The Formation and Evolution of the Resilience of Resource-Based Enterprises Under Continuous Institutional Shocks: An Explanation from the Perspective of Organizational Legitimacy

Abstract

From the perspective of organizational legitimacy acquisition, this study elucidates the sources and formation pathways of resource-based enterprises’ resilience in the face of institutional shocks. It explores the evolution of resilience with the improvement of the resource-based enterprises’ legitimacy under institutional constraints. Using the new mining rights of the resource-based enterprises as the measured variable of organizational resilience under institutional shocks, this study describes the adaptability of the resource-based enterprises to institutional change from the subdivision dimension of pragmatic legitimacy and moral legitimacy. A multi-period fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) approach is adopted, which takes Chinese mining enterprises listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange as samples to obtain the formation pathways and dynamic evolution characteristics of the resilience of the resource-based enterprises under the institutional shocks of the “supply-side structural reforms” (2016–2019) and the “dual-carbon” goals (2020–2022). The results indicate that the differences of institutional shock strength and constraint degree promote different resilience formation mechanisms. The high intensity and hard constraints of the supply-side structural reforms promote the high-resilience pathways of the enterprises based on pragmatic legitimacy. The guiding and incentive orientation of the “dual-carbon” goals promote more improvement in the moral legitimacy of the enterprises, forming high-resilience pathways of “pragmatic legitimacy + moral legitimacy”. Under continuous institutional shocks, influence legitimacy has a universal effect on the formation of high resilience by the resource-based enterprises, and structural legitimacy, as the core condition of the high-resilience pathways, demonstrates continuity. By increasing the subdivision dimension of moral legitimacy and mitigating the limitations of pragmatic legitimacy, resource-based enterprises can achieve breakthroughs in their pathways to high resilience. This study provides valuable insights and guidance for resource-based enterprises seeking to overcome future institutional shocks and achieve resilient growth.

1. Introduction

At present, profound changes that have not been seen for a century are accelerating, and the reshaping of the Global Value Chain is speeding up. In this context, the healthy development of resource-based enterprises, which are considered as the basic industry of the national economy, is of great significance in promoting high-quality economic growth and ensuring national security. The stable supply of energy and mineral resources is fundamental to the security and stability of both industry and supply chains. In 2015, the implementation of China’s supply-side structural reforms posed a serious challenge to the resource-based enterprises. Some enterprises, which were severely affected by weak domestic and international market demand, coupled with outdated technology and environmental pollution issues, were forced to “cut overcapacity” [1]. In September 2020, China announced the goals of reaching peak carbon emissions by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2060 (hereinafter referred to as the “dual-carbon” goals). The “dual-carbon” goals require the resource-based enterprises to accelerate the transition to cleaner production, develop a circular economy, improve energy efficiency, and reduce pollution emissions [2]. The promulgation of multiple policies in a short period of time had a drastic impact on the resource-based enterprises. When the “dual-carbon” goals were proposed, although the supply-side structural reforms of the resource-based enterprises in China had achieved remarkable results, the elimination of backward production capacity and the resettlement of employees in the resource-based industry had yet to be continuously pushed forward, the problems of imbalance and inadequacy of the development of the industry were still prominent, the security of the supply chain and the modernization of the industrial chain had yet to be improved, and many resource-based enterprises had not fully recovered from the impact of the supply-side structural reforms. At this moment, the “timetable” and “roadmap” formulated by the “dual-carbon” goals have put forward precise requirements for the high-quality development of the resource-based enterprises, which has intensified the pressure on the transformation and upgrading of these enterprises [3]. The issue of how the resource-based enterprises can achieve continued survival and development has emerged as a crucial and urgent practical topic that necessitates thorough investigation.

In recent years, resilience, as a unique ability of organizations to continuously adapt to dramatic environmental turbulence [4,5], has gradually become a new perspective for academic research on the survival and development of the resource-based enterprises. According to Resilience Theory, resilience is context-dependent [6,7]. Although the literature is scarce on the resilience of resource-based enterprises, scholars have paid attention to the resilience responses of these enterprises under natural disasters [8], energy transition [9], and economic changes [10]. Despite the increasing diversity of contexts examined in the existing research on the resilience of resource-based enterprises, there are relatively few studies on the impact of institutional changes, especially continuous institutional shocks. Institutions serve as a key and typical context that shapes enterprise behavior. They form the foundation for enterprises to construct all social relations [11], including various legal norms, cultural customs, codes of conduct, and ethical and moral norms [12]. When an enterprise’s behavior aligns with institutional requirements, it is deemed to have legitimacy. With the development of society, the mainstream legal norms, cultural customs, codes of conduct, and ethical and moral norms will change [13,14]. Consequently, enterprises previously recognized by the institutional framework may no longer meet the requirements of the new institutional framework and may need to adjust their behaviors to regain legitimacy. Institutional theory differentiates between efficiency and legitimacy, emphasizing that enterprises should not only have situational awareness of their survival environment but also pay attention to institutional pressures that affect their legitimacy. The resource-based enterprises are at the upstream of the industrial chain, and their development is affected by changes in the institutional environment, macroeconomic conditions, and the development demands of related downstream industries [15]. Specifically, the strategic nature, scarcity, non-renewability, and negative externalities associated with the production processes of resource products render the resource-based industry one of the most heavily regulated sectors in the economy [16]. Thus, using the resource-based enterprises as a sample holds significant typological importance for studying enterprises’ resilience under institutional shocks. Both the supply-side structural reforms and the “dual-carbon” goals are compelling the resource-based enterprises to reacquire, maintain, and enhance their legitimacy. In the context of institutional shocks, whether the behaviors of legitimacy reconstruction of the resource-based enterprises can be recognized by the government reflects the enterprises’ ability to respond resiliently and determines the possibility of their continued survival and development.

Based on the perspective of organizational behavioral legitimacy, this study applies a multi-temporal fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) approach from the two dimensions of pragmatic legitimacy and moral legitimacy to investigate how the resource-based enterprises can form organizational resilience by constructing behavioral legitimacy to cope with the continuous institutional shocks of the supply-side structural reforms and the “dual-carbon” goals. Specifically, this study aims to address the following questions: (1) What are the different pathways to forming resilience in resource-based enterprises under various institutional shocks? (2) From a dynamic perspective, how do the formation pathways of resilience in resource-based enterprises evolve in response to continuous institutional shocks?

This study makes four theoretical contributions to the existing literature: (1) From the perspective of acquiring organizational behavioral legitimacy, this study investigates the sources and formation pathways of organizational resilience. It integrates six key conditional variables related to pragmatic and moral legitimacy to examine how organizational resilience is formed in the resource-based enterprises under institutional shocks. This study not only introduces an innovative perspective on organizational resilience but also enriches and expands the existing literature on the interplay between legitimacy and organizational resilience. (2) This study employs a multi-period fsQCA approach to investigate the formation and evolution of resilience in the resource-based enterprises under the continuous institutional shocks of the supply-side structural reforms and the “dual-carbon” goals. It responds to the urgent need for a coherent and systematic research context on organizational resilience [6] and enriches the organizational resilience research context. (3) This study identifies the characteristics of different institutions and explains the evolution of resilience under continuous institutional shocks. It sheds light on the black box of how the institutional environment affects the resilience of the resource-based enterprises. Specifically, institutional logic shapes enterprises’ decision-making and resource allocation, thereby establishing a robust framework of behavioral legitimacy that enhances organizational resilience. (4) This study utilizes “new mining rights” as an indicator to measure the resilience of the resource-based enterprises. This approach not only enriches the theoretical framework of research on enterprise resilience in resource-dependent contexts but also offers a more scientifically grounded assessment tool for practical applications. Such a tool facilitates the resource-based enterprises in effectively coping with institutional shocks and enhancing their capacity for resilience development.

2. Mechanism Interpretation and Model Construction

2.1. Theoretical Foundation

Suchman pointed out that the legitimacy of organizational behavior refers to the extent to which an enterprise’s behavior is regarded as desirable, reasonable, or appropriate within mainstream social norms, values, beliefs, and meaning systems [11]. Scholars often employ the theory of legitimacy to explain the complex interaction between organizational behavior and the social environment [17,18]. For instance, Fu Hui et al. once used the theory of legitimacy to explain how enterprises can achieve sustainable development [19]. With sustained economic development and growing environmental awareness, the resource-based enterprises are facing increasingly stringent external constraints and regulatory requirements. Particularly over the past decade, the Chinese government has implemented a series of significant policy reforms, such as the supply-side structural reforms. These policy changes have imposed unprecedented pressures and challenges on the resource-based enterprises. Under such institutional shocks, the theory of legitimacy offers a robust theoretical framework for analyzing the resilient development pathways of these enterprises.

According to Suchman, organizational behavioral legitimacy includes three types of legitimacy: pragmatic legitimacy, moral legitimacy, and cognitive legitimacy. Pragmatic legitimacy emphasizes the reasonableness and effectiveness of an organization’s behavior in terms of its practical effects, that is, whether it can achieve the desired goals or outcomes. Moral legitimacy focuses on whether an organization’s behavior is in line with socially accepted ethical norms and values. Cognitive legitimacy highlights the reasonableness and logic of the organization’s process of information processing, decision-making, and cognitive construction [11]. In the context of the supply-side structural reforms and the “dual-carbon” goals, the government’s value judgment on the behaviors of the resource-based enterprises encompasses both economic and non-economic behaviors. On the economic side, this includes whether the enterprises can provide products to meet customers’ demands, maintain stakeholder relations, and demonstrate industrial strength. On the non-economic side, the evaluation considers whether they take measures to effectively reduce environmental pollution, carry out safe and clean production in accordance with policy requirements, and implement green and low-carbon transformation. Meanwhile, the resource-based enterprises, as social organizations under institutional constraints, can only passively adapt to the new requirements of institutional shocks and do not have the option of active decision-making. The pragmatic legitimacy and moral legitimacy of the resource-based enterprises’ behaviors are the key factors to gain government recognition, while cognitive legitimacy is not considered as a factor by the government. The essence of pragmatic legitimacy lies in whether the existence of an organization can increase its own wealth and that of its stakeholders while complying with the general market exchange rules, which are manifested in the ability to meet the demands of stakeholders’ practical interests. When market demand changes or competitors enter, the pragmatic legitimacy of an organization may be at risk. If an enterprise has already possessed moral legitimacy in its long-term operation, it will effectively mitigate the loss of pragmatic legitimacy [11,20]. Moral legitimacy evaluates organizations and their behaviors from the perspective of social institutional norms. It assesses whether organizations and their behaviors are appropriate and whether they effectively promote social welfare within the scope of the social system. Moral legitimacy expands the existence logic of organizations beyond narrow self-interest and is more likely to inhibit their self-interested behavior. Therefore, this study draws on the research of Handelman and Arnold [21] to investigate the impact of behavioral legitimacy on the resilience formation pathways of the resource-based enterprises, considering both the pragmatic legitimacy and moral legitimacy dimensions. To further clarify the mechanism of pragmatic legitimacy and moral legitimacy on the formation of resilience by the resource-based enterprises, this study draws on Suchman’s [11] subdivided dimensions; divides pragmatic legitimacy into exchange legitimacy, influence legitimacy, and dispositional legitimacy; and divides moral legitimacy into consequential legitimacy, procedural legitimacy, and structural legitimacy. The reason for not including personal legitimacy in the research framework of moral legitimacy is that China’s resource-based enterprises are predominantly state-owned. Senior managers are appointed by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) at all levels, which makes it difficult for the senior managers of state-owned enterprises to gain public recognition based on the differences in their management styles (see

Table 1. Legitimacy dimensions of this study.

Legitimacy Dimension	Sub-Dimension	Description	The Influence on Organizational Resilience
Pragmatic Legitimacy	Exchange Legitimacy	Exchange legitimacy refers to the fact that customers, from the perspective of transactions, judge whether organizational behavior is reasonable based on whether it benefits their interests.	Exchange legitimacy contributes to the development of organizational resilience.
	Influence Legitimacy	Influence legitimacy is the judgment made by stakeholders on the reasonableness of organizational behavior from the perspective of their own interests [11].	Influence legitimacy contributes to the development of organizational resilience.
	Dispositional Legitimacy	Dispositional legitimacy refers to the overall quality, that is, the intrinsic quality of an enterprise, presented by an enterprise that has established a modern enterprise management system through the realization of the organic combination of various production and management elements.	Dispositional legitimacy contributes to the development of organizational resilience.
Moral Legitimacy	Consequential Legitimacy	Consequential legitimacy refers to the evaluation made by the public of the results or consequences produced by enterprises [22].	Consequential legitimacy contributes to the development of organizational resilience.
	Procedural Legitimacy	Procedural legitimacy refers to whether the enterprises adopt techniques and procedures recognized by society and industry in their production processes [23].	Procedural legitimacy contributes to the development of organizational resilience.
	Structural Legitimacy	Structural legitimacy pertains to the extent to which an enterprise establishes its organizational structure in alignment with societal norms during its operational processes [11].	Structural legitimacy contributes to the development of organizational resilience.

).

2.2. The Resilience of Resource-Based Enterprises Under Institutional Shocks

The supply-side structural reforms require resource-based enterprises to implement “cutting overcapacity, reducing excess inventory, deleveraging, lowering costs, and strengthening areas of weakness”, and the difference in the resilience response of the resource-based enterprises is reflected in the following: resource-based enterprises with small production scale and backward technology are unable to meet the new institutional requirements for legitimacy and have been eliminated and withdrawn; resource-based enterprises with large production scale but backward production capacity and excess low-end production capacity can only partially meet the new institutional requirements for legitimacy and need to accelerate the elimination of excess production capacity in order to regain legitimacy; resource-based enterprises with large production scale and advanced technology, which are encouraged by the government to merge and reorganize small and medium-sized enterprises, need to further improve the standards of safety, environmental protection, energy consumption, technology, and other standards of running enterprises and production level in order to enhance legitimacy. The “dual-carbon” goals emphasize the shift from the production side of governance to the whole process of governance. These goals aim to accelerate the green transformation of the development mode and drive a systemic revolution in economic and social development [24]. From the perspective of the process of resilience formation, institutional shocks put forward new requirements for the legitimacy of organizational behavior. If the enterprises partially meet the requirements of legitimacy, the process of re-acquisition, maintenance, and improvement of legitimacy is the process of resilience in response to the institutional shocks. Conversely, if the legitimate requirements are entirely unmet, the enterprises will face direct extinction.

“Organizational resilience” denotes an enterprise’s dynamic capability to rapidly recover or even surpass its previous state following internal and external shocks [25,26,27]. It represents the unique quality exhibited by an enterprise in its response to various challenges [6]. After being affected by institutional shocks, general enterprises achieve resilient development through adapting to environmental changes, enhancing production efficiency, and fulfilling market demands [28]. However, for the resource-based enterprises, their products are highly homogeneous and have low added value, making it challenging to achieve resilient responses by meeting differentiated market demands. As typical enterprises with resource acquisition as their core competitive advantage [15], resource-based enterprises rely on government authorization for resource extraction. In China, the government is the owner of all natural resource assets [29] and holds key resources that affect the survival and development of the resource-based enterprises, such as mining and exploration licenses [30]. Particularly during periods of substantial institutional change, the government decides whether to grant corresponding mining rights to the resource-based enterprises by judging whether their behaviors are legitimate [31,32]. The continuous acquisition of resource exploitation rights by the resource-based enterprises reflects their position within the industrial ecosystem, signifying their value as efficient economic organizations within this system. Additionally, it demonstrates their adaptability to the institutional environment, indicating their capacity to fulfill social responsibilities and adhere to social norms effectively. Consequently, society does not oppose the allocation of resources to such enterprises by the resource owner. Therefore, resource extraction rights can be used as an indicator for assessing the organizational resilience of resource-based enterprises under institutional shocks, reflecting the ability of the resource-based enterprises to survive, rebound, and bounce back in the face of institutional shocks. The resilience formation process of resource-based enterprises under major institutional shocks is shown in Figure 1.

2.3. The Mechanism of Organizational Behavioral Legitimacy on the Resilience of Resource-Based Enterprises

2.3.1. The Mechanism of Pragmatic Legitimacy on the Resilience of Resource-Based Enterprises

• The Mechanism of Exchange Legitimacy on the Resilience of Resource-Based Enterprises

Dowling and Pfeffer [13] argue that the stakeholders of an organization decide whether to support it based on whether the organization benefits their interests. It is usually manifested as a direct exchange of interests between resource-based enterprises and their customers. Specifically, the resource-based enterprises establish a “direct reciprocal relationship” with the customers by providing products, thereby demonstrating to the government their ability to meet customer demands [33].

Under the impact of the supply-side structural reforms, the resource-based enterprises have eliminated backward production capacity, optimized the supply structure of products, and increased the added value of products through technological improvements to meet the high-quality demands of downstream industries for resource-based products. With the promotion of the “dual-carbon” goals, green and low-carbon development has changed the demand structure of energy and mineral resources. The rise of new energy forces traditional energy to transform from primary energy to supporting and regulating energy. The intermittent and fluctuating characteristics of new energy supply have put forward higher requirements for the agility and flexibility of traditional energy supply. While providing clean energy products to customers, traditional energy enterprises also play the role of supporting, regulating, and providing a safety net for the modern energy system [34]. The government’s concern for traditional resource supply has gradually shifted from the economy to security. Stability of supply efficiency and guarantee efficiency of resource-based enterprises has become an essential prerequisite for their legitimacy. The resource-based enterprises generate corresponding economic returns while providing the energy products to the customers. The government evaluates the business conditions and market competitiveness of the resource-based enterprises based on their economic returns, then judges their productivity and resource abundance and decides whether to grant resource extraction rights to these enterprises. Therefore, in the context of institutional shocks, having exchange legitimacy is essential for the resource-based enterprises to gain government recognition.

• The Mechanism of Influence Legitimacy on the Resilience of Resource-Based Enterprises

The stakeholder theory suggests that while meeting the interests of shareholders, enterprises need to meet the interests of creditors, employees, suppliers, customers (or consumers), society, government, and other relevant groups [35]. Suchman [11] argues that influence legitimacy occurs when an organization incorporates the stakeholders into its decision-making structure or adopts the performance standards of the stakeholders as its own criteria. The fulfillment of social responsibility by resource-based enterprises is a specific behavior that is in line with the public interest after weighing the expectations of the stakeholders and the organizational performance [36] and is externally manifested as the disclosure of social responsibility information [37]. The disclosure of enterprises’ social responsibility information conveys positive signals to the outside world, such as the enterprises’ concern for the stakeholders’ rights and interests and their sense of responsibility. The more positive signals the stakeholders perceive, the more likely they are to support and recognize the enterprises’ behavior [38]. This, in turn, helps the enterprises to achieve influence legitimacy [39].

Under the impact of institutional shocks, the resource-based enterprises fulfill their social responsibility and strengthen social responsibility information disclosure, which helps to enhance their moral capital and social capital. Among them, moral capital [40] encourages the stakeholders to make allowances for the performance decline caused by shocks experienced by the resource-based enterprises, mitigates negative evaluations, and reduces public opinion pressure. Social capital [41,42] is an important way to help enterprises gain social recognition and search for and absorb external resources, and it is a key factor for enterprises to seek breakthroughs during shocks [35,43,44]. The acquisition of moral capital and social capital by resource-based enterprises endows the government with the impression of being responsible and accountable to the enterprises, thus generating an insurance-like effect: on the one hand, it enhances the enterprises’ ability to respond effectively to institutional shocks and lays the foundation for sound development of the enterprises; on the other hand, it also enhances the government’s recognition of the legitimacy of their behaviors. Therefore, in the context of institutional shocks, having influence legitimacy is essential for the resource-based enterprises to gain government recognition.

• The Mechanism of Dispositional Legitimacy on the Resilience of Resource-Based Enterprises

Due to information asymmetry, it is difficult for the government, society, and other stakeholders to fully understand the entire process of production and operation activities of the resource-based enterprises. The explicit characteristics, such as operational efficiency, business conditions, and industry influence, have become the criteria for judging the intrinsic quality of the resource-based enterprises and are used as the decision-making reference points for whether to continue to recognize their legitimacy [45].

Under the impact of the supply-side structural reforms, scale and asset utilization efficiency are the basic thresholds for the survival of the resource-based enterprises. Large scale means that the enterprise is rich in resources and has the necessary resource conditions to cope with shocks. The enterprise can utilize its resources to adapt to the situation and constantly optimize the product structure, thereby maintaining stable development. High asset utilization efficiency indicates that the enterprise operates at a high level, enabling its unit assets to generate higher income. Under the impact of the “dual-carbon” goals, the large scale and high efficiency of the resource-based enterprises indicate that they have the ability to respond flexibly and agilely to the market demands, which helps them accelerate the transformation [46]. The high efficiency of asset utilization aligns with the national policy orientation of supporting and guiding all kinds of enterprises to improve the utilization efficiency of resource factors and the level of operation. Therefore, in the context of institutional shocks, having dispositional legitimacy is essential for the resource-based enterprises to gain government recognition.

2.3.2. The Mechanism of Moral Legitimacy on the Resilience of Resource-Based Enterprises

• The Mechanism of Consequential Legitimacy on the Resilience of Resource-Based Enterprises

In the early days, the production of resource-based products aimed at maximizing output, but with the changes in the social environment, the improvement of environmental protection requirements, and technological progress, the requirements for green and clean production of resource-based products have subsequently increased, which requires the resource-based enterprises to make corresponding improvements to the products they produce. Although the production process of the resource-based enterprises provides products for society, they also damage the environment and produce pollutants that affect the health of residents. Given the limited rationality of the resource-based enterprises and the public attributes of environmental resources, the discharge of pollutants leads to a negative externality in the production process of the resource-based enterprises. The public judges whether the behavior of the resource-based enterprises has consequential legitimacy based on their pollution control situations.

During the period of the supply-side structural reforms, the government emphasized bottom-line thinking and tightened environmental access. Environmental protection became a red line having veto power. In the “dual-carbon” goals phase, the government emphasized the dialectical unity of bottom-line thinking and extreme thinking, requiring the resource-based enterprises to replace traditional production methods with cleaner and greener production technologies and production methods to reduce pollution emissions and social welfare losses. As regulations became stricter, the resource-based enterprises actively adapted to institutional regulations and reduced pollution emissions to meet or even exceed the government’s expectations. The stronger the active adaptability of resource-based enterprises and the higher the degree to which they exceed the government’s expectations, the easier it is for them to gain government recognition. Conversely, resource-based enterprises that failed to adjust their organizational behaviors in accordance with institutional regulations did not meet the new requirements for consequential legitimacy. They may have faced public opposition, been punished or banned by the government, and found it difficult to sustain themselves. Therefore, in the context of institutional shocks, having consequential legitimacy is essential for the resource-based enterprises to gain government recognition.

• The Mechanism of Procedural Legitimacy on the Resilience of Resource-Based Enterprises

The adoption of these techniques and procedures enables enterprises to signal to the outside that they are working sincerely and diligently to achieve their worthy goals, thereby indicating the adoption of scientifically managed processes, methods, and approaches in their operations. In situations where clear result measurement standards are lacking, procedural legitimacy becomes paramount. Furthermore, even when results are easily measurable, it remains essential to associate appropriate techniques and procedures with positive ethical values.

During the period of the supply-side structural reforms, the government encouraged the resource-based enterprises to actively implement technological transformations and rectify production links and processes having significant safety hazards. By implementing technological upgrades in accordance with government regulations and enhancing safety production governance, the resource-based enterprises achieved procedural legitimacy. Following the introduction of the “dual-carbon” goals, the government required the resource-based enterprises to comprehensively use artificial intelligence, 5G, big data, blockchain, and other new technologies to comprehensively improve their level of intelligent construction under the premise of guaranteeing a safe and stable supply. This requires the resource-based enterprises to accelerate their transformation from traditional “labor-intensive + capital-intensive” models to “technology-driven + capital-intensive” models to obtain procedural legitimacy. The extent to which the technologies and procedures used by the resource-based enterprises are in line with government requirements is the basis for the government to judge whether the enterprises have met the basic rules of safe and green production in the production process. Therefore, in the context of institutional shocks, having procedural legitimacy is essential for the resource-based enterprises to gain government recognition.

• The Mechanism of Structural Legitimacy on the Resilience of Resource-Based Enterprises

All the operational activities of the enterprise must rely on a particular organizational structure to be completed. Possessing a well-structured organization serves as the fundamental prerequisite for ensuring the smooth functioning and sustainability of business operations [30]. Structural legitimacy emphasizes the continuous optimization of the organizational system over time, eventually forming a formal organizational structure with generality. Enterprises having structural legitimacy are more likely to gain public trust.

According to the relevant requirements of China’s Work Safety Law, resource-based enterprises need to set up a production safety department with specialized staff; otherwise, they will face the risk of being shut down. The resource-based enterprises should set up corresponding organizational structures in accordance with these requirements to maintain legitimacy [22]. Against the background of the “dual-carbon” goals, the ESG performance of enterprises received extensive attention from all sectors of society. Some resource-based enterprises made conscious adjustments to their organizational structures; for instance, Guizhou Panjiang and China Coal Energy established environmental protection departments. Unlike the previous establishment of production safety departments in accordance with the government’s mandatory requirements, the establishment of “environmental protection departments” by the resource-based enterprises is an active act to obtain government recognition. The acquisition of structural legitimacy by the resource-based enterprises is the prerequisite for securing process legitimacy [22], and it is a manifestation of actively adapting to the requirements of sustainable development. Therefore, in the context of institutional shocks, having structural legitimacy is essential for the resource-based enterprises to gain government recognition.

2.4. Differences in Resilience Formation Pathways of Resource-Based Enterprises Under Continuous Institutional Shocks

The supply-side structural reforms clearly focus on resource-based industries such as steel and coal. These reforms employ market-oriented and law-based measures, including safety, environmental protection, quality, energy consumption, and industrial policies, to actively promote the exit of excess capacity. This represents a short-term, urgent, and significant institutional shock that has a mandatory impact on the production and operation of the resource-based enterprises. The resource-based enterprises lack the necessary time to prepare for this institutional shock and have limited available response pathways, so they need to passively adapt to the changes in the institutional environment in each unexpected situation, exert the ability to respond on each occasion, and creatively solve the crisis [47] to reshape the legitimacy of organizational behavior as soon as possible. However, the “dual-carbon” goals emphasize the green development of the entire economy and society, rather than targeting specific industries. They call for a comprehensive approach to balancing carbon emission reduction with the existing energy structure and the process of industrialization. It can be seen that the impact of the “dual-carbon” goals on the resource-based enterprises is a long-term, non-emergency institutional shock, which is both guiding and encouraging. As the “dual-carbon” goals are clear, the resource-based enterprises have enough time to establish situational awareness, reconstruct internal and external resources, manage organizational weaknesses, and proactively seek to match with the institutional environment to adapt to the government’s regulatory requirements and mitigate the impacts of the institutional shocks. In short, the resilience of the resource-based enterprises under the impact of the supply-side structural reforms depends on their behavioral legitimacy at the beginning of the reforms. In contrast, the resilience of the resource-based enterprises at the stage of the “dual-carbon” goals depends on their ability to adjust their behavior and adapt to regulations to obtain, maintain, and improve their behavioral legitimacy. Therefore, the resilience formation pathways of the resource-based enterprises are heterogeneous when they encounter the impacts of the supply-side structural reforms and the “dual-carbon” goals. Meanwhile, the “dual-carbon” goals are a new shock superimposed on the completion of the first phase of supply-side structural reforms, but the resource-based enterprises have not yet fully recovered, which exacerbates the impact of the supply-side structural reforms on the resource-based enterprises. The pathways to resilience of the resource-based enterprises under the “dual-carbon” goals should be characterized by continuity after the supply-side structural reforms. Thus, the resilience pathways of the resource-based enterprises under two major institutional shocks should be both heterogeneous and continuous.

2.5. Research Framework

Based on the above analysis, this study constructs a research framework for the formation of resilience in the resource-based enterprises from the perspective of organizational behavior legitimacy (see Figure 2).

3. Research Design

3.1. Research Method

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is a method for studying complex causal relationships, combining the characteristics of both qualitative and quantitative research. It is suitable for analyzing causal relationships under the interaction of multiple factors and is capable of effectively dealing with causal complexity and heterogeneity. QCA is based on Boolean algebra and Set Theory [48]. By analyzing the logical relationships between conditions, it identifies the combinations of conditions that can explain the outcomes, thereby revealing the causal pathways of different condition combinations to the outcomes [49,50].

In this study, we employ the multi-temporal fsQCA approach, primarily for two reasons. Firstly, the fsQCA approach is suitable for medium-sized sample research. The object of this research is resource-based enterprises. Existing studies have mostly adopted the definition of the scope of resource-based enterprises by Wang and Guo [51]. However, there are significant differences between the mining industry and the primary processing industry in the scope of operation; combined with the research objective of this study, the mining industry is the most typical industry affected by the impacts of the supply-side structural reforms and the “dual-carbon” goals. Thus, this study only includes the mining enterprises within its scope. Considering the availability of data, we further focus the research on Chinese enterprises listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange as samples, obtaining a total sample of 84 enterprises. After eliminating the enterprises having incomplete data, 52 remained. The sample size is medium and suitable for research using the fsQCA approach.

Secondly, the multi-period fsQCA approach can capture changes in the configuration of the outcome variable over an extended period, thereby exploring its evolutionary characteristics and trends [52]. This aligns with the research objectives of this study.

Referring to the practice of Vis et al. [53], this study uses “major policy introduction” as the basis for defining the time period. The “supply-side structural reforms” were first proposed by the Central Leading Group for Financial and Economic Affairs on 10 November 2015. This date is taken as the benchmark point for the policy. Considering the lag in policy effects, the year 2016 is regarded as the first year when enterprises were impacted by the supply-side structural reforms. Similarly, China’s announcement on 22 September 2020 stated that “carbon dioxide emissions will strive to peak before 2030 and carbon neutrality will be achieved before 2060.” This is taken as the benchmark point for the “dual-carbon” goals. Accordingly, the year 2020 is regarded as the first year when enterprises were impacted by these goals. Therefore, this study divides the research period into “Period 1: the impact phase of supply-side structural reforms (2016–2019)” and “Period 2: the impact phase of the ‘dual-carbon’ goals (2020–2022)”.

3.2. Case Selection and Data Sources

As of December 2022, there were 84 listed enterprises in the mining industry (B) on China’s A-share market. Following the principle of “sufficient homogeneity” of QCA case samples [48], this study selected 72 enterprises from five industries, B06–B10, under the “mining industry (B)” category as the research sample. After eliminating 20 enterprises having missing data, the remaining 52 enterprises were taken as the final study cases. The relevant data of the research samples were mainly obtained from the CSMAR database, Wind database, annual reports of enterprises, official websites of enterprises, etc.

3.3. Variables Measurement and Calibration

3.3.1. Outcome Variables

Resource-based Enterprises’ Resilience (EER): we measure EER using “new mining rights” in the “intangible assets” section of the balance sheet. The resource-based enterprises mainly engage in the mining of mineral resources. However, as their production activities continue to advance, the exploitable resources they possess will gradually decrease [54,55]. Whether they can obtain new mining rights is an important indicator restricting the sustainable development of the resource-based enterprises. Thus, “new mining rights” reflect the ability of the enterprises to actively engage in legitimate behaviors to gain government recognition and secure essential resources.

3.3.2. Conditional Variables

Exchange Legitimacy (EL): Exchange legitimacy is used to measure the degree to which an enterprise can meet the basic pragmatic legitimacy needs of its customers. It is achieved through the exchange of resources under the principle of fair market transactions, where the enterprise provides products and the customers are willing to purchase them, indicating that the enterprise has exchange legitimacy [13]. Under fair market conditions, the higher the operating profit, the higher the degree to which the enterprise satisfies its customers. To account for the differences in enterprise scales and to ensure data comparability, the operating profit margin is employed as a measurement indicator of the exchange legitimacy in the resource-based enterprises.

Influence Legitimacy (IL): Social responsibility disclosure items and ESG scores are used to measure the extent to which the resource-based enterprises meet the basic pragmatic interests of other stakeholders during the supply-side structural reforms and the “dual-carbon” goals, respectively. Among them, the social responsibility disclosure items are derived from the social responsibility statistics of the CSMAR database. According to the total of 10 items of information included in the social responsibility disclosure items of listed companies, such as shareholder rights protection, creditor rights protection, employee rights protection, and supplier rights protection, each disclosed item counts as “1”, and the annual data are accumulated. The ESG scores are derived from the ESG scores of listed companies in the Wind database. The reason for adopting different indicators to measure the influence legitimacy of the resource-based enterprises in the two phases, respectively, is that with the continuous promotion of China’s comprehensive green economic and social transformation, the China Securities Regulatory Commission’s clear requirement for listed companies to disclose environmental information (E), fulfillment of social responsibilities such as poverty alleviation (S), and information related to corporate governance (G) in 2018, ESG has increasingly become a way to promote the protection of the environment and the fulfillment of social responsibility by enterprises and to enhance market confidence. It has become an important means for enterprises to enhance government recognition.

Dispositional Legitimacy (DL): The degree of the internal overall quality of resource-based enterprises is measured by the fixed asset turnover ratio. Fixed asset turnover ratio = operating income/net fixed assets. It reflects the efficiency of enterprises to generate income from fixed assets, which is especially important for capital-intensive enterprises. It can characterize the production and operation efficiency and management capacity of enterprises, applicable to the horizontal comparison between enterprises. The supply-side structural reforms and the “dual-carbon” goals require the resource-based enterprises to improve the efficiency of asset utilization, so the “fixed asset turnover ratio” is chosen as a measurement indicator of the dispositional legitimacy of the resource-based enterprises.

Consequential Legitimacy (CL): This study uses “pollutant emissions” to measure the consequences or impacts of the resource-based enterprises’ operations. The main pollutant emissions of the resource-based enterprises are chemical oxygen demand, ammonia nitrogen emissions, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and dust. Due to the varying types of pollutants emitted by the enterprises, to ensure data comparability, we refer to the research of Mao et al. [56] and use the “Sewage Charge Levy Standard Management Measures” to determine the pollution equivalent value for the seven types of pollutant emissions. This standardized treatment allows us to obtain the pollutant emission equivalent value, which serves as a measure of pollutant emissions for the resource-based enterprises.

Procedural Legitimacy (PrL): The safety compliance in the production process of the resource-based enterprises is a vital aspect of gaining government and social recognition. The Production Safety Law (2014 Revision) clearly states that production enterprises should strengthen production safety to prevent and reduce production safety accidents. At the end of 2023, the State Council issued the Regulation on Coal Mine Safety, which requires that coal mine enterprises should fulfill their main responsibility for production safety, improve production safety, and ensure safe production. At the same time, the State Council encouraged and supported scientific and technological research on coal mine safety production and the popularization and application of advanced technologies and techniques in coal mine safety production, enhancing the level of intelligent mining in coal mines and improving the level of safety production. Therefore, the ratio of the number of deaths in production safety accidents to the total business revenue is selected as the measurement indicator of the procedural legitimacy of the resource-based enterprises.

Structural Legitimacy (SL): According to whether the enterprise has set up a production safety department and environmental protection department as the measurement indicator of the structural legitimacy, each of the above-mentioned departments shall be counted as 1; otherwise, it shall be counted as 0. The missing value is handled as follows: according to the provisions of the Production Safety Law (2014 Revision), the production, operation, and storage of mines shall set up a production safety department or be equipped with full-time work safety management personnel. The establishment of a production safety department by resource-based enterprises is mandatory, so the missing value shall be filled in as 1. However, there is no mandatory requirement from the state for enterprises to establish an environmental protection department, so the missing value should be filled in with 0.

3.3.3. Calibration

This study mainly adopts the direct calibration method to calibrate the outcome variables and conditional variables. Drawing on a study by Schneider and Wagemann [57], the three anchor points of full membership, crossover point, and full non-membership of each variable were set to 75%, 50%, and 25% of the case data, respectively (

Table 2. Variable calibration for each period.

Period	Period 1 (2016–2019)			Period 2 (2020–2022)
	Full Membership	Crossover Point	Full Non-Membership	Full Membership	Crossover Point	Full Non-Membership
EER	3.328	0.473	0.024	7.757	1.098	0.063
EL	16.963	5.999	1.743	53.790	17.371	2.826
IL	8.190	6.750	4.060	6.610	5.920	5.550
DL	2.969	1.485	1.043	3.311	1.650	1.115
CL	−0.14482	−0.14532	−0.14575	−0.14856	−0.14901	−0.14903
PrL	0.0000	−0.010	−0.100	0.000	−0.010	−0.050
SL	2.000	1.333	1.000	2.000	1.500	1.000

). The calibration anchor points of each variable are shown in Table 2. To avoid theoretical difficulties in set calculations, the calibrated value of 0.5 was adjusted to 0.501.

4. Data Analysis

4.1. Necessary Conditions Analysis

In this study, the fsQCA3.0 software is used to analyze the single conditional variable necessary conditions for the resilience of the resource-based enterprises. The results (

Table 3. Results of the necessary analysis for each period.

	Period	Period 1 (2016–2019) EER1		Period 2 (2020–2022) EER2
Conditional Variable		Consistency	Coverage	Consistency	Coverage
EL		0.696	0.673	0.642	0.671
~EL		0.429	0.397	0.451	0.416
IL		0.697	0.649	0.660	0.635
~IL		0.443	0.425	0.450	0.450
DL		0.518	0.513	0.512	0.531
~DL		0.587	0.531	0.560	0.520
CL		0.496	0.462	0.615	0.617
~CL		0.662	0.636	0.467	0.448
PrL		0.865	0.516	0.888	0.553
~PrL		0.230	0.522	0.208	0.480
SL		0.316	0.821	0.354	0.764
~SL		0.762	0.440	0.733	0.465

) show that the consistency of all the conditional variables is below the threshold value of 0.9, which means that there are no necessary legitimacy conditions for the resource-based enterprises to generate high resilience during the supply-side structural reforms and the “dual-carbon” goals.

4.2. Configuration Analysis

Drawing on a study by Du and Jia [49], the consistency threshold was set to 0.8, the PRI consistency threshold was set to 0.7, and the frequency threshold was set to 1. The fsQCA3.0 software was used to analyze the legitimacy configurations that led to high resilience of the resource-based enterprises in Period 1 and Period 2, respectively (

Table 4. Results of configuration pathway analysis for each period.

	Period	Period 1 (2016–2019) EER1			Period 2 (2020–2022) EER2
Conditional Variable		A1	A2	A3	B1a	B1b	B2	B3
Pragmatic legitimacy	EL	⬤	•	⬤	•		•	⊗
	IL	⬤	⬤	⬤	⬤	⬤	⬤	⬤
	DL	⬤		⊗	⊗	⊗	•	•
Moral legitimacy	CL	•	⊗	⊗	⬤	⬤		⬤
	PrL	•	•	⊗		•	⬤	⬤
	SL		⬤	⊗	⊗	⊗	⬤	⊗
Consistency		0.899	0.913	0.888	0.937	0.922	0.896	0.842
Raw coverage		0.198	0.205	0.077	0.211	0.162	0.227	0.090
Unique coverage		0.145	0.140	0.024	0.115	0.041	0.110	0.035
Overall solution consistency		0.895			0.878
Overall solution coverage		0.376			0.440

Notes: Black circles indicate the presence of a condition, and the circles with “x” indicate the absence of a condition. Large circles indicate core conditions and small circles peripheral ones. Blank spaces indicate “not important”.

). The configurations found in this study are named according to the grouping theorizing process.

As can be seen in Table 3, the consistency of the solutions in Period 1 and Period 2 is 0.895 and 0.878, respectively, indicating that the solutions in both periods exhibit high internal consistency. These configurations demonstrate high reliability in explaining the high resilience of the resource-based enterprises under institutional shocks. During Period 1 (supply-side structural reforms), there are three high-resilience configurations (A1, A2, A3) identified for the resource-based enterprises, with overall solution coverage of 0.376, indicating that under the supply-side structural reforms, 37.6% of the sample enterprises achieved high resilience through the configurations A1–A3. Similarly, during Period 2 (the “dual-carbon” goals), there are four high-resilience configurations identified for the resource-based enterprises (B1a, B1b, B2, and B3), with overall solution coverage of 0.44, meaning that under the “dual-carbon” goals, 44.0% of the sample enterprises achieved high resilience through the configurations B1a–B3. Among these, B1a and B1b formed a second-order equivalent configuration. The following section provides a detailed analysis of the high-resilience configurations (pathways) of the resource-based enterprises under each institutional shock.

There are significant differences in the composition of core conditions between configurations A1–A3 and configurations B1a–B3. The core conditions of configurations A1–A3 are mainly characterized by pragmatic legitimacy. Except for one core condition in configuration A2 that belongs to moral legitimacy, all the other core conditions belong to pragmatic legitimacy. In contrast, the core conditions of configurations B1a–B3 are characterized by both pragmatic legitimacy and moral legitimacy.

4.2.1. Configurations of High Resilience of Resource-Based Enterprises Under the Impact of Supply-Side Structural Reforms

• Pragmatic Legitimacy Oriented Type (Configuration A1: EL*IL*DL*CL*PrL)

Configuration A1 shows that the behavioral legitimacy model of the resource-based enterprises having the three pragmatic legitimacy attributes as the core conditions, and consequential legitimacy and procedural legitimacy as the peripheral conditions, can effectively cope with the supply-side structural reforms and form high resilience. That is, the resource-based enterprises benefit from a relatively high level of pragmatic legitimacy, which enables them to form high resilience. However, the degree of structural legitimacy does not significantly impact the positive effects of the resource-based enterprises’ resilience. Typical cases in this type are Yankuang Energy, China Coal Energy, Jizhong Energy, Shanxi Coking Coal, CMOC, and Panjiang. In terms of exchange legitimacy, the operating profit margins of these enterprises were ranked at the forefront of all the sample enterprises. To cope with the supply-side structural reforms, they adopted multiple approaches to ensure the stable improvement of their main business. Meanwhile, they had continuously optimized their product structure to increase their operating revenues and profitability. Regarding influence legitimacy, these enterprises actively fulfilled their social responsibilities and gained recognition from the government and society thanks to their robust corporate integrity systems, high market quality, and credit management practices. For example, Shanxi Coking Coal was honored as the “Best Integrity Management Benchmark Enterprise of Chinese Listed Companies in 2016”; China Coal Energy was selected as one of the 10 “World-class Model Enterprises” by the SASAC in 2019; CMOC was ranked 284th among the Top 500 Manufacturing Enterprises in China in 2019. In terms of dispositional legitimacy, these enterprises had outstanding performance, benchmarked against industry-leading standards. They comprehensively implemented contractual management and effectively improved the efficiency of asset utilization. Regarding consequential legitimacy and procedural legitimacy, these enterprises implemented new environmental protection standards, actively adopted new technologies and processes, and continuously reduced the negative externalities of the production process. At the same time, they adhered to the awareness of the “red line” and the “bottom line” mentality, strengthened the standardization of production safety, improved the construction of safety facilities, continuously improved the safety facilities, and effectively improved the level of production safety.

• Influence-Structural Legitimacy Oriented Type (Configuration A2: EL*IL*~CL*PrL*SL)

Configuration A2 shows that the behavioral legitimacy model of resource-based enterprises having influence legitimacy, structural legitimacy, and non-consequential legitimacy as the core conditions, and exchange legitimacy and procedural legitimacy as the peripheral conditions, can effectively respond to supply-side structural reforms and form high resilience. That is, for resource-based enterprises having low consequential legitimacy, if influence legitimacy, structural legitimacy, exchange legitimacy, and procedural legitimacy are high, the role of dispositional legitimacy is not necessary for achieving high resilience. Typical cases in this configuration are Zijin Mining, Shandong Gold, Zhongjin Gold, and Shaanxi Coal. In terms of influence legitimacy and structural legitimacy, these enterprises placed significant emphasis on employee welfare, operated with integrity, and actively engaged in public welfare initiatives. They also made meaningful contributions to local economic development, protecting the environment by establishing specialized environmental protection management organizations and implementing strict environmental protection systems. Regarding exchange legitimacy and procedural legitimacy, on the one hand, these enterprises implemented strict cost control measures to reduce production costs through refined management; on the other hand, they increased investment in research and development, improving the added value of their products through technological innovation, thus realizing an increase in the level of their operating profit. Furthermore, the establishment of a perfect safety production management system, the promotion of automation, informatization and intelligence in production safety, and the continual improvement of safety production practices all effectively enhanced the production safety level of the enterprises.

• Exchange-Influence Legitimacy Oriented Type (ConfigurationA3: EL*IL*~DL*~CL*~PrL*~SL)

Configuration A3 shows that the behavioral legitimacy model of resource-based enterprises having exchange legitimacy, influence legitimacy, non-dispositional legitimacy, non-consequential legitimacy, non-procedural legitimacy, and non-structural legitimacy as the core conditions can effectively respond to the supply-side structural reforms and form high resilience. That is, in the absence of high dispositional legitimacy, high consequential legitimacy, high procedural legitimacy, and high structural legitimacy, resource-based enterprises can achieve high resilience only through high exchange legitimacy and high influence legitimacy. This configuration includes only one representative case: Haohua Energy. Regarding exchange legitimacy, Haohua Energy actively dissolved excess capacity, seized the development opportunities in the coal-to-methanol market, accelerated coal-to-methanol production and sales, and thereby created new profit growth areas for the company. In terms of influence legitimacy, Haohua Energy adopted a dedicated approach to releasing social responsibility reports, disclosing key information related to safety production, employee welfare, technological innovation, environmental protection, and other areas. These efforts received widespread recognition from both the government and the public.

4.2.2. Configurations of High Resilience of Resource-Based Enterprises Under the Impact of the “Dual-Carbon” Goals

• Influence-Consequential Legitimacy Oriented Type (Configuration B1a and B1b: EL*IL*~DL*CL*~SL + IL*~DL*CL*Prl*~SL)

This type comprises two second-order equivalent configurations, B1a and B1b, meaning they share the same core conditions [48]. Configuration B1a and B1b indicate that the behavioral legitimacy model of resource-based enterprises having influence legitimacy, consequential legitimacy, non-dispositional legitimacy, and non-structural legitimacy as the core conditions, and exchange legitimacy and procedural legitimacy as the peripheral conditions, can effectively cope with the challenges of the “dual-carbon” goals and form high resilience. That is, in the absence of high dispositional legitimacy and high structural legitimacy, resource-based enterprises can achieve high resilience through high influence legitimacy, high consequential legitimacy, and high exchange legitimacy. In this context, procedural legitimacy and exchange legitimacy are not essential for achieving high resilience. This suggests an alternative relationship between procedural legitimacy and exchange legitimacy as peripheral conditions within this configuration. Typical cases in this type are Ping Coal, Lu’an Huaneng, Haohua Energy, Shanxi Coking Coal, and Shanghai Energy. In terms of influence legitimacy, these enterprises enhanced trust and support from the government, the public, customers, and employees between 2020 and 2022 through initiatives such as publishing social responsibility reports, strengthening production safety management, safeguarding employees’ rights and interests, implementing environmental protection and sustainable development strategies, and actively participating in community building and public welfare activities. In terms of consequential legitimacy, these enterprises integrated green mining and low-carbon utilization technologies into their production processes while simultaneously reinforcing the top-level design of environmental governance. They have established a product carbon footprint management system and incorporated waste treatment into performance evaluations, thereby effectively achieving emission reduction targets.

• Influence-Procedural-Structural Legitimacy Oriented Type (Configuration B2: EL*IL*DL*Prl*SL)

Configuration B2 shows that the behavioral legitimacy model of resource-based enterprises having influence legitimacy, procedural legitimacy, and structural legitimacy as the core conditions, and exchange legitimacy and dispositional legitimacy as the peripheral conditions, can effectively address the challenges posed by the “dual-carbon” goals and form high resilience. That is, resource-based enterprises can achieve high resilience when they exhibit high levels of influence legitimacy, procedural legitimacy, and structural legitimacy, as well as high exchange legitimacy and high dispositional legitimacy. In this context, the significance of consequential legitimacy in achieving high resilience appears to be relatively diminished. Typical cases in this type are Zijin Mining, CMOC, Yankuang Energy, Jizhong Energy, and Huaibei Mining. In terms of influence legitimacy, these enterprises actively fulfilled their social responsibilities through initiatives such as implementing carbon-neutral action plans, participating in community development and poverty alleviation, and prioritizing employee welfare and safety. Additionally, they regularly published social responsibility reports or ESG reports outlining their achievements in the environmental, social, and governance areas. Regarding procedural legitimacy and structural legitimacy, these enterprises strengthened their organizational design and established global operation management systems, actively promoted the use of automation and intelligent equipment, continuously optimized production processes, and significantly improved both safety standards and production efficiency.

• Influence-Consequential-Procedural Legitimacy Oriented Type (Configuration B3: ~EL*IL*DL*CL*PrL*~SL)

Configuration B3 shows that the behavioral legitimacy model of resource-based enterprises having influence legitimacy, consequential legitimacy, procedural legitimacy, non-exchange legitimacy, and non-structural legitimacy as the core conditions, and dispositional legitimacy as the peripheral conditions, can effectively cope with the impact of the “dual-carbon” goals and form resilience. In other words, even for resource-based enterprises having low exchange legitimacy and structural legitimacy, they can achieve high resilience through high influence legitimacy, high consequential legitimacy, high procedural legitimacy, and high dispositional legitimacy. The sole representative case in this configuration is Chihong Zinc & Germanium. In terms of influence legitimacy, during the implementation period of the “dual-carbon” goals, Chihong Zinc & Germanium actively fulfilled its social responsibility and received continuous A-level ratings from the Shanghai Stock Exchange for compliance information disclosure. Regarding consequential legitimacy and procedural legitimacy, on the one hand, Chihong Zinc & Germanium had been actively pursuing the ISO14001 [58] environmental management system certification. As of December 2022, all its production units had successfully obtained ISO14001 certification, and the compliance rate of waste gas and sewage discharge and solid waste disposal was 100%. On the other hand, Chihong Zinc & Germanium had introduced Chalco’s CAHSE precision management system and achieved effective integration with its production and operational processes.

4.3. Robustness

In order to ensure the robustness of the findings, this study conducted a robustness test by examining the configurations of high resilience among the resource-based enterprises under institutional shocks in Period 1 and Period 2 [57], and increased the PRI consistency threshold from 0.7 to 0.75, which showed that (1) with the exception of Configuration B3, which was absent, all the other configurations remained fully consistent with the original model; (2) in Period 1, the consistency of the solution increased from 0.895 to 0.906, and the coverage of the solutions decreased from 0.376 to 0.337. Similarly, in Period 2, the consistency of the solution increased from 0.878 to 0.901, and the coverage of the solution decreased from 0.440 to 0.406, demonstrating that the findings possess good robustness.

5. Evolutionary Analysis of the Formation Pathways of High Resilience of Resource-Based Enterprises Under Continuous Institutional Shocks

5.1. A Comparative Analysis of High-Resilience Pathways of Resource-Based Enterprises Under the Impacts of Supply-Side Structural Reforms and the “Dual-Carbon” Goals

Under the impacts of the supply-side structural reforms and the “dual-carbon” goals, the resource-based enterprises have experienced two high-resilience pathways. From the perspective of pathways evolution theory, it can be found that the initial conditions, reinforcement mechanisms, core conditions, and inherent characteristics of these two high-resilience pathways are quite different in terms of dimensions (see

Table 5. Comparison of the high-resilience pathways of resource-based enterprises under the supply-side structural reforms and the “dual-carbon” goals.

Dimensions	The High-Resilience Pathways of Resource-Based Enterprises Under the Supply-Side Structural Reforms	The High-Resilience Pathways of Resource-Based Enterprises Under the “Dual-Carbon” Goals
Initial conditions	Exogenous, episodic, unpredictable behavioral patterns	Controllability, continuous action to be embedded in the institutional environment
Self-reinforcing mechanism	Passively conforming to the requirements of the institutions, spontaneously	Strategic actions are taken to meet the requirements of institutions
Core conditions	Exchange legitimacy, influence legitimacy, dispositional legitimacy, and structural legitimacy	Influence legitimacy, consequential legitimacy, procedural legitimacy, and structural legitimacy
Nature	Self-organizing, non-global random process	Constructiveness, a conscious creative process

).

From the perspective of the initial conditions that triggered the high-resilience pathways of the resource-based enterprises, the supply-side structural reforms represent an exogenous and episodic institutional shock. Due to a lack of prior experience in handling such events, the resource-based enterprises may exhibit unpredictable behavioral patterns in response. However, the “dual-carbon” goals constitute an additional layer of institutional shock built upon the foundation of the supply-side structural reforms. These goals outline a clear “timetable” and “roadmap” for achieving long-term environmental objectives. Meanwhile, the resource-based enterprises have accumulated relevant experience in responding to institutional shocks, thereby enabling greater strategic autonomy and allowing for more predictable and manageable responses to the challenges posed by the “dual-carbon” goals [59]. Consequently, the enterprises are gradually adapting to and integrating within the evolving institutional environment through sustained and adaptive behaviors.

From the perspective of the self-reinforcing mechanism of the high-resilience pathways of the resource-based enterprises, in view of the short-term and mandatory characteristics of the supply-side structural reforms, the resource-based enterprises have spontaneously generated and formed behavioral legitimacy patterns that can respond to institutional shocks, to passively cater to the new requirements of the supply-side structural reforms. In contrast, considering the long-term and guiding nature of the “dual-carbon” goals, the resource-based enterprises have a certain amount of time to optimize their behavioral legitimacy patterns through strategic actions to meet the new requirements of the “dual-carbon” goals.

From the perspective of the core conditions of the high-resilience pathways in the resource-based enterprises, the behavioral legitimacy model of the high resilience of the resource-based enterprises under the impact of the supply-side structural reforms mainly relies on the accumulation of the three pragmatic legitimacy attributes: exchange legitimacy, influence legitimacy, and dispositional legitimacy. These attributes enable the resource-based enterprises to function effectively within the market economy and fulfill the institutional requirements for organizational structural legitimacy within their specialized industry. The behavioral legitimacy model of high resilience of the resource-based enterprises under the impact of the “dual-carbon” goals mainly relies on the moral legitimacy (including consequential legitimacy, procedural legitimacy, and structural legitimacy) that characterizes whether their behaviors are in line with socially accepted ethical norms and values, as well as the influence legitimacy that reflects the degree of their concern for stakeholders.

From the perspective of the formation of high-resilience pathways by the resource-based enterprises, the formation of behavioral legitimacy patterns of high resilience by the resource-based enterprises under the impact of the supply-side structural reforms is self-organizing and manifests itself as a specific, non-global, stochastic process that does not traverse all possible states. The formation of behavioral legitimacy patterns of high resilience by the resource-based enterprises under the impact of the “dual-carbon” goals is constructive in nature and manifests itself as a deliberate, conscious, and creative process.

5.2. The Evolution of High-Resilience Pathways of Resource-Based Enterprises Under the Impacts of Supply-Side Structural Reforms and the “Dual-Carbon” Goals

• Under continuous institutional shocks, the core conditions for the high-resilience pathways of the resource-based enterprises have continuity.

This study analyzes the core conditions that contribute to the high resilience of the resource-based enterprises under the impacts of the supply-side structural reforms and the “dual-carbon” goals. The findings reveal that influence legitimacy appears as a core condition in all the configurations. This suggests that influence legitimacy (mainly manifested as concern for stakeholders and active fulfillment of social responsibility) has a universal effect on the formation of high resilience by the resource-based enterprises. In addition to providing the necessary green and low-carbon resource products for the economy and society, the resource-based enterprises also shoulder the important mission of guaranteeing national resource security, which is an important part of the national security system. The resource-based enterprises fulfill their social responsibility and give full play to the role of support and guarantee, which are key factors for enterprise growth with resilience.

Structural legitimacy as a core condition appears not only in the high-resilience configuration A2 of the resource-based enterprises under the impact of the supply-side structural reforms but also in the high-resilience configuration B2 of the resource-based enterprises under the impact of the “dual-carbon” goals. This suggests that to cope with continuous institutional shocks, the resource-based enterprises will retain some of the important core conditions in the process of adjusting and optimizing their behavioral legitimacy model, which is manifested in the continuity of the core conditions.

• Under continuous institutional shocks, the behavioral legitimacy model of high resilience of the resource-based enterprises has evolved from being dominated by pragmatic legitimacy to being co-dominated by both pragmatic legitimacy and moral legitimacy.

In the high-resilience configurations of the resource-based enterprises under the impact of the supply-side structural reforms (A1–A3), the core conditions in configurations A1 and A3 all belong to the pragmatic legitimacy dimension, indicating that the resource-based enterprises form high resilience during the supply-side structural reforms mainly through the construction of pragmatic legitimacy. Measures include adjusting the product structure, extending the industrial chain, increasing the added value of products, and optimizing the efficiency of resource allocation, all of which are manifested as the resource-based enterprises’ maintenance and improvement of pragmatic legitimacy.

In the high-resilience configurations of the resource-based enterprises under the impact of the “dual-carbon” goals (B1a–B3), the influence legitimacy of the pragmatic legitimacy dimension appeared as the core condition in all four configurations. Meanwhile, the consequential legitimacy, procedural legitimacy, and structural legitimacy of the moral legitimacy dimension appeared alternately in all four configurations. In particular, the three core conditions of configurations B2 and B3 include two subdimensions of moral legitimacy. This indicates that the behavioral legitimacy model of high resilience of the resource-based enterprises is characterized by the co-dominance of pragmatic legitimacy and moral legitimacy. The energy-saving and environmental protection requirements of the “dual-carbon” goals have increased the intensity of the supply-side structural reforms [3], and the cumulative effect of the institutional shocks [60] has had a more drastic impact on the resource-based enterprises. Therefore, the enterprises must adopt more complex coping behaviors to form resilience [61].

• Under continuous institutional shocks, the evolution of high-resilience pathways by the resource-based enterprises shows the characteristics of pathway breakthrough.

This study successively compares the cases of enterprises covered by configurations A1–A3 and B1–B3 and discovers the evolution of high-resilience pathways by the resource-based enterprises (see Figure 3).

Enhanced consequential legitimacy can overcome the limitations of high exchange legitimacy. The sample enterprise is Haohua Energy. A comparison between Period 1 and Period 2 reveals that Haohua Energy’s high-resilience development pathway has transitioned from configuration A3 to configuration B1a (see ① in Figure 3), indicating its ability to quickly transition from stabilizing its main business to prioritizing pollution control, thereby achieving resilient development.

Enhanced consequential legitimacy can overcome the limitations of high exchange legitimacy and high dispositional legitimacy. The sample enterprise is Shanxi Coking Coal. A comparison between Period 1 and Period 2 reveals that Shanxi Coking Coal’s high-resilience development pathway has transitioned from configuration A1 to configuration B1b (see ② in Figure 3), indicating that it has promptly aligned with the requirements of the “dual-carbon” goals, achieving favorable outcomes through enhanced environmental governance, thereby achieving resilient development.

Enhanced procedural legitimacy and structural legitimacy can overcome the limitations of high exchange legitimacy and high dispositional legitimacy. The sample enterprise is CMOC. A comparison between Period 1 and Period 2 reveals that CMOC’s high-resilience development pathway has transitioned from configuration A1 to configuration B2 (see ③ in Figure 3), indicating that it has advanced its environmental governance efforts from post-event control to pre-event control, integrating these initiatives into its regular operational framework. Through formal organizational structure design, this enterprise establishes multi-level responsibilities for environmental governance, ensuring the legitimacy of the production process and outcomes using structural legitimacy.

Enhanced procedural legitimacy can eliminate the impact of consequential legitimacy. The case enterprise is Zijin Mining. A comparison between Period 1 and Period 2 reveals that Zijin Mining’s high-resilience development pathway has transitioned from configuration A2 to configuration B2 (see ④ in Figure 3), indicating that it has strengthened the standardized construction of enterprise production safety because of its resource advantages, effectively enhancing the efficiency of enterprise capacity utilization, thereby achieving resilient development.

Breaking through pathway dependence creates a new configuration, B3 (see ⑤ in Figure 3), having high influence legitimacy, high consequential legitimacy, and high procedural legitimacy. The sample enterprise is Chihong Zinc & Germanium. When the “dual-carbon” goals were proposed, Chihong Zinc & German proactively anticipated, during its early operations, that institutional regulations would guide the resource-based enterprises toward a resource-conserving and environmentally sustainable development pathway. The enterprise has already received widespread recognition from industry and society for its efforts in fulfilling corporate social responsibilities, environmental governance, and ensuring safe production practices. Therefore, a strong ability to foresee the policy regulations and institutional environment has become the key to the enterprises’ resilient development in the face of the “dual-carbon” goals.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Discussion and Implications

The supply-side structural reforms and the “dual-carbon” goals constitute an important part of the core policy framework for the transformation of China’s resource-based enterprises. Both are comprehensive policies introduced by the Chinese government that all resource-based enterprises must abide by. From a temporal perspective, the “dual-carbon” goals represent a deepening and extension of the supply-side structural reforms [3]. However, there are essential differences between the two in terms of policy objectives and policy attributes. The supply-side structural reforms involve the resource-based enterprises eliminating backward and low-end production capacity, accelerating the development of high-value-added products, and optimizing the industrial structure. This is a “short-term” and “urgent” institutional shock that affects the production and operation of the resource-based enterprises. In contrast, the “dual-carbon” goals require the resource-based enterprises to focus on high-quality development. While vigorously developing clean energy and achieving green and low-carbon development, they should also play a guaranteeing and regulatory role. This is a “long-term” and “non-urgent” institutional shock that affects the future development of the resource-based enterprises. According to the matching perspective of resilience, the formation pathways of an enterprise’s resilience should match the shock itself [7]. Therefore, the supply-side structural reforms and the “dual-carbon” goals have different guiding and restrictive effects on the resilient development of the resource-based enterprises.

Based on this, we have proposed some suggestions for sustainable governance for the resource-based enterprises under institutional shocks. Firstly, in the face of increasingly stringent institutional regulations, the resource-based enterprises should not only focus on the improvement of operational efficiency in the process of operation but also emphasize the acquisition, maintenance, and improvement of legitimacy. This approach is essential to ensure that the enterprises comply with the requirements of institutional regulations and social norms. Especially with the implementation of the dual-control system of carbon emissions, the social and governmental requirements for the resource-based enterprises to fulfill their social responsibility and environmental protection obligations go beyond exchange legitimacy and become the primary condition for the behavioral legitimacy of the resource-based enterprises. Secondly, moral legitimacy plays an increasingly important role in the process of forming the resilience of the resource-based enterprises. The resource-based enterprises should follow the idea of “consequential-procedural-structural legitimacy” and from the perspective of improving the institutional ecology of the organization’s survival, they should gain the trust of the public and governmental recognition by setting up an organizational structure that complies with the normative requirements. Finally, the resource-based enterprises should strengthen their ability to anticipate institutional regulation and increase their legitimacy reserves, which will help them cope with future institutional shocks.

6.2. Limitations and Future Research

This study acknowledges several limitations that future studies should consider and address. First, although the measurement variables used in this study have undergone thorough screening, employing “new mining rights” as a proxy variable for the resilience of the resource-based enterprises may not fully and accurately capture all the changes experienced by the enterprises when impacted. This limitation may affect the comprehensiveness and depth of the research conclusions. In addition, the measurement of some variables in this study (such as influence legitimacy) primarily relies on proprietary or self-reports, which may also introduce potential biases and impact the robustness of the research findings. We look forward to future research addressing these challenges and achieving breakthroughs in these areas. Second, organizational resilience research involves a variety of situational variables, including changes in external circumstances and disturbances in internal circumstances. This study focuses on resilient response behaviors and their evolution in resource-based enterprises under the changing external policy context. However, it may be challenging to comprehensively and accurately capture the resilient performance of resource-based enterprises across multiple context changes. There are certain limitations in the enrichment and generalization of research scenarios. We anticipate that future research will examine the issue of organizational resilience across multiple contexts to provide a more holistic understanding. Third, this study only examines the resilient response behaviors of listed mining companies in China under specific institutional shocks, which may weaken the research results. In the future, we hope to incorporate similar cases from other countries to enhance the universality of our research.