case study methods. Given the scope, complexity, topicality, and integrative context, this type of approach was considered to be the most suitable for this study [48,49]. Multiple case studies are used, in order to increase the external validity of the conclusions as well as for their replication logic. Multiple cases are effective because they gather comparative data and may therefore yield more accurate and generalized theories [44].

Based on the purposeful sample method [50,51], we selected companies with responsible practices as organizational cases for the present study. Purposeful sampling seeks to identify “information-rich cases” that researchers deem “worthy of in-depth study,” due to their ability to illuminate rare or novel phenomena [52]. With purposeful sampling, we are in a position to better select the cases and obtain more reliable and deeper information regarding a specific topic under investigation [44]. The specific criteria followed involved selecting enterprises with rich responsible practices in China, in order to facilitate the analysis of the antecedent mechanisms behind these RL behaviors. The Research Center for corporate Social Responsibility, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has released the Chinese Corporate Social Responsibility Development Index annually since 2009. It is undoubtable that enterprises with a high CSR development index have a wealth of responsible practices in China. We selected nine enterprises as organization cases, based on their ranking in the Chinese Corporate Social Responsibility Development Index for 2020. it should be noted that the “sampling” technique is not generically characterized in qualitative research, which is in opposition to the case in quantitative research. The size of the sample is not a critical factor of success, and it is not through extensive research that quality is assured [53]. In order to better clarify the influence of organizational ownership, cultural background, and other factors on leaders to various degrees, we selected three state-owned enterprises, three private enterprises, and three foreign enterprises as cases.

Table 2. Details of sampled enterprises.

Cases	Enterprise	Asset Attributes	Industry	Year of Foundation	Number of Employees
1	Sinopec Group	State-owned	Oil	1983	582,648
2	China Resources (Holding) Co., Ltd.	State-owned	Consumer goods	1938	421,274
3	Power Construction Corporation of China	State-owned	Electricity	2011	185,269
4	Tencent	Private	Internet	1998	62,885
5	China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd.	Private	Finance	1996	58,338
6	HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Co., Ltd.	Private	Electronic equipment	1987	194,000
7	Apple Inc. (China)	Foreign invested	High-tech	1976	132,000
8	SAMSUNG (China)	Foreign invested	Multi-product	1938	320,671
9	Panasonic (China)	Foreign invested	Electric appliance	1918	271,869

presents profiles for these cases. As can be seen from the table, the sample was composed of organizations with some diversity in terms of industry, and all of the firms had been operating for a considerable time. Our primary subjects were the senior managers of these companies.

A general agreement about what responsible leadership entails has not yet been reached, as this ultimately involves the subjective assessment of behaviors [12,18]. Previous studies have focused on the use of interview research methods, but these lack objectivity and representativeness of sampling; furthermore, the answers to self-reported interviews or questionnaires are likely to be overstated [54]. By definition, responsible leadership emphasizes the relationship between leaders and their stakeholders, which can be reflected in the leader’s daily life. First, with the rapid development of the Internet, websites have become very popular among companies, which can be taken as a window to demonstrate the image of a company, allow access to company documents, and display the leader’s behavior. Second, there has been growing public concern about corporate social responsibility, and leaders have mentioned responsible behavior in many public interviews. Third, in the current trend of social media, the public information released by leaders on social media can more truly reflect their own concerns. Therefore, based on their objectivity and availability, our data sources were company documents, annual reports, public interviews, press articles, official websites, social networks, and various other sources. This is a multiple or collective case study, which is recommended when comparisons are needed to explore differences or similarities between and within cases [44,55,56]. Data were collected from the primary sources between January 2017 and April 2021. Moreover, we conducted semi-structured interviews with several senior managers of Case 3, in order to ensure data triangulation and larger construct validity [44].

Concerning data analysis, we focused on descriptive and exploratory approaches to explain the relationships between antecedents and RL behavior. With the help of Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Software, we conducted a thematic analysis, in which the themes were based on a number of specific research questions and a pre-existing theoretical framework. Coding took place iteratively between bottom-up and top-down coding. We carefully reviewed the results to determine whether the data fit within existing categories or emerging ones, and the ensuing analysis iterated between collected data and those frameworks and categories from the extant literature [57]. Then, a new iteration of bottom-up coding was undertaken to identify new themes not previously captured.

4. Findings

Previous studies have divided responsible leadership into different behavioral styles from various perspectives. For example, Maak et al. (2016) divided it into instrumental and integrative responsible leadership styles, according to the focus of the leader’s responsibilities [12]. From the strategic management perspective, RL behavior can be divided into actions to benefit the stakeholders of the company and actions to avoid harmful consequences for corporate stakeholders and the wider society [5,11,58]. Through our case studies, we found that the differences in the motivations and antecedents of RL behavior lead to two forms of RL behavior: proactive RL behavior and passive RL behavior.

4.1. Proactive Responsible Leadership Behavior

Proactive behavior is defined as making things happen, taking initiative, anticipating and preventing problems, and seizing opportunities to achieve future goals in a work environment or role [59,60,61,62]. Proactivity has three key attributes: it is self-starting, change-oriented, and future-focused [62]. Motivation for proactive behavior includes individual differences (e.g., personality, values, knowledge, and ability), as well as contextual variations [59,62,63,64]. Proactive corporate social responsibility involves business practices adopted voluntarily by firms that go beyond regulatory requirements in order to actively support sustainable economic, social, and environmental development, thereby contributing broadly and positively to society [65]. Responsible leaders establish, cultivate, and maintain a good relationship of mutual trust with stakeholders inside and outside the organization to achieve a shared business vision [16]. On one hand, responsible leaders focus on the interests of shareholders while, on the other hand, focus on the interests of wider stakeholders, promoting the well-being of society, and protecting the environment [12]. Therefore, we define proactive responsible leadership behavior as leaders showing initiative when dealing with relationships with stakeholders both inside and outside the organization, as well as endeavoring to voluntarily assume relevant responsibilities in order to achieve economic and/or social development goals in a planned way. For example, influenced by her upbringing, Anita Roddick developed a sense of justice, care, confidence, curiosity, and responsibility; thus, driven by values, family and community awareness, and faith in love, she actively promoted fair trade in the process of running The Body Shop and has dedicated her life to mobilizing people through media and campaigning for social, environmental, and human rights issues [2]. To accelerate growth and enhance the competitiveness of the company, Jeff Immelt invested in environmentally cleaner technology to increase revenue, value, and profits [12]. Although their goals were different, they both acted responsibly on their initiative and out of their own will. We consider this to be proactive RL behavior. In the following, each antecedent of proactive RL behavior is discussed.

4.1.1. Organizational Strategy

An organizational strategy represents a unique and fundamental element of a firm’s identity, concerns how firms compete in a given business, and dictates many other firm characteristics [66]. As a consequence, corporate social responsibility and RL behavior are all geared toward an organizational strategy [11,66], where leaders play a pivotal role in carrying out an organizational strategy [25]. Under the guidance of an organizational strategy, leaders consciously adapt to the overall development strategy of the organization when planning and implementing responsible activities. As stated in the annual reports of considered companies:

“In recent years, we focus on innovation-driven high-quality development, further strengthen the leading role of innovation development strategy … and create greater social value.” (Case 2)

“We organically unify strategic development and responsibility taking into the company’s development strategy and annual business plan.” (Case 3)

“In order to implement the development strategy of inclusive finance and expand the availability and convenience of financial services, we proactively make full use of financial means to support the development of enterprises and ensure the needs of people’s livelihood.” (Case 5)

The differences in organizational strategy have an impact on how executives adopt a responsible lens when developing strategic decisions. If aligned with the strategic goals of the company, CSR activities can be in the best interests of the company and its stakeholders, and serve to enhance the social orientation and proactive responsibility of leadership [67]. For example, the development strategies of Sinopec and Huawei in recent years are related to the environment and sustainable development:

“Sinopec’s future development direction is to build ‘China’s No.1 Hydrogen Energy Company’. In accordance with the company’s development strategy, we implement the ‘Energy Efficiency Plan’ and ‘Green Enterprise Action Plan’ to strengthen the management of greenhouse gas emissions and reduce pollutant emissions.” (Case 1)

“Huawei regards sustainable development as a priority criterion, fully integrates it into the company’s overall development strategy, and benchmarks with SDGs to formulate corresponding goals and plans.” (Case 6)

Global companies generally adopt three corporate social responsibility approaches when conducting multi-national operations: globally standardized, locally adapted, and transnational [11,34,68]. Our research on foreign invested companies in China provides evidence for locally adapted and transnational approaches. The leaders of Apple and Panasonic carry out responsible activities in conjunction with local needs under the guidance of an organizational strategy, while the leaders of Samsung pay more attention to the needs of the Chinese market when conducting responsible activities:

“Our social responsibility work has been managed and guided by the leadership of Apple headquarters and Greater China. Combined with Apple’s development strategy and planning, we promote social responsibility work in a targeted manner.” (Case 7)

“Panasonic formulates and implements unified guidelines around the world.” (Case 9)

“We practice ‘being in China, heart in China’, and feeding back the society with business results, all-round deep cultivation of localization strategy, fully fulfilling market responsibility, social responsibility, and environmental responsibility as a global corporate citizen, and building a good relationship with all stakeholders.” (Case 8)

4.1.2. Organizational Culture

Organizational culture represents a collective phenomenon emerging from the beliefs and social interactions of members, including shared values, mutual understandings, patterns of beliefs, and behavioral expectations [69]. Organizational culture plays an important role in shaping and guiding behavior [35]. An organization’s culture is intricately related to its leadership, especially its upper echelon leaders, who have the responsibility to establish an apt organizational culture, as the organizational culture is a reflection of upper echelon leadership [70]. Thus, responsible leadership influences organic organizational cultures which, in turn, are related to the characteristics of the leaders [69]. On the other hand, organizational culture also encourages CSR practices and responsible leadership [11,69,70]. For example, Galbreath (2009) studied a sample of heterogeneous firms in Australia, and found that a firm culture influences a firm’s orientation towards responsible treatment of stakeholders; in particular, a humanistic culture positively impacts corporate social responsibility [36]. Responsible leadership is inextricably linked to organizational culture, and the two ideas complement each other. Responsible leaders form a sense of responsibility and promote responsible practices under the influence of organizational culture:

“In our long-term social responsibility management and practice, we have consciously integrated corporate culture, fulfilling social responsibilities, and promoting sustainable development of the company.” (Case 2)

“The organizational culture is the soul that guides us to improve social responsibility management and practice.” (Case 3)

“The assumption of responsibility is like a golden thread that runs through the history of corporate development and is deeply rooted in the genes of organizational culture.” (Case 4)

Specifically, responsible leadership has a higher correlation with clan cultures, also referred to as group cultures [69]. A clan culture is characterized by trust, participation, cohesiveness, and cooperation, and places a premium on internal maintenance and flexibility, which can promote the development of a friendly workplace [71]. For instance, China Minsheng Banking’s responsible leadership involves promoting the formation of a friendly workplace and atmosphere driven by the people-oriented clan culture:

“We adhere to the core concept of ‘people-oriented’ home culture and continue to enhance employee’s sense of belonging.” (Case 5)

The responsible leadership of Apple (China) values safety culture and participation of suppliers: “We value safety culture and promote it to suppliers.” (Case 7)

The senior executives of Huawei take trust and integrity as the core concept: “Huawei values and continues to build a culture of integrity, insisting on operating with integrity.” (Case 6)

Moreover, Sinopec’s responsible leadership is based on products and economic development, as influenced by adhocracy cultures—also referred to as developmental cultures—which combine a focus on flexibility with an emphasis on competitive positioning [70]: “Our mission is to ‘fuel a better life’… satisfy people’s growing needs for a better life and serve economic and social development.” (Case 1)

4.1.3. Organizational Ownership

Recent research has identified organizational ownership as a driver of CSR disclosure [72,73]. For enterprises, the ownership of the organization affects the company’s stakeholder relationships. At present, China’s special economic system determines the inextricable connections between state-owned enterprises and the government [74]. As Zhang Yuzhuo, the chairman of Sinopec, said: “Sinopec was created by our Party alone, and it has been continuously developing and growing under the leadership of the Party. Every step we forward is inseparable from the correct guidance of the Party.” (Case 1)

State-owned enterprises assume the responsibility for resettling employment, maintaining social stability, and significant social responsibilities, all while seeking profits [74,75]. Thus, the leaders of state-owned enterprises put the will of the nation first and carry out responsible activities based on this: “We should look at the project from the perspective of national strategy, and do a good job in the social responsibility of state-owned enterprises. We must have the guidance function and responsibility of state-owned enterprises.” (Case 3)

The annual CSR report of China Resources also stated the responsibilities and missions of a stated-owned enterprise: “As a red state-owned enterprise, we should give full play to our social position advantages, build a responsible brand image, and fulfill the mission and value of a state-owned enterprise related to people’s livelihood.” (Case 2)

In organizations with different ownerships, leaders may show proactive RL behavior towards different stakeholders. State-owned enterprises are more likely to regard the government as an important stakeholder, while private enterprises are more likely to regard economic goals as a priority: “We always regard serving the private economy as the foundation.” (Case 5)

In the study of the three cases of foreign-invested enterprises, there was no clear evidence that foreign ownership has a significant impact on RL behavior. These leaders generally do not specifically mention the attributes of foreign ownership, but the leaders of these companies believe that they should contribute to the development of Chinese society in the course of China’s business operations: “As a foreign-invested enterprise deeply cultivating the Chinese market, we should contribute to the economic prosperity and social development of Chinese society.” (Case 9)

4.1.4. Mass Media

Mass media refers to both traditional forms of media (e.g., newspaper, television, and the Internet) and new digital tools of communication (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Weibo, and WeChat). As has been indicated by a sizeable body of research, mass media can exert a great deal of influence on corporate behavior, especially on CSR [42,76,77]. Carroll and Buchholtz (2011) proposed that the development and popularization of mass media has made the reporting of corporate scandals more common and transparent [41]. Under such circumstances, leaders have come to realize that it is more difficult to conceal unethical events, thereby reducing their unethical behaviors and decision making, forcing them to consciously assume the corresponding responsibilities. Zyglidopoulos et al. (2012) investigated the impact of media attention on the strengths and weakness of a firm’s corporate social responsibility, and found that increases in media attention are related to increases in CSR strengths, while CSR weaknesses are not sensitive to changes in media attention [42]. Stakeholders often gain understanding of a company’s CSR performance through the media, and responsible leaders usually actively seek media cooperation and positive media coverage to enhance their corporate reputation and shape their corporate image:

“We always uphold the principle of ‘integrity, openness, and respect’ to communicate and interact with the media. On the one hand, we invite the media to actively participate in and follow up the interview through a series of activities, and on the other hand, we make full use of social media to actively plan special topics to show a good image and improve the goodwill of the enterprise.” (Case 2)

“We have increased open communication with society, communicate frankly, and respond to external concerns based on facts, so that they can get to know and understand the real Huawei.” (Case 6)

They also shorten their distance with consumers through social media, paying more attention to consumer demands, reduce information asymmetry among stakeholders, and affecting public opinion [78]; for example, “China Panasonic actively listens to the opinions of stakeholders with an open mind, and actively responds to their demands. We have established the ‘Panasonic Services’ Weibo to capture users’ demands. Through proactive services, users’ satisfaction with the brand can be improved.” (Case 9)

In addition to positive reports, there will inevitably be negative information, reports and public opinion, which enterprises must be prepared in advance to deal with: “We have a public opinion monitoring mechanism around the world, and we are very concerned about the evaluation of us by any media around the world, because the influence of the media is huge.” (Case 3)

4.1.5. Crisis

A crisis tests vital stakeholder relationships and presses responsible leaders to use their influence to maintain these stakeholders [47]. To maintain or even enhance corporate value and corporate reputation, the leader needs to manage a crisis responsibly [47]. Responsible leaders can realize that the crisis may have an impact on stakeholder relationships and take proactive precautions before it strikes; for example, by setting up safety management systems to ensure the safety of employees at work:

“We continue to strengthen our HSE management system to ensure that production safety, occupational health, and environmental protection meet the standards.” (Case 1)

“In the context of intensified global security turmoil, we strengthened the proactive risk monitoring and early warning system, guided the front-line to properly respond to external crisis events, effectively ensuring business continuity and personal safety of employees.” (Case 6)

“We have developed various emergency response procedures to address workplace safety related issues.” (Case 7)

They may also prepare emergency plans for various possible crises:

“We are aware of the importance of emergency management and strengthen emergency management capabilities by improving the emergency response plan system and launching emergency response plans.” (Case 2)

“The company actively strengthened the construction of emergency response capabilities, established a monitoring and early warning mechanism for river basins and regions, and a company-wide emergency rescue system.” (Case 3)

4.1.6. Local Community

In the globalized economy and society, an increasing number of companies have engaged in transnational projects, which is very likely to generate complicated and sensitive social and environmental issues in local communities in various countries. Concern for local communities is a necessary ability for globally responsible leaders [7]. In China, “the Belt and Road Initiative,” which has come into full swing in recent years, has also triggered potential problems between multi-national projects and local communities in the participating countries [79]. Therefore, local communities require responsible leaders to consider the stakeholder relationships between multi-national projects and local communities, and some responsible leaders have taken such initiative:

“In the construction of international projects, we take the initiative to communicate with stakeholders based on local conditions and cultural characteristics so as to obtain the recognition of the governments, people and employees in the places where we operate.” (Case 1)

The stakeholders involved may be the local economy, local residents, local employees, local society, and local ecology and environment:

“In the construction of the project, we attach great importance to the protection of the local ecological environment.” (Case 2)

The typical goal involves the common development of enterprises and local communities:

“In the construction and operation of overseas projects, we insist on achieving mutual benefit and win-win with local governments, enterprises, and people while achieving our own development.” (Case 3)

For foreign-invested enterprises, China is their “local community”, complex stakeholder issues also need to be considered:

“We have always adhered to our commitments to our communities and have joined forces with government, enterprises, public welfare organizations, and other partners to actively respond to the current social problems that need to be solved urgently. Through close attention and active participation, we can give back to the communities we work and live in.” (Case 7)

“We never forget to give back to Chinese society and strive to become an enterprise loved by the Chinese people and an enterprise contributing to Chinese society.” (Case 8)

4.2. Passive Responsible Leadership Behavior

Passive behavior is shaped by the environment of an individual, rather than their personality [62]. According to institutional and organizational environment theories, an organization is a passive conformist and a receiver of the external environment (including formal and informal rules), and its governance structure, strategic behavior, and performance are determined by the external institutional environment [80,81,82]. In the modern business environment, businesses have come under increasing pressure to engage in practices described as corporate social responsibility, many of which are driven by regulatory compliance [65]. Moreover, responsible managerial practices may be an outcome of a firm’s responses to institutional pressures beyond mere compliance with regulatory constraints [67]; for instance, with China’s integration into the global economic system, especially after its entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, the institutional environment of China has changed significantly [29], which threw many Chinese leaders into the tension between business practices based on profit maximization and campaigns promoting social standards and morality; many decisions regarding corporate social responsibility were made under this pressure. This seems to be somewhat similar to reactive corporate social responsibility, but RL behavior is closely related to the personal wishes of leaders [29]. Attitudes and intentions are reliable precedents for actual behavior and can predict the ultimate actions of an individual, which is a generally accepted principle in behavioral science [83]. This is also why we use the word “passive,” rather than “reactive”. Reactive corporate social responsibility refers to a company’s integrity and ethical behavior with respect to merely meeting a country’s laws and regulations [65]. Our research indicated that some RL behaviors may go against the original intentions of leaders; therefore, passive responsible leadership behavior includes reactivity and broader attributes, such as unwillingness and under pressure. Moreover, being proactive involves taking control to make things happen, rather than watching things happen, including plans, assumptions, and predictions. However, responsible leaders will inevitably face moral dilemmas, and passive behavior may happen when unexpected events occur, when things go beyond plan, or when things do not turn out as expected. For example, Oscar Munoz, the CEO of United Airlines, carried out emergency crisis management to save the company’s reputational capital after public opinion caused by the forcible removal of passengers, although the first statement issued by United Airlines was unapologetic [47]. Arthur E. Percival, British Army Lieutenant and commanding officer during the World War II, intentionally disregarded a formal organizational directive from Churchill not to surrender, in order to ensure the survival of the city of Singapore and the lives of millions of civilians and military personnel [25]. They both weighed the pros and cons and made decisions in the context of unexpected emergency events, in order to assume responsibility to a number of their stakeholders, even if the decision was in opposition to their general attitude and/or intention. Thus, we define passive responsible leadership behavior as an act of being responsible to some stakeholders under pressure from external circumstances or when an unexpected event occurs, even though this behavior may go against their original intention. In the following, each antecedent of passive RL behavior is discussed.

4.2.1. Policy and Regulation

Over the past few decades, governments across the globe have recognized the need to promote and formalize corporate social responsibility requirements. The development of CSR in China has been guided by the government as a social legitimacy rebuilding lever, and is state-led and society-driven; meanwhile, enterprises usually lack self-initiative in CSR [84]. Managers were all aware that the most basic bottom line is to comply with laws and regulations, which is repeatedly emphasized in the company’s documents:

“We must respect and abide by local laws and regulations.” (Case 3)

“Abide by relevant laws and regulations, operate in good faith.” (Case 4)

“We comply with the applicable laws and regulations of the country where our business is located.” (Case 6)

“Apple adheres to honesty, abides by applicable laws and regulations.” (Case 7)

Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, China has vigorously launched an anti-corruption campaign and has normalized and institutionalized anti-corruption efforts. Anti-corruption has also become the focus of responsible leaders: “We comply with various national anti-corruption regulations, continue to improve the integrity and compliance management system, and create a culture of integrity.” (Case 1)

Considering the local socio-economic and contextual conditions, the Chinese government has taken steps forward by initiating some policies, calls, and regulatory requirements for corporations to be socially responsible and respond to society’s expectations. For example, over the past few years, China has stepped up its poverty alleviation policy, and many companies have emphasized their contribution to China’s poverty alleviation by responding to the call of the policy in their corporate social responsibility reports:

“At present, China is launching an unprecedented fight against poverty… China Resources Hope Town basically fully responded to these requirements.” (Case 2)

“We are firmly together with the Chinese people in the fight against poverty.” (Case 8)

“We serve the national strategy more actively, help rural revitalization, and fight the final battle for targeted poverty alleviation…” (Case 5)

The socially responsible behavior of managers is associated with compliance policies or profit-motivated responses to public policies and government regulation [67]. Managers often take government policy as guidance, and assume that the government provides a clear and fair-competition environment to effectively achieve their objectives [84]. On one hand, they comply with the constraints of policies and regulations while, on the other hand, they improve their brand image and reputation by fulfilling their responsibilities.

4.2.2. Mass Media

Mass media attention brings various problems into the public eye, and helps the regulatory authorities and public to be aware of the misdeeds of firms [85]. After media coverage and public opinion shifts, responsible leaders make timely and effective corrections. As a manager of Power China said: “We have public opinion monitoring mechanisms all over the world. If news that is unfavorable to us appears in any media around the world, we will take corresponding measures.” (Case 3)

China Resources also has a similar media and public opinion monitoring system: “According to the latest characteristics and development trend of the current media, we dynamically update the public opinion monitoring system.” (Case 2)

Tencent’s mobile game “Honor of Kings” has been commented on by a newspaper as “wasting life” and “constantly releasing negative energy” in 2017 and was criticized for the excessive proportion of minors in its user base. The day after the media comment was released, Tencent’s stock price fell more than 3%. Faced with such a crisis of public opinion, “Honor of Kings” urgently launched a healthy game anti-addiction system, and the product producer Li Min posted on social media: “Games have values. A great game requires more sincere emotions and clearer values. We restrain minors from playing games for the sake of emotions and values… Thank you for your judgment and supervision, and thank you for your tolerance and understanding.” (Case 4)

The response and apology made by leaders under such pressure from the media and public opinion is passive RL behavior. Even these apologies and responses may not be made at first but, instead, become a forced choice under further pressure. For example, in 2016, an explosion of Samsung’s mobile phone product Galaxy note 7 occurred in China. In this regard, Samsung’s first response was they “suspect that it was caused by man-made reasons”. This response triggered dissatisfaction and a trust crisis in Chinese consumers, and attracted further attention from the mass media. Under heavy pressure, Koh DongJin, a senior executive of Samsung group, held a press conference to apologize to Chinese consumers and said that they were fully responsible for product problems (Case 8).

4.2.3. Crisis

As mentioned above, leaders are aware of the possibility of a crisis before the crisis occurs, and it is proactive RL behavior to formulate prevention plans or establish defense mechanisms. However, in the face of a sudden crisis, maintaining stakeholder relationships under unexpected conditions is passive RL behavior. The unprecedented crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic has posed an enormous challenge for stakeholder relationships. COVID-19 has had an inevitable and lasting negative impact on organizational sustainability, and senior leaders must adopt a responsible leadership style to address the crisis [86]. The COVID-19 outbreak has provided us with many examples:

“At the beginning of 2020, the outbreak of COVID-19 spread rapidly throughout the country, the lives and health of the people were seriously threatened. Meanwhile, medical and preventive supplies were all in urgent need. We acted quickly, donated money and materials, produced medical and health raw materials and other urgently needed materials for the fight against the epidemic.” (Case 1)

“Facing the menacing COVID-19, Tencent has launched a series of actions in the past few months to support the global fight against the epidemic, which also illustrates our understanding of responsibility.” (Case 4)

This type of response includes not only the performance after a public health crisis, but also rescue efforts and donations after natural disasters:

“After the dangerous situation of Jinsha River barrier lake occurred, we fully engaged in emergency rescue at the first time.” (Case 3)

“After the Lushan earthquake, we donated money immediately for emergency relief and post-disaster reconstruction.” (Case 7)

In addition, China Resources has undertaken commercial and political responsibilities after a political storm: “After the outbreak of the ‘law amendment storm’ in Hong Kong, the group set up an emergency leading group to issue a position statement on ending violence and chaos through the official platform and Hong Kong mainstream media to perform the dual responsibilities of ‘speaking about business and politics’.” (Case 2)

4.2.4. Local Community Pressure

As mentioned above, leaders take the initiative to consider local economic and social development and ecological environment issues in the course of operating multi-national projects, which is proactive RL behavior. However, some of these responsible activities are forced choices under pressure from local communities and, if they do not “do as the Romans do”, the multi-national projects may not continue. As a manager of China Power Construction stated: “We have encountered a variety of ecological and environmental problems when implementing projects locally. We must carefully consider these problems, otherwise the local community will protest and prevent the construction.” (Case 3)

“Only when enterprises fully consider the impact of their own operations on the community, take positive and effective measures to help solve local people’s livelihood problems and support local education, can they win the support and respect of community residents.” (Case 6)

Table 3. Proactive and passive responsible leadership behavior.

Dimension of Responsible Leadership Behavior
RL Behavior	Antecedents	Features	Examples
Proactive Behavior	Organizational strategy, Organizational culture, Organizational ownership, Mass media, Crisis, Local community	Proactive, Initiative, Voluntary, Planned	Engages in responsible activities in proactive and planned manner
Passive Behavior	Policy and regulation, Mass media, Crisis, Local community	Passive, Reactive, Unexpected, Under pressure, Unwilling, Obeying	Obeying, ethical decision in crisis, involuntary behavior under pressure

illustrates the two dimensions of responsible leadership—that is, proactive and passive RL behavior—providing the associated motivations, features, and examples.

5. Discussion

5.1. From Passive to Proactive

Considering the above analysis, responsible leadership can be effectively divided into two types, through analysis of the antecedents of responsible leadership. One involves managers sincerely hoping to take responsibility, make plans, and voluntarily establish and maintain relationships with stakeholders inside and outside of the organization to achieve economic and/or social development goals; that is, proactive RL behavior. The other involves behaving responsibly by force or a sudden decision, in order to maintain relationships with some stakeholders under external pressure or unexpected circumstances, sometimes even contrary to the actor’s original intention; that is, passive RL behavior. Drawing on the long-established “reaction–defense–accommodation–proaction” typology, firms can be viewed as operating along a continuum of CSR, ranging from reactive to proactive in nature [65]. In the same vein, the boundary between proactivity and passivity of RL behavior is sometimes not completely clear, and there exists a development trend from passive to proactive.

There is a view that, under China’s special economic system, contemporary CSR reporting, certification, and other CSR measures of Chinese enterprises are attributed to the pressure from regulatory constraints, multi-national buyers, investors, and other external influences [75]. However, we find that these pressures could help leaders to shift from passive acceptance of responsibility to proactive assumption of responsibility. At first, they merely abide by laws and regulations and bear basic responsibilities under the constraints of institutional pressure. Over time, their awareness of social responsibility has been improved and they begin to take the initiative to consider promoting environmental protection and social well-being. For example, a multi-national project manager of China Power Construction said, regarding the environmental protection issue in the operation of a multi-national project: “The fastest way to promote the concept of environmental protection is industry norms. When we carry out engineering management, we have introduced international advanced management norms to improve our awareness of environmental protection. With the implementation of the standard, many ideas have changed, the internal management mode has also changed, and an environmental protection management system has been established. Gradually, we passively obeyed the regulations at the beginning, but now we are actively and constantly paying attention to the construction of environmental protection quality.” (Case 3)

At the level of corporate governance, managers consciously cater to the needs of the overall strategic development of enterprises when making decisions and making CSR plans. When the corporate strategy involves keywords such as “sustainability” and “environmental protection,” the relationship with social and environmental stakeholders will be of relative priority; when the key words of corporate strategy involve “economic development,” the stakeholder relationship with shareholders will be of relative priority, and the leaders will be more proactive accordingly. Similarly, differences in organizational ownership also lead to different priorities of the stakeholders; for example, executives of state-owned enterprises may regard the government as a more important stakeholder and, consequently, be more proactive. The corporate strategy controls the shift of executive thinking from passive to proactive, such as Tencent’s view of industrial Internet security strategy, put forward in recent years: “Cut in from the perspective of business strategy, change the traditional thinking of passive defense in the past, and do a good job in active planning and security management.” (Case 4)

Mass media can supervise the behavior of enterprises and executives, through the exposure of corporate misconduct. Media attention has a key impact on corporate image and reputation. As a result, responsible leaders respond, make statements, and/or apologize in the face of negative media reviews and public opinion, in order to save the company’s reputation and corresponding stakeholder relationships. In their daily work, relatively proactive responsible leaders invite the media for open communication and actively cooperate with the media to create a good corporate image, while preparing for the prevention of negative public opinion in advance. In the event of security incidents, political turmoil, natural disasters, health incidents, and other crises, responsible leaders also respond in a timely manner, while taking precautions and issuing early warnings in ordinary times.

In a globalized business environment, there is an increasing number of multi-national business activities. Especially at a time when “the Belt and Road Initiative” is in full swing, many Chinese companies are going overseas to operate businesses, and many foreign-invested companies have begun operating in China. Differences in laws and regulations, institutional culture, customs, and social background between countries are important factors that must be considered in transnational business activities. When a multi-national project is under pressure from the local community, responsible leaders must follow local requirements in order for the project to run smoothly. Only responsible leaders, who fully consider the impact on local communities and take active and effective measures to promote the economic and social development of local communities, can carry their business activities out sustainably and effectively.

5.2. Theoretical and Practical Implications

The literature has put forward several important theoretical and practical implications. By investigating the antecedents and practice of responsible leadership in China, this study significantly contributes to the responsible leadership literature, and provides evidence in the Chinese business context. Our analysis confirms the extant theory, especially regarding the relevance of model of Stahl and Sully de Luque [11]; even when it is applied in a context that is sharply different from where their research was carried out and their construct was created. Considering that most published responsible leadership articles are conceptual [12,87,88] or descriptive [2,89], this confirmation of relevance provides a significant empirical contribution.

This study contributes to advancing theory in the field of leadership and presents new dimensions regarding responsible leadership. This study is also innovative, as it contributes to the development of knowledge about organizations that follow a responsible style of leadership and its formation path, even taking into account the natural idiosyncrasies inherent in Chinese organizations and the Chinese business environment (e.g., the important role of the government, mixed-ownership economy, and ‘the Belt and Road Initiative’). As a transitioning and developing economy, there exist considerable regional differences in the institutional environment in China. We studied the contingent effects of state-owned ownership and policy and regulation on RL behavior. These context-specific antecedents and their contingent factors of responsible leadership serve to enrich the responsible leadership literature.

Most notably, the continuum of responsible leadership develops from passive to proactive, presenting two types of RL behavior: proactive and passive. It is our intention that this finding will assist others to further understand and investigate the mechanisms influencing responsible leadership; which, in turn, may cultivate proactive responsible leaders.

Many of the determinants of RL behavior identified in this paper may be influenced by top management teams, educators, policy makers, and external regulators. Our findings, thus, enhance our understanding of how to cultivate responsible leaders and promote RL behavior. Training and development activities also play an important role in ensuring that managers act responsibly, especially those that are more junior [11]. Through coaching by supervisors, training and development programs, and other socialization practices, we can ensure that individuals understand the strategy, values, expected behaviors, and social knowledge in a manner that allows them to become a responsible member of the organization.

At the organizational level, as responsible leadership is a continuum from passive to proactive, organizations need to tailor their strategies, possibly targeting and drawing on external pressures in some cases to enhance the awareness of responsibility in multi-level managers [75]. They can also cultivate a responsible corporate culture, which can nurture leaders to behave responsibly, thereby creating a psychologically strong environment.

It is believed that the practices found crucial in the responsible style of leadership could form a clear orientation for top management, thus helping to create better workplaces [45]. Therefore, this study also contributes to improving the quality of management and leadership in China. Aspiring entrepreneurs in China should take note of this point, as responsible leadership can pave the way and lay the foundations for successful business collaboration in complex environments.

Given the current situation of the COVID-19 pandemic and its expected post-pandemic consequences, further theoretical development is essential in the field of responsible leadership. Organizations that have adopted a responsible leadership approach are better equipped to face the COVID-19 pandemic [86]. This study can help Chinese companies train responsible leaders to face and overcome the global COVID-19 pandemic and contribute to the future post-pandemic regional economic recovery.

This study also has significant policy implications. Policy makers should make good use of the regulatory role of policies, in order to influence responsible leaders to develop from passive compliance to more proactive performance, thus having a healthier effect on society in terms of well-being.

5.3. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

It should be noted that this study had some limitations. First, this was a thorough and time-consuming qualitative investigation, but the generalizability of the results is subject to certain limitations. Specifically, this study was based on an in-depth analysis of nine selected organizations, where careful interpretations were required by considering contextual issues [90]. Due to the limitations of the second-hand data, our study did not provide enough evidence of the relationships between personal traits and proactive/passive RL behavior, and using second-hand data as the main source could make the study prone to certain errors [44]. We thus suggest that future research combining qualitative with quantitative study is carried out, in order to enrich the information gathered and provide results with reinforced validity and consistency.

The second limitation to our study is that the main research object of this study was senior managers of organizations. However, responsible leadership should apply at all leadership levels. Further studies should help to understand the relative multi-level antecedents of RL behavior of frontline managers, middle managers, senior executives, and directors in each of the phases. Senior executives may have financial and reputational reasons to display RL behaviors. Middle managers may want to achieve quick and short-term profit for career advancement [91]. Frontline managers play a pivotal role in carrying out an organization’s strategy, and serve as a liaison between upper management and employees [25]. Thus, it will be important to conduct research at various leadership levels, in order to determine whether and how organizational factors affect the interpretation of responsible leadership. Further studies may contribute to best practice in this area by shedding light on how organizations can systematically design and utilize corporate governance and leadership development programs to promote the transition of RL behavior from passive to proactive.

Another limitation of this study is that all of the samples in our study were from organizations in China; however, the national culture and institutional environment will affect the viewpoints of leaders regarding stakeholder relationships. This study may not be representative of companies in other countries and, so, future research should be conducted to analyze whether the RL behavior ranges from passive to proactive in a similar manner in varying cultural contexts and institutional environments.

Finally, we hope that this study has opened up new vistas and paved the way for future research on responsible leadership.