Corporate Hypocrisy in Internationalizing Businesses: Data from Top Contractors

Abstract

Recent decades have witnessed contractors’ increasing investment in corporate social responsibility (CSR) to build constructive stakeholder relationships and better corporate reputation. However, due to the uncertain benefits of engaging in CSR matters and the information asymmetry between contractors and stakeholders, corporate hypocrisy (CH), which refers to a disconnect between “talking” and “walking” in CSR, has widely surfaced in the international construction industry. This study used substantive corporate social responsibility (CSRS) and symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR) to deconstruct corporate hypocrisy. Both qualitative and quantitative data are used to analyze the relationship between internationalization and corporate hypocrisy, based on CSR reports from international contractors, as well as data from Thomson Reuters DataStream and Refinitiv, covering the period from 2011 to 2020. Multiple regression models serve as the analytical tool for assessing the impacts of internationalization on corporate hypocrisy. The results found that internationalization can promote both substantive corporate social responsibility and symbolic corporate social responsibility, and contractors are more prone to corporate hypocrisy with a higher degree of internationalization. The findings suggest that international contractors should avoid corporate hypocrisy as far as possible to mitigate operational risks. To achieve this, contractors can implement strategies such as ensuring transparency in CSR reporting, aligning their CSR actions with actual practices, and engaging with local stakeholders to better understand and meet their expectations. By distinguishing and examining the differential manifestations of substantive and symbolic CSR in the process of internationalization, this study reveals the mechanism through which internationalization affects corporate hypocrisy, thereby filling the gap in the existing literature regarding the relationship between internationalization and corporate hypocrisy in the construction industry.

1. Introduction

Fierce competition and volatile market environments inspire contractors to seek long-term competitive advantages in the international construction industry [1]. Nevertheless, internationalization increases business operational uncertainties and confronts them with more challenges in attaining sustainable growth. In the international construction arena, contractors often use a package of strategies to defeat competitors, such as improving technical, management, and operational efficiency, and implementing capacity expansion and cost reduction strategies. Meanwhile, prior research has repeatedly shown that corporate social responsibility (CSR) is vital for the success of international business operations. The reasons are that CSR fulfillment conduces to improve enterprise competitiveness by reducing employee turnover, increasing employee commitment, customer satisfaction, and corporate image, and fostering coordinated relations between supply chains, local communities, and governmental authorities [2,3,4,5].

In a broader sense, businesses’ CSR investments may easily be recognized by society, helping fortify a better reputation. Nevertheless, such CSR efforts deserve much attention regarding their transparency and authenticity. Some business entities prefer symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR) to substantive corporate social responsibility (SCSR) and claim it to be something that has not happened, resulting in a disconnect between what enterprises are “talking” and “walking” in CSR engagement [6,7]. However, CSR is not only a moral commitment that a company makes to society, the environment, and its stakeholders, but it also involves whether the company can deliver on these commitments in practice. In other words, CSR is not merely a tool for building the company’s external image, it also concerns how the company actually fulfills its social responsibility. When facing external pressures and interests, companies may publicly claim to fulfill their social responsibility (symbolic CSR), but in practice, they may lack substantial social responsibility initiatives (substantive CSR). Given this, corporate hypocrisy (CH) is employed in this study to describe the deviation between symbolic corporate social responsibility efforts (reporting/“talking”) and substantive corporate social responsibility behaviors (performance/“walking”) [7,8]. Specifically, corporate hypocrisy refers to the significant inconsistency between a company’s commitments and its actual actions in fulfilling social responsibility. For example, a company may publicly commit to fulfilling social responsibility (such as environmental protection, employee welfare, etc.), but in practice, it fails to take corresponding substantial measures. This behavior creates a disconnect between the company’s external commitments and actual performance. In this study, corporate hypocrisy is manifested in the gap between symbolic CSR and substantive CSR. As a significant barrier to business operation, corporate hypocrisy coincides with CSR fulfillment, especially when businesses find opportunities to act inconsistently with different stakeholders in ways that are perceived as beneficial to them [9]. Consequently, it undermines a company’s legitimacy, credibility, and financial performance [10,11,12,13]. Therefore, corporate hypocrisy directly affects the effectiveness, transparency, and long-term competitiveness of CSR. This is particularly true in the process of internationalization, where companies may adopt superficial CSR measures due to external pressures, further exacerbating the occurrence of hypocritical behavior.

The relationships between CSR and internationalization have been indicated in the relevant literature [14,15]. For example, CSR can develop into a principal strategy for contractors to stay viable, boost customer loyalty, and mitigate business operation risks in the global market [16,17]. However, there is a disparity between contractors’ claims and practical behaviors. For example, Brazil’s largest international contractor, Odebrecht, suffered from a reputation hazard and declared bankruptcy in 2019 due to this disparity [18]. In this connection, Tashman, Marano, and Kostova [12] argued that corporate hypocrisy will likely emerge along the internationalization process. Lim and Tsutsui [19] revealed that institutional pressures in overseas markets exert distinct impacts on multinational enterprises from developing versus developed countries, leading the former to adopt substantive CSR strategies while prompting the latter toward symbolic compliance. Crilly et al. [20] found that organizations facing similar institutional pressures may decouple CSR commitments from practices through divergent mechanisms and for heterogeneous rationales. Meyer and Hammerschmid [21] pointed out that corporate hypocrisy functions as a strategic response mechanism, mitigating legitimacy conflicts arising from institutional discrepancies between home and host countries, thus enabling multinational enterprises to accelerate institutional embeddedness in host environments. On the one hand, some studies have examined the organizational consequences of corporate hypocrisy but have failed to explore how internal–external contingencies shape the intensity of corporate hypocrisy. On the other hand, much evidence has implied that corporate hypocrisy is closely tied to business internationalization; however, their relationship has not been well reported. In fact, internationalization has transformed how institutional environments shape CSR, yet the current research fails to systematically examine the antecedents that drive multinational enterprises’ corporate hypocrisy strategies in global contexts. For example, Ding et al. [22,23] analyzed how internationalization affects the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and financial performance in Chinese enterprises. The study shows that companies with higher levels of internationalization are more likely to actively engage in CSR activities, which may positively impact their financial performance. Roedder et al. [23] studied how globalization, by influencing the relationship between multinational companies and different stakeholders, drives the implementation of their CSR activities. Chen et al. [24] delved into how multinational enterprises face legitimacy pressures during the process of internationalization and how they mitigate these pressures by improving CSR reporting. The study also shows that the cultural and institutional differences encountered during internationalization present unique challenges for CSR implementation. While these studies demonstrate that internationalization exerts a significant influence on corporate social responsibility, they fail to address the manifestations of corporate hypocrisy within the context of internationalization. Moreover, the nature of the construction industry leads to its particularity in terms of CSR, and it cannot directly learn from the conclusions of other industries.

The innovation of this study mainly includes the following aspects: (1) Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in this study is defined as substantive corporate social responsibility (CSRS) and symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR), and corporate hypocrisy (CH) is deconstructed by using the “substantive–symbolic” dual framework. (2) Focusing on the construction industry, this study analyzes the relationship between internationalization, substantive corporate social responsibility, symbolic corporate social responsibility, and corporate hypocrisy; identifies the driving mechanism of internationalization on corporate hypocrisy; and fills the research gap in the CSR field.

This study aims to examine the impacts of internationalization on corporate hypocrisy in the international construction industry. First, we proposed three main hypotheses on the impacts by referring to theories of stakeholder, asymmetry, and cost–benefit. Second, we probed the essence of corporate hypocrisy by separating it into two components, namely substantive and symbolic CSR. Third, we collected top international contractors’ data and used them to measure the impacts of internationalization on corporate hypocrisy. Last, the three hypotheses were tested and discussed for further generalization. In summary, the research findings shed some light on corporate hypocrisy and offer valuable information for future studies to detect the relationship between internationalization and corporate hypocrisy in other sectors. The implication is that businesses are supposed to fulfill CSR and avoid the trap of corporate hypocrisy toward being internationally stronger.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

International contractors may promise to act in a socially responsible manner to local stakeholders, but in reality their performance may differ significantly from these commitments. This section systematically reviews the theoretical foundation of the impact of internationalization on corporate hypocrisy and proposes corresponding research hypotheses. Additionally, this study distinguishes the effects of internationalization on substantive corporate social responsibility (CSR) and symbolic CSR, further unveiling the underlying mechanisms through which internationalization influences corporate hypocrisy.

The research framework illustrates the hypotheses, as shown in Figure 1.

2.1. Impacts of Internationalization on Corporate Hypocrisy

With the increasing prominence of CSR performance, corporate hypocrisy has gained considerable societal attention. Corporate hypocrisy surfaces when corporate managers make a statement that deviates from actual CSR performance [12,25,26]. In a narrow sense, corporate hypocrisy refers to the difference between reported and actual CSR performance [12,27]. The core motivation for corporate hypocrisy is pursuing “reputational effect” and financial benefits [26]. CSR whitewashing can be frequently observed in construction companies due to top management’s undefined CSR orientation and opportunistic tendencies [28]. More specifically, enterprises might conceal problems or overstate CSR performance in annual reports as they care more about social censure originated from negative events [6,29].

The formation of corporate hypocrisy is closely related to legitimacy theory and stakeholder theory. According to legitimacy theory, companies need to align with laws, social norms, and stakeholder expectations to gain social approval. In response to external pressures, companies may choose to exaggerate their CSR performance to maintain their legitimacy and reputation [21]. Stakeholder theory emphasizes that companies, when facing external stakeholders, often make CSR commitments based on their demands, even though these commitments may not translate into substantial actions. Therefore, corporate hypocrisy often becomes a strategy employed by companies to address stakeholder pressures without making actual changes [30].

Agency theory provides a deeper understanding of the motivations behind corporate hypocrisy, emphasizing that conflicts of interest and information asymmetry between companies and stakeholders can lead firms to engage in hypocritical CSR behaviors. These behaviors are often driven by the pursuit of short-term financial gains or the desire for reputational benefits, where companies may present CSR commitments to stakeholders without genuinely fulfilling them [13]. In particular, in the context of internationalization, agency theory highlights how information asymmetry between multinational contractors and host countries exacerbates the situation. Due to this gap, contractors may selectively disclose CSR behaviors, presenting an image of social responsibility while concealing negative actions, to protect their reputation and avoid the disclosure of unfavorable information. This selective disclosure can help firms enhance their market competitiveness and maintain legitimacy in foreign markets while avoiding the costs associated with genuine CSR implementation [31].

Therefore, internationalization often reinforces corporate hypocrisy, particularly in long-term international construction projects, where firms tend to respond to external pressures through formal CSR commitments while lacking corresponding substantive actions. Drawing on agency theory and stakeholder theory, information asymmetry and conflicts of interest under the context of internationalization further exacerbate corporate hypocrisy, especially when the actual implementation of CSR does not align with the standards reported [32,33,34].

Based on the above theoretical foundation, we propose the first hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis 1.

The impacts of internationalization on corporate hypocrisy are positive.

2.2. Impacts of Internationalization on Substantive Corporate Social Responsibility (CSRS)

Corporate hypocrisy is manifested in the gap between symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR) and substantive corporate social responsibility (CSRS). Therefore, further exploration of the relationship between internationalization and both substantive and symbolic CSR is crucial in explaining the mechanisms through which internationalization influences corporate hypocrisy.

The impact of internationalization on substantive corporate social responsibility (CSRS) can be conceptualized through stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory. According to stakeholder theory, internationalization pushes companies to engage in CSRS to meet the diverse demands of stakeholders in new socio-economic environments. Aguilera-Caracuel and Guerrero-Villegas [35] stated that stakeholders drive companies to engage in CSRS in order to protect their interests. The differences in political, economic, cultural, and legal aspects of host countries create a more variable external environment for international businesses, which leads to a diversity of stakeholders [36,37]. Thus, international contractors ought to enhance the scope and quality of CSRS to meet stakeholders’ heterogeneous requirements [38]. On the other hand, they employ CSRS to signify reliability, stability, and trustworthiness to stakeholders, thereby gaining recognition for overseas operations. By fostering positive relationships with shareholders, governments, suppliers, customers, and communities, international contractors receive tangible and intangible benefits, such as reduced employee turnover, increased employee commitment, customer loyalty and satisfaction, competitiveness, and financial performance [39,40,41,42].

Legitimacy theory posits that a company’s survival and societal acceptance depend on how well its structure and behaviors align with socially constructed norms and principles [43]. Polonsky et al. [44] explained that venturing into international markets requires businesses to address challenges arising from different cultural, economic, and societal contexts to avoid operational risks [45]. One of the most effective strategies for managing these challenges is implementing CSRS initiatives across diverse cultures. In fact, positive CSRS in foreign markets helps prevent illegal activities, social complaints, environmental accidents, and conflicts with local stakeholders [16,46]. Additionally, it helps companies enhance their legitimacy, align with local principles and cultures, and gain benefits that ensure sustainable operations in new markets [12,47,48]. To secure legitimacy, companies are inclined to adopt a range of CSR strategies as needed [49].

Internationalization requires a series of organizational self-learning activities [50]. International contractors must quickly adapt to the unique social and institutional characteristics of host countries, helping them adjust to changing market conditions and develop essential professional knowledge and competencies, such as resource allocation and coordination with multiple stakeholders [51,52]. The accumulation of knowledge and expertise ultimately enhances companies’ ability to respond to CSRS demands.

According to stakeholder theory, internationalization encourages companies to take on more substantive CSR actions to address stakeholders’ diverse needs. However, this might lead to corporate hypocrisy, as companies may adopt these CSR practices in some markets but fail to implement them in others. Legitimacy theory suggests that companies might adopt substantial CSR actions in certain markets to maintain legitimacy, but this may not be consistent globally, increasing the likelihood of corporate hypocrisy.

Therefore, we gave the second hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis 2.

The impact of internationalization on substantive corporate social responsibility (CSRS) is positive.

2.3. Impacts of Internationalization on Symbolic Corporate Social Responsibility (CSRR)

The relationship between internationalization and symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR) can be explained using stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory. CSR reporting serves as a symbolic strategy and a specific CSR behavior with advocacy implications [53,54]. Publicizing CSR reports is an effective way for companies to adhere to certain standards, playing a crucial role in safeguarding their reputation and legitimacy [55,56]. CSR reporting functions as an effective tool to respond to stakeholders’ requirements and expectations. Fortanier, Kolk, and Pinkse [50] indicated that circulating CSR reports helps companies gain legitimacy, thus strengthening their reputation and financial performance.

However, unlike substantive corporate social responsibility (CSRS), symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR) may not result in concrete business changes. Instead, it uses symbols to project a positive corporate image and attract stakeholders [43]. Multinational construction enterprises (MNEs) treat CSR reporting (such as annual reports, websites, and CSR reports) as an essential mechanism to communicate with stakeholders. Elango and Sethi [57] suggested that the provision of CSR reports is largely driven by institutional forces from governments, professional accountants, industrial associations, and organizational pressures from home countries. Regular CSR reports appear to appeal to stakeholders and demonstrate ethical behavior by top management [58], which helps mitigate the impacts of negative information and avoid potential cleanup costs.

MNEs face increasingly complex stakeholder networks and strive to meet the needs of diverse stakeholders through CSR reports [59]. In many cases, MNEs’ CSR performance is subjected to intense scrutiny by global financial and regulatory organizations. Global organizations, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), encourage businesses to incorporate diverse metrics into their reports, improving their GRI ratings. Meanwhile, CSR reporting allows companies to communicate more effectively with stakeholders, evaluating and informing them of their CSR practices to ensure transparency and accountability for sustainable development [25]. This communication can influence product evaluations, customer relationship management, and treatment by regulatory agencies [60].

However, reliance on symbolic CSR reporting without corresponding real-world actions can lead to corporate hypocrisy. International contractors may prioritize symbolic gestures, such as publishing CSR reports, over actual substantive CSR actions, resulting in a disconnect between their claims and performance. This corporate hypocrisy undermines their legitimacy and erodes stakeholder trust. As such, while CSR reporting can enhance a company’s legitimacy, its symbolic nature makes it susceptible to being used as a tool for corporate hypocrisy.

Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3.

The impact of internationalization on symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR) is positive.

3. Research Methods

3.1. Sample and Data Collection

Engineering News-Record (ENR) has an annual ranking of “World’s 250 Largest International Contractors” based on total revenue from overseas income, which reflects the global expansion capacity of international contractors. Contractors included in the ENR250 list mean that they perform well in terms of internationalization and possibly excellent CSR performance in the construction sector. This study focuses on international construction contractors listed in the ENR250 (ENR225 in 2011) from 2011 to 2020. The selection of the 2011–2020 timeframe was primarily driven by data availability. Listed enterprises were further selected to guarantee data availability. Data for this study were sourced from Thomson Reuters DataStream, Refinitiv, and annual financial and CSR reports.

The score of substantive corporate social responsibility (CSRS) was retrieved from Refinitiv, which is the best-known database in the CSR field and has widely been used in academic research (such as [11,61]). The Refinitiv ESG rating system objectively assesses a company’s ESG performance across ten themes (including resource use, emissions, innovation, workforce, human rights, community, product responsibility, management, shareholders, and CSR strategy). Furthermore, CSR reports were manually collected primarily from companies’ official websites. CSR reports served as the primary data source for measuring symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR) scores of contractors. And 559 reports from 82 international contractors between 2011 and 2020 were retrieved for content analysis. Other financial data were obtained from Thomson Reuters.

A detailed check was conducted on all datasets (including CSR reports, financial data, and ESG scores) to identify missing values. If missing data were found, for variables with substantial missing values, listwise deletion was applied to ensure that no critical data points were excluded from the analysis. Finally, 446 complete data records from 71 companies from 2011 to 2020 were compiled for examining the impacts of internationalization on corporate hypocrisy. The contractors included in this study are distributed over 22 countries in Europe, America, North America, Asia, and Oceania.

3.2. Variables

Dependent variable (internationalization): The degree of internationalization is measured by the percentage of operating income from outside the home country relative to total income, with foreign sales representing the sum of sales from all foreign market segments. This indicator has been widely used in previous studies to assess internationalization [46]. To address potential endogeneity issues, a one-period lag of internationalization is used as the dependent variable.

Independent variable

Substantive corporate social responsibility (CSRS): ESG scores represent the importance and actual resources invested in CSR practices. It can measure CSRS performance [13]. The Refinitiv ESG score consists of two main parts: Part I and Part II. Part I is the uncontroversial event ESG score, and Part II is the ESG controversy score, especially negative events. The final ESG score is a combination of Part I and Part II in the range of 0–100. Higher scores indicate greater CSR achievements.

Symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR): Coding CSR reports can confirm CSR disclosures [50]. All CSR disclosure items are assigned a value of 0 or 1, representing the absence or presence of reporting in a specific CSR category. The total CSRR score is computed by summing all categories. Before conducting text mining, the CSR reports’ analytical framework developed by Ye et al. [62] was used. In conjunction with the content of CSR reports and the relevant literature [63], the subcategory of anti-corruption is included within the economic category (see

Table 1. The analytical framework for CSR reports.

Code	Category	Subcategory	Keywords
EC	Economic initiatives	EC1—Job creation	Job creation
		EC2—Supply chain responsibility	Supply chain; anti-competitive; local supplier
		EC3—Anti-corruption	Anti-corruption
LA	Labor practice	LA1—Training and education	Training; equal opportunities
		LA2—Occupational health and safety	Health; safety; occupational
PR	Product responsibility	PR1—Quality of products	Quality
SO	Social initiatives	SO1—Local community communication	Community
		SO2—Donation	Donation
		SO3—Disaster relief	Disaster
		SO4—Poverty caring	Poverty; hunger
		SO5—Medical caring	Disease; medical; disability
		SO6—Youth and education	Children; student; sport
HR	Human rights	HR1—Nondiscrimination	Discrimination
EN	Environmental initiatives	EN1—Energy and carbon emission	Carbon emission
		EN2—Biodiversity conservation	Biodiversity
		EN3—Waste management	Ecosystem; waste

). The analytical framework includes 6 categories (economic initiatives (EC), labor practice (LA), product (PR), social initiatives (SO), human rights (HR), and environmental initiatives (EN)) and 16 subcategories, which can comprehensively analyze the contents of CSR reports.

According to Ye et al. [62], the variables listed in Table 1 are derived from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Construction and Real Estate Sector Supplement Guidelines, which provide a widely recognized framework for CSR reporting. Based on these guidelines, CSR indicators are categorized into six main categories, which are further refined according to the CSR reports analyzed. The reason for selecting these categories is that they represent CSR practices commonly adopted in the international construction industry and align with global standards while addressing local needs in different cultural and market contexts.

Corporate hypocrisy (CH): The degree of corporate hypocrisy can be measured by calculating the difference between the standardized symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR) score and the standardized substantive corporate social responsibility (CSRS) score [64,65,66,67,68].

$$CH={CSRR}^{*}-{CSRS}^{*}$$

(1)

CH represents the value of corporate hypocrisy; the CSRR* represents the CSRR after standardization; CSRS* represents the CSRS after standardization.

Control variables: Control variables are shown in

Table 2. Control variables.

Variable Symbol	Variable Name	Measure Methods
Size1	Financial size	Firms’ total asset size with a logarithm transformation
Size2	Organizational size	Firms’ employee size with a logarithm transformation
ND	Net debt	Net debt
Age	Age	Reporting year—year the company was founded, logarithmic
ROA	Return on assets	Return on total assets
Growth	Enterprise growth rate	Growth rate of total business revenue
Speed	Speed of internationalization	Change rate of overseas sales/total sales
CI	Capital intensity	Total assets/total sales
CSRS	Substantive CSR	Refinitiv ESG rating system

.

3.3. Models

To examine the impacts of internationalization on substantive corporate social responsibility (CSRS), symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR), and corporate hypocrisy (CH), this study employs multiple regression models. These models analyze how internationalization, along with other control variables, impacts the three dependent variables (CSRS, CSRR, and CH). The relationship between the independent and dependent variables is non-deterministic, meaning that they are influenced by other factors that may vary over time and across firms. Therefore, using regression models to analyze these complex and dynamic relationships is appropriate, as it helps capture variations in CSR practices and corporate hypocrisy behaviors across different markets and firms.

Additionally, regression models can help address omitted variable bias and control for time-varying factors, which is particularly effective for analyzing panel data with repeated cross-sectional observations. By estimating the coefficients, we can assess the impact of internationalization on CSR behaviors (both substantive and symbolic) and understand whether these behaviors are consistent and whether they contribute to the emergence of corporate hypocrisy. Three multiple regression models are given below:

$$\begin{array}{l}CSR{S}_{it}={\alpha }_0+{\alpha }_{1}DO{I}_{it}+{\alpha }_{2}Siz{e}_{1it}+{\alpha }_{3}Siz{e}_{2it}+{\alpha }_{4}N{D}_{it}+{\alpha }_{5}RO{A}_{it}\\ +{\alpha }_{6}Growt{h}_{it}+{\alpha }_{7}Spee{d}_{it}+{\alpha }_{8}C{I}_{it}+{\alpha }_{9}Ag{e}_{it}+{\epsilon }_1\end{array}$$

(2)

$$\begin{array}{l}CSR{R}_{it}={\beta }_0+{\beta }_{1}DO{I}_{it}+{\beta }_{2}Siz{e}_{1it}+{\beta }_{3}Siz{e}_{2it}+{\beta }_{4}N{D}_{it}+{\beta }_{5}RO{A}_{it}\\ +{\beta }_{6}Growt{h}_{it}+{\beta }_{7}Spee{d}_{it}+{\beta }_{8}C{I}_{it}+{\beta }_{9}Ag{e}_{it}+{\epsilon }_2\end{array}$$

(3)

$$\begin{array}{l}CSR{D}_{it}={\eta }_0+{\eta }_{1}DO{I}_{it}+{\eta }_{2}Siz{e}_{1it}+{\eta }_{3}Siz{e}_{2it}+{\eta }_{4}N{D}_{it}+{\eta }_{5}RO{A}_{it}\\ +{\eta }_{6}Growt{h}_{it}+{\eta }_{7}Spee{d}_{it}+{\eta }_{8}C{I}_{it}+{\eta }_{9}Ag{e}_{it}+{\eta }_{10}CSR{S}_{it}+{\epsilon }_3\end{array}$$

(4)

where CSRS_it represents the CSRS score of firm i at time t; CSRR_it represents the CSRR score of firm i at time t; CH_it represents the degree of corporate hypocrisy of firm i at time t. DOI_it means the degree of internationalization of firm i at time t. Size_1it refers to the total assets of the firm i at time t. Size_2it represents the total number of employees in the firm i at time t. ND_it represents the net debt of firm i at time t. ROA_it shows the return rate on firm i assets at time t. Growth_it is the growth rate of firm i at time t. Speed_it indicates the internationalization speed of firm i at time t. CIit refers to the capital intensity of firm i at time t. Age_it is the age of firm i at time t. α₀–α₉, β₀–β₉, and η₀–η₁₀ are the coefficients to be estimated. ε₁–ε₃ is the error term.

The Breusch and Pagan Lagrange multiplier and Hausman tests are conducted to determine the appropriate regression model among combined OLS, fixed effects, and random effects regression models [69]. These three models are well-suited for analyzing panel data with repeated cross-sectional observations over time and addressing the problem of omitted variables [70]. A fixed effects panel data analysis was conducted using three regression models.

4. Results of Data Analysis

As shown in

Table 3. Descriptive statistics.

Variable	Sample Size	Average Value	Standard Deviation	Minimum Value	Maximum Value
DOI	464	0.449	0.302	0.000	1.000
CSRS	464	59.528	17.924	15.920	94.080
CSRR	464	19.789	3.494	11.000	27.000
CH	464	−0.003	1.048	−3.233	2.714
ROA	464	0.026	0.048	−0.561	0.146
Size1	464	50,836,003.000	130,300,000.000	1,189,281.000	1,247,000,000.000
Size2	464	69,666.935	98,459.391	1661	534,652
ND	464	9,057,466.700	28,270,783.000	−6,697,062.000	307,500,000.000
Age	464	45.442	35.952	4.000	230.000
Growth	464	0.032	0.208	−0.981	1.153
CI	464	1.545	1.589	0.297	13.994
Speed	464	0.085	0.886	−1.000	15.000

, the average substantive corporate social responsibility (CSRS) score is 59.528, with a substantial standard deviation ranging from 15.92 to 94.08, indicating significant variability in CSRS performance across different companies. The average symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR) score for international contractors in this study is 19.789. Although the average level of corporate hypocrisy (CH) is relatively low, the value shows considerable variation. The degree of internationalization (DOI) is relatively high, with an average proportion of 47.7%, stressing the importance of international markets for construction companies.

Table 4. Pearson correlations.

Variable	Coefficient	Variable	Coefficient	Variable	Coefficient
(1) CSRS	1.000	(1) CSRR	1.000	(1) CH	1.000
(2) DOI	0.408 ***	(2) DOI	0.223 ***	(2) CSRS	−0.526 ***
(3) ROA	0.003	(3) ROA	−0.016	(3) DOI	−0.178 ***
(4) Size1	−0.057	(4) Size1	0.145 ***	(4) ROA	−0.018
(5) Size2	−0.211 ***	(5) Size2	0.031	(5) Size1	0.192 ***
(6) ND	−0.169 ***	(6) ND	−0.086 *	(6) Size2	0.232 ***
(7) Age	0.096 **	(7) Age	0.039	(7) ND	0.080 *
(8) Growth	−0.080 *	(8) Growth	0.012	(8) Age	−0.055
(9) CI	−0.189 ***	(9) CI	0.002	(9) Growth	0.088 *
(10) Speed	−0.082 *	(10) Speed	−0.005	(10) CI	0.179 ***
				(11) Speed	0.074

Note: *, **, and *** represent statistical significance at 90, 95, and 99%, respectively.

shows the correlations between different variables. Substantive corporate social responsibility (CSRS) is positively correlated with the degree of internationalization; the correlation coefficient is 0.408 and significant at the 1% level. Symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR) shows a positive correlation with the degree of internationalization, with a correlation coefficient of 0.223 and significant at the 1% level. Conversely, corporate hypocrisy (CH) negatively correlates with internationalization; the coefficient is −0.178 and significant at the 1% level. The Pearson correlation results between variables show that the CSRS, CSRR, and CH are inter-correlated with the degree of internationalization; however, it cannot directly determine the correlation relationship between the dependent and independent variables. As a result, further verification is required.

Before running the multiple regression test, we ran the VIF test to check that the data are not subject to multicollinearity. Generally, a VIF of less than 10 is free of multicollinearity. Finally, the data are not subject to multicollinearity as none of the variables have a variance inflation factor above 5.

We used three multiple regression models to test three hypotheses. Model 1 is used to test the impacts of the degree of internationalization on substantive corporate social responsibility (CSRS). Model 2 tests the impacts of the degree of internationalization on symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR). Model 3 tests the impacts of the degree of internationalization on corporate hypocrisy (CH).

Table 5. Multiple regression analysis.

	CSRS	CSRR	CH
L.DOI	9.189 **	5.053 ***	1.318 ***
ESG			−0.028 ***
ROA	1.020	0.832	0.056
Size1	4.860 **	0.354	0.187
Size2	0.000	−0.000	−0.000
CI	0.180	0.244	0.081
Speed	−0.625	0.013	0.024
Growth	−4.664 **	−0.306	0.571
ND	0.000	0.000	0.034
Age	30.935 ***	5.108 ***	0.303
Constant	−132.100 ***	−6.790	−3.078
R2	0.377	0.162	0.082
F-test	20.049	6.383	3.740
Prob > F	0.000	0.000	0.000
Number	372	372	372

Note: ** and *** represent statistical significance at 95 and 99%, respectively.

shows the results of multiple regression analysis.

As shown in Table 5, the R² value of the regression models represents the extent to which the independent variables (such as internationalization, company size, etc.) can explain the variation in the dependent variables (such as substantive corporate social responsibility (CSRS), symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR), and corporate hypocrisy (CH)). In this study, we have three regression models corresponding to the impact of internationalization on substantive CSR (CSRS), symbolic CSR (CSRR), and corporate hypocrisy (CH). The R² values for these three regression models are 0.377, 0.162, and 0.082, respectively. The R² value for substantive CSR (CSRS) is relatively high, indicating that internationalization has a significant impact on substantive CSR behaviors. The R² values for symbolic CSR (CSRR) and corporate hypocrisy (CH) are lower, suggesting that other unobserved variables may have a more limited effect on these two aspects.

According to the results in Table 5, a significant positive linear relationship exists between the degree of internationalization and substantive corporate social responsibility of international contractors, with a correlation coefficient of 9.189 and significance at the 5% level. There is a significant positive relationship between the degree of internationalization and symbolic corporate social responsibility, with a correlation coefficient of 3.493 and significant at the 1% level. The correlation coefficient between the degree of internationalization and corporate hypocrisy (CH) is 0.901 and significant at 1%. The results prove the hypotheses H1, H2, and H3 proposed in Section 2.

Several robustness tests were conducted to provide solid support for our findings; the results can be found in the

Table 6. Robustness test.

	Robustness Test 1			Robustness Test 2			Robustness Test 3
	CSRS	CSRR	CH	CSRS	CSRR	CH	CSRS	CSRR	CH
L.DOI	50.716 ***	13.104 ***	3.485 **	8.964 *	5.116 ***	1.332 ***	7.592 *	4.983 ***	1.333 ***
ESG			−0.032 ***			−0.027 ***			−0.027 ***
ROA	9.899	2.553	0.515	−2.415	1.793	−1.397	5.792	−3.468	−1.397
Size1	4.930 *	0.368	0.212	5.69 **	0.122	0.118	4.568 **	0.318	0.163
Size2	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
CI	−0.084	0.532	0.069	0.329	0.541	0.069	0.900	0.811	0.125
Speed	−0.068	0.122	0.050	−0.596	0.005	0.022	−2.724	0.195	0.143
Growth	−3.555	−0.091	0.078	−4.826 **	−0.261	0.057	−4.227 *	0.096	0.151
ND	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	−0.003	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Age	26.367 ***	4.223 ***	0.206	30.025 ***	5.363 ***	0.363	30.535 ***	5.193 ***	0.299
Level				−6.884	1.926	0.553
Constant				−142.126 ***	−3.986	−2.216	−126.240 ***	−6.297	−2.694
R2	0.135	0.055	0.010	0.380	0.165	0.084	0.374	0.167	0.087
F-test	15.070	4.980	2.040	18.239	5.854	2.480	19.752	6.621	2.843
Prob > F	0.000	0.000	0.030	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.002
Number	368	368	368	372	372	372	372	372	372

Note: *, **, and *** represent statistical significance at 90, 95, and 99%, respectively.

. First, the instrumental variables approach was used to weaken the endogeneity problem. Referring to Jennifer and Susan [71], we used the cumulative amount of bilateral investment agreements (BITs) between the company’s home country and other countries (regions) as an instrumental variable for the degree of internationalization. We conducted a fixed effects model to test the hypotheses (2sls, instrumental variables method). According to [72], BITs offer arbitration and dispute settlement mechanisms for investment, which safeguard bilateral outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) and potentially impact internationalization while minimally affecting CSR. Therefore, instrumental variables can be considered reasonable. In the two-stage least squares estimation, the Kleibergen–Paap rk LM statistic rejects the original hypothesis that the instrumental variable is under-identified. The Kleibergen–Paap Wald rk F statistic rejects the original hypothesis that the instrumental variable is weakly identified, so the instrumental variables are appropriate. Second, high financial leverage can lead to higher transaction costs, decline sales growth, and hinder companies’ market access. The level of corporate indebtedness can influence corporate charitable donation behavior [73]. We added the net assets debt ratio as another control variable for robustness testing.

Finally, we further tested the robustness of the results by winsorizing variables to exclude the effect of outliers. The results of the three robustness tests indicate that the results of this study are robust and the empirical analysis supports the three hypotheses.

5. Findings and Discussion

5.1. The Positive Impacts of Internationalization on Corporate Hypocrisy

The results shown in Table 5 show that the degree of internationalization positively impacts corporate hypocrisy (CH). However, Tashman, Marano, and Kostova [12] found that higher levels of MNE internationalization are negatively related to CSR decoupling in emerging markets. In contrast with previous studies, our results suggest that a higher degree of internationalization may contribute to more corporate hypocrisy performance. The reasons are mainly cost considerations and information asymmetry between companies and stakeholders, as delineated in the theory of cost–benefits and agency [13,74]. The theory suggests that companies typically make decisions based on a cost–benefit analysis when faced with external pressures. During the internationalization process, construction contractors face significant short-term cost pressures, which makes them more likely to adopt symbolic CSR actions rather than high-cost substantive CSR investments. This theory explains why, in the context of globalization, contractors, despite recognizing the importance of CSR, still opt for lower-cost and easier-to-implement symbolic CSR behaviors. Agency theory emphasizes the information asymmetry and conflicts of interest between companies and stakeholders. In the context of internationalization, due to the information gap between multinational companies and host countries, companies may selectively disclose CSR behaviors to avoid negative information leakage and enhance their market competitiveness. This theory helps explain why international contractors might exaggerate their CSR commitments, creating corporate hypocrisy, even when their actions do not align with their statements.

In addition, the study of Tashman, Marano, and Kostova [12] was averaged for all industries. It used the data from the top 100 non-financial MNEs by foreign assets between 2005 and 2012. Compared with these studies, our findings suggest that CSR practices in the construction industry may not be as strictly scrutinized as in other industries, and construction contractors’ awareness of CSR is also lower than in other industries. This discrepancy may be due to the unique characteristics of the construction industry, including its project-oriented nature, strong regional focus, and a relatively lower historic emphasis on CSR.

The research shows corporate hypocrisy in contractors, which aligns with the findings of Ballou et al. [75] and Clarkson et al. [76]. Companies may contradict their stated CSR standards or exaggerate their CSR activities. The inconsistencies between CSR behavior and oral statements lead to corporate hypocrisy. Although international contractors have been aware of the importance of CSR for corporate development, they prefer to respond to external pressures and relieve the legitimacy crisis by improving CSR reports, driven by cost-savings considerations in the international market. Researchers emphasized that reducing CSR investments may improve companies’ competitiveness [77]. This confirms the reactive behavior of international contractors in fulfilling CSR, primarily driven by stakeholder pressure and legitimacy requirements. Compared with other industries, the return on CSR investment in the construction industry may be more complex, as many construction companies face short-term cost pressures, making them more inclined to engage in symbolic CSR actions rather than making higher-cost substantive CSR investments.

In particular, internationalization strategies drive companies to bear more transaction costs [78]. Contractor et al. [79] pointed out that a long-term internationalization strategy negatively affects corporate development. This is related to the characteristics of the construction industry, particularly the fact that the construction industry typically needs to invest significant resources to adapt to the requirements of different markets during internationalization, which increases short-term transaction costs and operational difficulties. According to Jung et al. [80], there is a negative synergistic effect of CSR and internationalization strategies on company performance. For the construction industry, the return on CSR is more complex because these companies face significant project costs and time pressures, often opting for lower-cost symbolic CSR actions rather than high-cost substantive CSR investments, which may impact their financial performance.

On the other hand, increasing stakeholder diversity and different perceptions of CSR among stakeholders poses challenges for MNEs to address the diverse interests of their stakeholder groups in the international market [42]. International contractors, in the process of globalization, often have to address the diverse demands of stakeholders from different regions and cultures, which makes it difficult for them to develop a unified and effective CSR strategy. Therefore, international contractors must think more deeply about how to fulfill CSR in order to enhance their financial performance and competitiveness in different markets. Publishing and improving CSR reports, particularly through reports that comply with international standards, may be a more resource-efficient strategy than directly investing in substantive and innovative CSR practices [50]. Especially in certain market environments, companies can meet stakeholder demands by enhancing the transparency and legitimacy of their CSR reports, thus avoiding excessive resource investment.

Information asymmetry is an imbalance between companies and stakeholders in obtaining CSR details. Unfamiliarity with the host market leads to more pronounced information asymmetry between construction contractors and stakeholders. Compared with other industries, contractors in the construction industry often lack sufficient localized CSR practices when expanding internationally, which exacerbates the degree of information asymmetry. Due to the project-oriented nature of the construction industry, it is generally difficult to tailor CSR strategies to the specific needs of different markets, resulting in inconsistent levels of CSR implementation across various countries and regions. Enterprises are likely to exaggerate or cover up certain behaviors, which increases corporate hypocrisy. Especially in some countries with low levels of economic development, CSR scrutiny by stakeholders may be remiss, which allows companies to capitalize on hypocrisy. Therefore, the construction industry faces more complex stakeholder management challenges in the process of globalization and needs to pay more attention to the transparency and consistency of CSR reporting to reduce the impact of hypocrisy on the company’s reputation.

5.2. The Positive Impacts of Internationalization on Substantive Corporate Social Responsibility (CSRS)

The findings show that contractors are more inclined to fulfill CSR with a higher degree of internationalization. It echoes the previous view that contractors increasingly implement CSR practices in the highly competitive international market [81]. Sang et al. [82] highlighted that contractors should engage in more CSR activities to enhance revenue in internationalization. The internationalization process and scope can shape a CSR response strategy [73]. However, the findings of this study provide new insights into the previously uncertain relationship between CSR and internationalization. The results show that when the degree of internationalization is low, CSR has a relatively small impact on the development of construction enterprises; however, as internationalization increases, the impact of CSR in the construction industry becomes more significant. This suggests that as internationalization progresses, the external scrutiny and social responsibility requirements faced by the construction industry in different markets also intensify, forcing contractors to place greater emphasis on the implementation of CSR. This aligns with the findings of Kang [83], who pointed out that construction contractors may face more external scrutiny in overseas markets, thereby driving them to fulfill CSR more actively.

Stakeholder theory can help understand contractors’ CSR performance in the international market. There is a robust correlation between CSR and the composition and quantity of stakeholders [84]. Stakeholder theory suggests that corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices are typically driven by the demands and expectations of stakeholders. During internationalization, contractors must address the needs of stakeholders from different markets. This diverse group of stakeholders makes it challenging for multinational companies to develop a unified CSR strategy. Stakeholder theory helps us understand why contractors may implement different CSR strategies across various markets and further explains why they choose to enhance the transparency of CSR reports to meet stakeholder expectations. Construction companies aim to enhance the engagement and loyalty of both internal and external stakeholders through CSR, thereby gaining a larger market share. Customers, suppliers, and employees are more likely to reward companies with high CSR levels by paying a premium, reducing transaction costs, and increasing productivity. However, contractors may implement CSR differently across regions and markets, depending on local culture, laws, regulations, and market demands. Therefore, attention should be given to CSR differences among contractors in different regions, especially during the internationalization process of multinational enterprises, as these regional differences may influence CSR implementation and performance. Through the interaction between companies and their stakeholders, international trade is an important external driver of CSR activities [85].

Compared with other industries, the CSR challenges faced by the construction industry are more complex. The project-oriented and regional nature of the construction industry leads to higher costs and time pressures during internationalization, causing construction contractors to adopt CSR strategies that are often different from those in other industries. For example, in technology-intensive industries, CSR tends to focus more on innovation and long-term sustainability, whereas in the construction industry, CSR may place greater emphasis on short-term issues such as environmental impact and worker safety. This industry-specific nature requires an independent evaluation of CSR implementation in the construction industry, especially in comparison with other industries, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the unique challenges and contributions of the construction industry in CSR.

5.3. The Positive Impacts of Internationalization on Symbolic Corporate Social Responsibility (CSRR)

The results show that internationalization positively impacts the symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR), and contractors with a higher degree of internationalization are more likely to improve their CSR reports. Similarly, Aray, Dikova, Garanina, and Veselova [14] found that internationalization positively affects CSR reporting. CSR reports are important for contractors to communicate with their stakeholders, including regulators, and the media can obtain corporate information from CSR reports. CSR reporting helps companies become legitimate in their international markets [86].

The interplay of social, cultural, legal, regulatory, and economic factors between home and host countries, combined with geographic diversification, broadens the range of stakeholders for international contractors. The increased degree of internationalization means that contractors will likely come under greater scrutiny from the international community and face pressure to issue mandatory CSR reports. Compared with other industries, the challenges of implementing CSR in the construction industry are more complex. The project-oriented and regional nature of the construction industry leads to higher costs and time pressures during internationalization, which makes construction contractors more likely to adopt symbolic CSR actions rather than invest in higher-cost substantive CSR. In contrast, technology-intensive industries (such as information technology or high-tech industries) tend to focus more on long-term innovation and sustainability, while the construction industry is more concerned with short-term issues such as environmental impact and worker safety. This industry-specific context requires us to compare CSR in the construction industry with other industries to better understand its unique challenges and contributions in the context of globalization. Corbett and Kirsch [87] asserted that countries with strong environmentally friendly attitudes put social pressure on companies to adopt environmental standards. International standards related to CSR reporting have witnessed a surge in recent years, placing contractors under increased pressure to disclose their CSR reports. International organizations such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) urge companies to implement a variety of metrics in their reports. Companies that follow these metrics tend to achieve a higher GRI “rating” for their reports.

5.4. Managerial Implications

The findings indicate a growing emphasis among contractors on CSR activities and CSR reporting as the degree of internationalization continues to increase. This study generates several valuable insights. Construction company managers may face the unsettling situation of recognizing the context of internationalization. On the one hand, they have recognized that CSR can help companies enter foreign markets more smoothly; on the other hand, they believe that CSR may potentially reduce corporate profits. Corporate hypocrisy is an effective solution for MNEs, which respond to stakeholder demands by continuously improving their CSR reports, even though they do not engage in corresponding CSR behaviors [12]. It helps organizations meet different stakeholders’ needs with minimal resource investment. However, corporate hypocrisy can be identified by stakeholders, which will result in a negative company reputation and financial performance [11].

From the perspective of international contractors, the phenomenon of corporate hypocrisy is the lack of understanding of the nature of CSR. First, contractors should strengthen their CSR management capabilities through resource integration and allocation to ensure that CSR activities are effectively implemented in the company’s operations. To raise CSR awareness, contractors can regularly conduct employee training and education, helping employees understand the significance and practical methods of CSR, particularly how to effectively implement CSR in the context of globalization and localization. Second, contractors must disclose actual CSR reports and minimize selective disclosure. Although a comprehensive CSR report is important for a company’s reputation, it should prioritize transparency. Especially when dealing with negative events, contractors should disclose them truthfully, including issues such as quality problems, casualties, and environmental pollution, to demonstrate the company’s transparency and integrity regarding social responsibility. This approach will help build long-term trust and enhance the company’s image in terms of social responsibility.

From a stakeholder perspective, corporate hypocrisy may lead to conflicts of interest between stakeholders and contractors [13]. To mitigate cooperation risks, stakeholders should establish an effective CSR review mechanism, including pre-assessment, ongoing supervision, and post-evaluation. Stakeholders, especially consumers, investors, and social groups, should actively participate in the CSR activities of construction industry companies and provide constructive feedback. Through regular public consultations and feedback mechanisms, stakeholders can better understand a company’s CSR performance and monitor potential corporate hypocrisy. Stakeholders should support and promote independent third-party evaluation agencies to assess the CSR reports and actual actions of construction industry companies. Through third-party evaluation, corporate hypocrisy can be effectively identified, and companies can be encouraged to take more substantive CSR actions. Stakeholders should collaborate with contractors and regulatory agencies to jointly develop and improve CSR-related policies in the construction industry, strengthen oversight of companies, and ensure that companies are better able to fulfill their social responsibilities in the context of globalization. This will help prevent purely symbolic actions rather than substantive actions, particularly in ensuring the implementation of environmental protection and worker safety responsibilities in construction projects.

Finally, from a regulatory perspective, many (international) national standard setters have criticized the current decoupling phenomenon of CSR practice and CSR reporting [13]. Regulatory agencies should strengthen the oversight of CSR reports in the construction industry and promote the development of more detailed and stringent reporting standards, ensuring that the reports are not just formal but also reflect the company’s actual social responsibility actions, particularly in the context of environmental and social responsibility measures in construction projects. In addition, regulatory agencies should advocate for the harmonization of multinational standards to ensure that CSR reports from the construction industry across different countries can achieve comparability and transparency. Regulatory agencies should collaborate with third-party evaluation agencies to establish an effective CSR review mechanism, including pre-assessment, ongoing monitoring, and post-evaluation of CSR reports from construction industry companies. This mechanism will help regulatory agencies identify corporate hypocrisy in a timely manner and ensure that companies comply with CSR standards, particularly in areas such as environmental impacts and worker welfare in construction projects. Regulatory agencies should push for the revision of laws and policies, requiring construction industry companies to disclose negative events in their CSR reports and make this a key criterion for assessing the authenticity of CSR reports. This will not only enhance the transparency of the reports but also improve the companies’ commitment to fulfilling their social responsibilities, particularly in addressing issues commonly found in the construction industry, such as safety accidents and environmental pollution.

6. Conclusions

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an important paradigm of international construction contractors. Complex international environment and stakeholder relationships have prompted a series of corporate hypocrisy events due to the different performances of substantive corporate social responsibility (CSRS) and symbolic corporate social responsibility (CSRR) in internationalization. Our study examines the impacts of internationalization on substantive corporate social responsibility and symbolic corporate social responsibility. This study fills a research gap by investigating the relationship between internationalization and the corporate hypocrisy of the construction industry. To increase the generality of the findings, we used data from the top construction companies worldwide and investigated a more recent time frame than earlier studies.

We found a positive relationship between the degree of internationalization and the two types of CSR performance in the international construction industry, and internationalization can positively impact corporate hypocrisy. In doing so, we have made several important contributions to the literature. First, we categorized CSR into two types based on the definition of corporate hypocrisy, namely substantive corporate social responsibility and symbolic corporate social responsibility. This study proposes and examines the argument that contractors can fulfill CSR in the international context based on stakeholder relations and legitimacy theory. It enriches theories related to CSR. Second, we combined CSR, internationalization, agency, legitimacy, and stakeholder theories to explain internationalization’s effect on corporate hypocrisy.

Moreover, the result theoretically reveals that the motivation for international contractors to fulfill CSR is based on external pressure rather than proactive CSR awareness, which expands the research perspective of CSR in the construction industry. There is an increasing disparity in the attention given by contractors to the two types of CSR performance under internationalization, thus contributing to the literature on corporate hypocrisy and internationalization. Finally, we provided managerial insights that the internationalization strategy may increase the operation risks of contractors by leading to corporate hypocrisy. Contractors must coordinate CSR and internationalization strategies and balance substantive and symbolic corporate social responsibility development to avoid corporate hypocrisy.

Although this study provides theoretical support for the development of CSR in the international construction industry, its findings should be further examined through future empirical studies. The limitations of this study are obvious. This paper uses large international contractors as the sample, as these companies are more representative of CSR performance and internationalization trends. However, excluding small- and medium-sized construction contractors represents a significant limitation. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) make important contributions to the construction industry, and their CSR practices and internationalization strategies may differ substantially from those of large contractors. Due to inherent constraints, these differences should be acknowledged, and future research should explore the CSR practices and internationalization of SMEs in the construction sector. Additionally, this study includes companies from 22 countries, but companies from Europe and Asia dominate the sample. Future research could expand the sample to include companies from more regions, enhancing the generalizability of the findings.