The Impact of Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Resilience—An Exploratory Case Study Based on Tesla

Abstract

In today’s complex business environments, integrating strategic corporate social responsibility (SCSR) is essential for aligning business objectives with societal interests and strengthening organizational resilience. Using Tesla as a case study, we applied stakeholder theory, grounded theory, and the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) model to construct a theoretical framework on the impact of SCSR on organizational resilience and to examine the mechanisms underpinning this process. Through the implementation of SCSR, enterprises deeply engage with primary and public stakeholders, establish resilient relationships, and enhance organizational resilience through seven dimensions: development governance, strategic management, relationship, financial, product, cultural, and social. The theoretical framework developed in this study provides a reference for subsequent research on SCSR and organizational resilience, and offers management insights for enterprises to integrate SCSR, enhance organizational resilience, and improve long-term competitiveness.

1. Introduction

The contemporary business environment is characterized by unprecedented challenges and uncertainties. Various organizations and standards have emerged in the context of globalization, including the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the ISO 26000 guidelines on social responsibility. China’s 20th National Congress has emphasized the concept of building a community with a shared future for humanity, focusing on sustainable development across economic, social, and environmental domains (Zhou et al., 2019).

The emergence of social and environmental issues, such as climate change, resource scarcity, and social inequality, has resulted in sudden and unpredictable events that significantly alter the operating environment of organizations. This poses a substantial challenge to their development and survival. Organizational resilience, defined as the core ability of enterprises to cope with crises in changing, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous situations (P. Li & Zhu, 2021), requires enterprises to possess the capacity to resist, adapt, and recover from shocks and changes from both external and internal sources. The construction and enhancement of organizational resilience represent a significant and pressing challenge that must be addressed (Chi et al., 2023).

During crises, highly resilient organizations can rapidly identify and respond to opportunities and challenges in diverse, volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environments. They are adept at transforming risks into opportunities and promoting sustainable development (Ortiz-de-Mandojana & Bansal, 2016). Organizational resilience is an indispensable quality that enables organizations to overcome challenges and adversities. Current research on organizational resilience is primarily theoretical, focusing on its definition, measurement, and mechanisms of influence. However, there is no consensus on how organizational resilience is formed (Linnenluecke, 2017; Shan et al., 2021). Furthermore, existing research on the precursor variables of organizational resilience continues to focus on internal organizational behaviors from a narrow perspective. However, the realization of organizational recovery and rebound in the context of a crisis cannot be dissociated from interactions with other stakeholders. Indeed, organizational resilience can be influenced at three levels within an organization: individual, team, and organization. Additionally, network relationships established with external stakeholders represent a significant source of organizational resilience (G. Zhang et al., 2020). In recent years, scholars have begun regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR)—comprising voluntary actions that enterprises take to increase social welfare beyond transactional interests and that are not mandated by law—as an influencing factor of organizational resilience. On the one hand, CSR enhances the trust and collaboration between enterprises and stakeholders, thereby strengthening the organization’s ability to absorb and mitigate external shocks (DesJardine et al., 2019). On the other hand, the information flow, resource acquisition channels, and legitimacy advantages brought by CSR also provide enterprises with a flexible response space and external institutional support in an uncertain environment (Ortiz-de-Mandojana & Bansal, 2016).

On this basis, strategic CSR (SCSR), as a form of CSR practice with more central and forward-looking features, further expands the role boundary of CSR in the construction of organizational resilience. SCSR denotes the strategic conduct of an enterprise with the objective of maximizing the interests of shareholders while concurrently considering the interests of other stakeholders. This entails integrating social responsibility into the strategic planning and daily operations of the enterprise, addressing social issues, and ultimately achieving the dual objectives of maximizing its own interests and the common interests of society (Burke & Logsdon, 1996; Peng & Liu, 2015; S. Wang et al., 2011). SCSR offers a novel perspective for examining organizational resilience, which has recently emerged as a pivotal factor in scholarly discourse. However, studies on SCSR and organizational resilience primarily concentrate on conceptual and theoretical analyses. Empirical studies based on enterprise data are relatively few (Gu & Fang, 2022). Additionally, existing studies have disparate perspectives on the connotations, dimensions, and methods of measuring SCSR and organizational resilience (Zhou et al., 2019). The lack of an applicable theoretical framework hinders the provision of a robust theoretical foundation and practical guidance for enterprise managers, necessitating further exploration and testing.

Considering these theoretical gaps, Tesla is selected as a case study. This study focuses on two key aspects.

• How is organizational resilience formed when enterprises perform SCSR?
• What are the structural dimensions and content system of organizational resilience based on Tesla’s practices?

This study introduces a novel approach to the study of organizational resilience by integrating SCSR into the research framework. It employs the grounded theory method to construct a model of the impact of SCSR on organizational resilience. Furthermore, it deconstructs the formation process and mechanism of action of organizational resilience when enterprises engage in SCSR to provide comprehensive answers to the questions.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Organizational Resilience

The term resilience is first used in the physical sciences literature to describe the ability of materials to absorb energy during plastic deformation and rupture. In the field of organizational management, resilience is defined as an organization’s capacity to maintain stability, adapt flexibly to changing circumstances, and develop continuously in the face of various challenges and changes (Tang et al., 2023). Organizational resilience emphasizes an organization’s ability to adapt, recover, and develop in the face of internal and external challenges and changes (Lu & Xiang, 2021), and go back quickly to its original state after facing negative events such as threats and disruptions (X. Zhang & Teng, 2021; Y. Wang, 2016).

Currently, the academic community offers several perspectives on organizational resilience, collectively forming dynamic, static, and bounce-back views as well as a view that incorporates bounce-forward and a combination of bounce-back and bounce-forward (G. Zhang et al., 2020). Proponents of the “dynamic view” define organizational resilience in terms of capabilities and processes. They view organizational resilience as a dynamic capability or development process whereby an organization continuously develops adaptability over time (Carvalho & Areal, 2016; Williams et al., 2017). Meanwhile, those with a “static view” argue that organizational resilience should be defined in terms of traits and outcomes. They view organizational resilience as the desired traits or achieved outcomes of the organization, and as a static attribute of rapid recovery from unexpected situations (Home & Orr, 1997; Sahebjamnia et al., 2018). The “dynamic view” reflects the dynamic capabilities and processes of organizational resilience, while the “static view” reveals the basic attributes and outcomes inherent in organizational resilience (Tang et al., 2023). These two perspectives are independent yet interrelated. In this study, we employ both dynamic and static approaches to describe and analyze organizational resilience.

Among the three concepts of organizational resilience, bounce-back is primarily a physical phenomenon. Organizational resilience is an organization’s capacity to return to its original state following a failure, crisis, or disaster (Van Der Vegt et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2017). In contrast, bounce-forward examines organizational resilience from a more dynamic perspective. This perspective encompasses the capacity of an organization to identify and seize opportunities amidst disruptions and respond constructively to challenges through adaptation and continuous innovation, thereby facilitating further organizational growth and prosperity (Barton & Kahn, 2019). The bounce-back and bounce-forward perspective synthesizes the preceding two views, defining organizational resilience as the capacity to return to or even surpass the pre-disturbance state of operations (Dai et al., 2017; Rao & Greve, 2018). This study aligns with the third view, which posits that bounce-back and bounce-forward are not mutually exclusive but rather two integral aspects of the overarching logic of organizational resilience. This perspective aligns with the “three-stage” model of organizational resilience development proposed by P. Li and Zhu (2021), which encompasses preparation and alertness, reflection and adjustment, recovery, and improvement.

In conclusion, a continuous evolutionary process enables organizations to cope with various challenges, identify new opportunities, and achieve self-transcendence. Organizational resilience allows organizations to remain flexible and resilient in a constantly changing environment and continuously reinvigorate their development and innovation.

2.2. SCSR

CSR is the responsibility of enterprises to all stakeholders, especially the major and public stakeholders. Major stakeholders include shareholders, suppliers, consumers, and employees, while minor stakeholders include the government, community, the environment, etc. (Muller et al., 2014). Over the past two decades, research on CSR has shifted its focus from exploring the direct correlation between CSR and financial performance to examining how CSR projects can create strategic benefits for organizations. The integration of traditional social responsibility and corporate strategy leads to SCSR, which is a form of social responsibility that can bring both social and economic benefits to enterprises. It represents the mutual integration of economic and social values at the strategic level (J. Liu & Sheng, 2017).

Repositioning CSR from a more strategic perspective is a key factor in stimulating the development of CSR activities that are aligned with the interests of stakeholders and society at large. Burke and Logsdon (1996) highlight that CSR can be considered a strategic practice when it facilitates a company’s ability to fulfill its mission, support core business activities, and deliver substantial business-related benefits. Lantos (2001), through a relatively systematic classification of CSR, proposed three forms: ethical CSR, altruistic CSR, and SCSR. Ethical CSR refers to the basic responsibility of enterprises to fulfill economic, legal, and moral obligations; altruistic CSR emphasizes that enterprises should take on charitable responsibilities voluntarily, even if they cannot obtain direct economic returns; and SCSR advocates that enterprises should balance their own economic interests while serving the society, achieving the unity of “self-interest” and “altruism”. A review of the SCSR literature (

Table 1. Connotations of SCSR.

Researcher	Visual Angle	Conclusion
Burke and Logsdon (1996)	CSR and strategic interests	CSR (policies, programs, or processes) that contribute to the core business activities and mission of the organization, and provide substantial business-related benefits to the organization
Baron (2001)	Motivation for behavior	A socially responsible profit maximization strategy for the company
Lantos (2001)	Nature of responsibility, motivation for behavior	Strategic philanthropy aimed at achieving strategic business objectives
Porter and Kramer (2002)	Corporate strategy, social value	Strategic corporate engagement in philanthropy to enhance competition, achieve financial goals, and create social value
Bagnoli and Watts (2003)	Private interests, public interests	Businesses increase the amount of private goods they offer when they also provide public goods to society, as seen in Bertrand and Gounod competitions
Porter and Kramer (2006)	Enterprise-society interrelationships, strategic objectives	SCSR creates shared value by addressing social issues, reshaping the relationship business and society, and promoting economic and social development
Jamali (2007)	Nature of responsibility, motivation for responsibility	SCSR is an effective combination of philanthropic contributions, business objectives, and strategies that align social and economic benefits
Husted and Allen (2007)	Traditional CSR, traditional corporate strategy, and SCSR	With the goal of value creation, SCSR reorganizes corporate resources and capabilities through product and service innovation to create greater value
Bhattacharyya (2010)	Strategic features	SCSR is a CSR with strategic characteristics such as centripetal, long-term orientation, and resource commitment
McWilliams and Siegel (2011)	Strategic objectives	“Responsible” activities can achieve sustainable competitive advantage without considering behavioral motivations
Bruyaka et al. (2013)	Motivation for behavior	CSR activities can bring economic and non-economic benefits to the company and its stakeholders, and they are closely integrated with the company’s core business activities

Collated from relevant information. CSR: corporate social responsibility; SCSR: strategic corporate social responsibility.

) reveals that a range of perspectives and conclusions have been used to define SCSR. However, the underlying connotation is largely consistent: a CSR practice that is intrinsically aligned between the business interests of the enterprise and the common interests of society, capable of integrating the enterprise’s resources, creating common value, addressing social issues, and pursuing a sustainable competitive advantage.

In accordance with the approach proposed by Burke and Logsdon (1996), which combines the close relationship between CSR and the concept of corporate strategy, this study links CSR policies, programs, and processes with value creation and identifies five SCSR characteristics: centrality, specificity, proactivity, voluntarism, and visibility, as presented in

Table 2. Characteristics of SCSR.

Features	Connotation
Centrality	SCSR is a core component of a company’s development strategy and is closely related to its core business objectives and mission
Specificity	SCSR establishes clear goals and strategies, provides services to society in a non-economic way, and addresses social problems by creating shared value
Proactivity	SCSR is a long-term approach for sustainable development, requiring enterprises to maintain vision and foresight, proactively monitor social and environmental changes, and develop CSR strategies in line with future trends
Voluntarism	SCSR represents a social responsibility voluntarily undertaken by enterprises.
Visibility	Enterprises need to demonstrate their CSR commitment and actions transparently, presenting their activities and achievements to their stakeholders

Collated from relevant information.

. These five characteristics not only lay the foundation for precisely defining the essential attributes of SCSR but also distill five key dimensions for identifying and testing SCSR, and they thus are called the “five-dimensional evaluation method”. The core of SCSR is the “strategy”. In contrast to traditional enterprise strategies that often regard CSR as an external and passive adaptation strategy that focuses on internal operations and market competition, SCSR is an internal and proactive strategy that integrates social issues into the core values of an enterprise, thereby expanding the scope of corporate responsibility to a wider range of social domains.

2.3. SCSR and Organizational Resilience

The direct relationship between SCSR and organizational resilience has gradually become a hot topic in academic research. Studies have shown that by fulfilling SCSR, enterprises can significantly enhance their adaptability and recovery capabilities in an uncertain environment. For instance, Gu and Fang (2022), based on a questionnaire survey of technology enterprises in the Yangtze River Delta region, found that implementation of SCSR has a significant positive impact on organizational resilience. This indicates that SCSR, with characteristics such as centrality, specificity, and proactivity, can directly promote the coordinated improvement of enterprise stability and development by optimizing resource integration, strengthening risk management, and enhancing strategic adjustment capabilities. Compared with the passive response of traditional CSR, SCSR pays more attention to close integration with the core strategy of the enterprise, thus becoming a key driving force for enhancing organizational resilience.

From the perspective of indirect influence, the fulfillment of SCSR can affect organizational resilience through two aspects: enterprise performance and sustainable competitive advantage. For example, SCSR encourages open innovation in business (J. Guo et al., 2019; Qi & Huang, 2014), transforms the external value chain, and affects competitive environments (Zhou et al., 2019). It establishes a reliable reputation and social attributes (Jia & Li, 2022), winning the recognition and support of internal and external stakeholders. The dual accumulation of short-term economic benefits and long-term intangible resources (J. Liu & Sheng, 2017) effectively improves an enterprise’s financial and innovation performance. Furthermore, an enterprise’s net profit and stock prices recover more quickly after shocks (Shao & Meng, 2015). In addition, by influencing heterogeneous resources, such as reputation, brand, strategic entrepreneurship, and CSR culture, SCSR transforms CSR fulfillment into value-creating corporate resources (Shao & Meng, 2015). This results in the acquisition of dual legitimacy (moral and practical legitimacy), VRIN resources, and dynamic capabilities (resilience, absorption, and innovation; Peng & Liu, 2015), which collectively confer a significant competitive advantage and sustainable growth to the enterprise.

Consequently, enterprises that adopt SCSR tend to demonstrate enhanced financial resilience, as evidenced by reduced financial volatility, substantial sales growth, and enhanced viability. Furthermore, they are more likely to achieve favorable reorganization of resources and capabilities. In the context of a VUCA environment, these enterprises demonstrate robust crisis response capabilities, enabling effective loss control, rapid operational restoration, and the maintenance of competitive advantages in a complex and volatile market environment. This allows them to leverage their social impact fully, create greater value, and achieve sustainable development.

3. Research Design

3.1. Research Methods

This study explores how organizational resilience is formed and how SCSR affects organizational resilience. Given the dynamics of the research scenario, variability of SCSR fulfillment, and complexity of SCSR measurement, this study adopts a single-case study approach, aiming to reveal the characteristics and internal logic of the research content through in-depth analysis. Grounded theory is a method of establishing substantive theory from the bottom up, a process of inductive generalization starting from raw data and then rising to systematic theories (Chen, 1999). This approach addresses the limitations of predefined theoretical frameworks, enabling researchers to continuously adjust and improve the theoretical frameworks according to the new data collected during the research process and reflect the essential characteristics of organizational resilience more accurately. Therefore, this study collects data and constructs models according to the grounded theory process, which helps reveal the interrelationship among various factors, validate and construct relevant theories, and provide realistic and feasible research results and recommendations, to understand the nature of the problem more extensively.

3.2. Case Selection

We employ grounded theory to analyze a series of cases and choose Tesla, a pioneering figure in the new energy vehicle industry, as the primary case study object in accordance with the theoretical sampling principle. The primary reasons for selecting Tesla are as follows:

• Organizational resilience: Tesla demonstrates notable strength in organizational resilience, as evidenced by the company’s high industry representativeness, deep global influence, and rich experience in crisis response. For instance, in the face of supply chain disruptions, production capacity decline, and even factory shutdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, Tesla’s Shanghai Gigafactory acted expeditiously to ensure normal logistics operations and efficiently promoted the resumption of the industrial chain. This contributed to the swift recovery of the automobile industry and injected substantial “kinetic energy” into the regional economy, demonstrating the company’s resiliency and adaptability. Tesla’s flexible organizational structure and highly adaptable corporate culture allows it to respond rapidly to changes in the market and technological advancements within the industry, continuously innovate, and retain its competitive advantage, thus providing a compelling context for the study of organizational resilience.
• SCSR practices: Tesla adheres to more conventional SCSR practices. Since its inception, Tesla has been committed to the development and sales of environmentally friendly electric vehicles, energy storage systems, and solar energy products. The company aims to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy and is dedicated to promoting technology, management, and product upgrades in the new energy automobile industry. In alignment with its founding mission of “making the world a better place”, Tesla has been at the forefront of efforts to advance energy transformation, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility. It has actively engaged in numerous environmental protection initiatives and charitable endeavors, underscoring its commitment to sustainability and CSR. Tesla’s corporate culture is defined by a set of values that emphasize hard work, passion, and enjoyment in one’s work. The creation of a positive work environment is not merely a slogan; it is a responsibility that extends to every employee and to the wider society.

Utilizing Tesla as a case enterprise is of significant guiding significance for new energy vehicle enterprises to fulfill SCSR, improve organizational resilience, and respond to the challenges of the industry. It allows us to provide an in-depth understanding of Tesla’s approach, which can inform the development and innovation of new energy vehicles in other enterprises.

3.3. Data Collection

NVivo 14.0 is used to collate and analyze the raw and secondary data. The sources of case information are as follows:

• Official Website: Approximately 22,000 words are collected from the information on vehicles and energy released by Tesla on its homepage. Additionally, approximately 204,000 words are obtained from the Chinese and English texts of Tesla’s official information website.
• Company Reports: Approximately 163,000 words are obtained from the 2018 to 2023 Impact Reports and other corporate governance documents, including the Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Business Ethics, and other relevant materials, which are translated into English.
• Press Materials: A total of 38,000 words are collected from several sources, such as Baidu Encyclopedia, Sohu, NetEase, and People’s Daily Online.
• Literature: Approximately 23,000 words are obtained after sorting 11 relevant documents from CNKI.
• Other Materials: A further 13,000 words are obtained from several other sources, including Hexun.com, Pescadores.com, Oriental Fortune.com, and Sina Finance.

The total number of words obtained from the various sources is approximately 463,000. The use of multiple sources of public information ensures the reliability and validity of the sample information. As the grounded theory requires that data collection and analysis continue until no new concepts or categories can be extracted from the data (i.e., reaching the state of theoretical saturation), this study divides the data into two parts for analysis: 80% (randomly selected) are used for initial coding and theory construction, and 20% are reserved for theoretical saturation testing. By reserving a portion of the data, it is possible to systematically examine whether the initially generated theory covers the variation range of the new data, thereby enhancing the completeness and credibility of the theory. If new concepts not covered are discovered during the saturation testing stage, the researcher returns to the initial analysis stage for supplementary coding until the theoretical saturation standard is reached.

4. Results

4.1. Open Coding

Open coding requires researchers to maintain an ‘open mind’, name in the form of ‘labels’ in many primary sources and narrow the scope through conceptualization and categorization to obtain conceptual categories (Chen, 1999). In the specific operation process, this study adopted manual coding to process the data and materials. The original materials are coded word by word after being sorted, and accurate and valuable concepts are summarized and extracted. Elements with a similar nature and content are re-integrated to generate initial categories. During the categorization process, the researcher repeatedly compares similarities and differences among the data, concepts, and categories and eliminates the initial concepts with a repetition frequency of ≤3 times, only retaining those with a repetition frequency of >3 times to ensure representativeness of the concepts and robustness of the research results.

Take the formation process of the “strategic planning” category (AA5) as an example: First, initial tags such as “continuously iterate and upgrade products” (a17) are extracted from the original sentences, such as “Tesla continuously iterates and upgrades its vehicles to improve temperature comfort, driving performance, energy efficiency, and range...”. Then, through semantic clustering, tags with common features are integrated. For instance, “continuously iterate and upgrade products” (a17), “provide different installment options” (a18), and “lower pricing” (a20) are respectively classified into concepts such as “operational strategy” (A11), “marketing strategy” (A12), and “pricing strategy” (A13). Finally, based on theoretical connections among the concepts, the above-mentioned concepts are further consolidated into the core category of “strategic planning” (AA5).

During the coding process, the research adopts an alternating form of group coding consistency check and focus group meetings. First, two group members independently code back-to-back and cross-check each other. Then, two CSR field experts are invited to form a four-person focus group with the remaining two group members to conduct in-depth discussions on the coding content, naming methods, category logic, and theoretical connotations. The coding work is terminated when consistency of the coding results among the group members exceeds 80%. Ultimately, after repeated analysis and comparison, 90 labels (prefixed with “a”) and 67 concepts (prefixed with “A”) are summarized, and 23 categories (prefixed with “AA”) are extracted.

Table 3. Open coding.

Label	Conceptualization	Categorization
a1 Produce excellent products	A1 Business positioning	AA1 Organizational core elements
a2 Synergistic Benefits	A2 Product positioning
a3 Inspire global progress through products	A3 Mission and vision
a4 Transform into a vertically integrated energy company	A4 Business transformation	AA2 Organizes business development
a5 Combine solar energy a6 Enter energy distribution and transmission market	A5 Business development
a7 Sustainability Council	A6 Management involvement	AA3 Corporate governance
a8 Oversee significant risks	A7 Board supervision
a9 Address human rights issues	A8 Respect for human rights
a10 Open up proprietary technology	A9 Open up intangible resources	AA4 Industry-leading
a11 Open up superchargers	A10 Open up physical infrastructure
a12 Continuous iterative product upgrades	A11 Operational strategy	AA5 Strategic planning
a13 Offer diverse installment options a14 Lower the barrier to purchase	A12 Marketing strategy
a15 Lower pricing	A13 Price strategy
a16 Business expansion	A14 Market entry strategy
a17 Partnerships	A15 Strategic cooperation
a18 Integration of internal and external resources	A16 Resource integration
a19 Supplier diversification	A17 Supply chain management	AA6 Sustainable Supply Chain Management
a20 Sourcing from mining and refining companies	A18 Responsible sourcing
a21 Recycle batteries a22 Establish internal ecosystems	A19 Recycling
a23 Replace traditional labor with advanced robotics	A20 Production mode change	AA7 Organizational change
a24 Transition to software services	A21 Business model change
a25 Flatten organizational structure a26 Reduce organizational hierarchy	A22 Organizational change
a27 Reward employees for identifying issues	A23 Employee motivation	AA8 Humanistic care
a28 Respect employees a29 Encourage feedback	A24 Employee care
a30 Low workplace injury rates	A25 Employee safety
a31 Benefits programs	A26 Generous employee benefits
a32 Fair compensation structure	A27 Reasonable compensation philosophy
a33 Attract talent	A28 Broaden employment opportunities	AA9 Talent expansion
a34 Increase independent directors	A29 Complementary management team
a35 Internet self-media marketing a36 Direct marketing model a37 Customized model	A30 Customer experience	AA10 Customer management
a38 Personalization needs	A31 Respond to customer needs
a39 Team of privacy and security experts a40 Privacy Principles	A32 Manage data privacy
a41 Establish joint ventures	A33 Equity financing	AA11 Financing capacity
a42 Project Financing	A34 Project financing
a43 Convertible note issuance	A35 Bond financing
a44 Convertible bond hedges a45 Warrant transactions	A36 Risk management	AA12 Performance management
a46 Net income distribution	A37 Revenue management
a47 Increase in security	A38 Target management
a48 Loans prepayment	A39 Solvency	AA13 Financial situation
a49 Maintain liquidity	A40 Liquidity situation
a50 Product recalls	A41 I Accident management	AA14 Intelligent after-sales service
a51 Intelligent customer service system	A42 Smart aftermarket
a52 Vehicle safety standards a53 Collaboration with safety groups	A43 Product safety	AA15 Product RandD innovation
a54 Locate and develop key technologies a55 Self-research ecosystem establishment	A44 Core technology RandD
a56 New design for new product	A45 Continuous product improvement
a57 Multi-module innovation a58 Innovation ecosystem	A46 Independent innovation upgrade
a59 Expand software and content services	A47 Software ecosystem services
a60 Long-term cost savings	A48 Cost management	AA16 Efficient cost control
a61 Complete vehicle production a62 Expansion of business scope a63 Establishment of super plants a64 Development of autonomous driving a65 Corporate governance structure	A49 Implementation of long-term development decisions	AA17 Company philosophy Shaping
a66 People-centered approach a67 Data-driven	A50 Principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion
a68 Business ethics	A51 Code of business ethics
a69 Foster transparent communication a70 Encourage feedback mechanisms a71 Open communication channels	A52 Communication with employees	AA18 Good working atmosphere
a72 Security goals	A53 Safety culture
a73 Apprenticeship programs a74 Multi-role training orientation	A54 Holistic talent training	AA19 Learning and Optimization
a75 Constant reflection and proactive improvement through real-world situations	A55 Proactive learning
a76 Pattern observation and data analysis	A56 Learn from observation
a77 Adopt best practices from top companies	A57 Learn from excellent companies
a78 Vaccination	A58 Participate in safe communities	AA20 Community involvement
a79 Employee resource groups	A59 Enhance community interaction
a80 Provide aid for earthquake victims	A60 Charitable giving	AA21 Social assistance
a81 Invest in K-12 education	A61 Invest in education
a82 Disaster relief systems	A62 Disaster assistance
a83 Use of renewable energy	A63 Sustainable energy	AA22 Environmental impact
a84 Enhance energy efficiency	A64 Reduce carbon footprint
a85 Reduce water consumption a86 Collect and reuse a87 Promote water reuse a88 Use of reclaimed water	A65 Water resources management
a89 Create more and diversify jobs	A66 Job creation	AA23 Social impact
a90 Economic impact of battery production plants	A67 External economic impacts

Collated from relevant information.

lists the open coding results.

4.2. Axial Coding

Axial coding further categorizes and analyzes the categories developed in open coding by linking the relationships between categories. For example, the “organizational core elements”, “organizational business development” and “corporate governance” categories, which play key roles in the organization’s operation and development process, are grouped into the main category of “development governance resilience”. Similarly, seven main categories are grouped according to the logical relationship between the categories: development governance resilience, strategic management resilience, relationship resilience, financial resilience, product resilience, cultural resilience, and social resilience.

Table 4. Axial coding.

Main Category	Category	Connotation
Development governance resilience	Organizational core elements	Provides direction and motivation for organizational development, playing a crucial role in defining the organization’s goals and growth path
	Organizational business development	The foundation for sustainable organizational growth, closely tied to profitability, resource allocation, and market position
	Organizational governance	Institutional structures and management practices that guide organizational behavior, protect shareholder interests, enhance enterprise value, and support sustainable growth
Strategic management resilience	Industry-leading	Maintaining a leadership position within the industry, setting development trends, and expanding market opportunities
	Strategic planning	A blueprint that shapes long-term competitiveness and directs future growth
	Supply chain management	Coordination and oversight of suppliers and production processes, crucial for ensuring smooth production and operational continuity
	Organizational change	A means for adapting environmental changes and strengthening organizational competitiveness
Relationship resilience	Humanistic care	Emphasizes human-centered values, helping to build a positive corporate image and boost employee loyalty and engagement
	Talent expansion	Continual recruitment and talent development to align with market shifts and business needs
	Customer management	Customer-focused approach to market growth, delivering prompt and thoughtful quality service to attract new customers, retain current ones, and build loyalty
Financial resilience	Financing capacity	Ability to secure capital from various sources, including banks, equity, and debt markets
	Performance management	Enhancing organizational and employee performance by setting and evaluating performance targets and KPI (Key Performance Indicators)
	Financial situation	Overview of the sources and distribution of the organization’s operating funds
Product resilience	Intelligent after-sales service	AI-driven after-sales model that enhances customer service experience and operational efficiency
	Product RandD innovation	Ongoing product improvement and development by incorporating new technologies, ideas, or methodologies to meet market demands
	Efficient cost control	Optimizing resource use and implementing effective cost planning, control, and management strategies
Cultural resilience	Company philosophy Shaping	The group spirit and organizational values developed through operation and growth
	Good working atmosphere	A positive work environment that is recognized and valued by organizational members
	Learning and Optimization	Continuous adaptation and redesign efforts that enable the organization to thrive in a dynamic environment
Social resilience	Community involvement	Encouraging voluntary participation in community affairs and embracing shared community responsibilities
	Social assistance	Facilitating voluntary social support activities
	Environmental impact	Effects of an organization’s environmental responsibility
	Social impact	Consequences of the organization’s social responsibility initiatives

Collated from relevant information.

presents the categories.

4.3. Selective Coding

Selective coding is the process of sorting out the relationship structure between the main categories in the form of story lines based on axial coding. Through selective coding, we find that development governance resilience, strategic management resilience, relationship resilience, financial resilience, product resilience, cultural resilience, and social resilience represent the core category of ‘organizational resilience’. Using NVivo 14.0, we create a diagram of Tesla’s organizational resilience dimension system. Figure 1 illustrates the diagram.

4.4. Theoretical Saturation Test

Glaser et al. (1968) proposed that theoretical saturation is a criterion for stopping case analysis and sampling, which means that when researchers seek more data through theoretical sampling but fail to discover new attributes or characteristics of their categories, theoretical saturation is achieved. To verify theoretical saturation, this study reserves 92,600 words from the sample collection for theoretical saturation testing. Through the steps of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding for analysis, no new main category relationship structures are found, nor are any new constituent factors discovered within the seven main categories. Therefore, it can be concluded that the above model is theoretically saturated.

4.5. Theoretical Finding

4.5.1. Model Framework Construction

This study adhered strictly to the principles of procedural grounded theory during data collection and analysis to ensure the credibility and validity of its findings. Through systematic coding, the categories of “development governance resilience”, “strategic management resilience”, “relationship resilience”, “financial resilience”, “product resilience”, “cultural resilience”, and “social resilience” were identified. These categories are interconnected and collectively support the core concept of “organizational resilience”. A comprehensive review of CSR case reports further demonstrated the alignment of organizational resilience with stakeholder theory and the characteristics of SCSR (see

Table 5. Organizational resilience, stakeholders, and SCSR.

Organizational Resilience	Stakeholders	SCSR
Development governance resilience Strategic management resilience	Shareholders, suppliers, consumers, employees	Centrality, specificity, proactivity
Relationship resilience	Consumers and employees	Proactivity, voluntarism
Financial resilience	Shareholders	Proactivity, visibility
Product resilience	Consumers	Specificity, visibility
Cultural resilience	Employees	Voluntarism, visibility
Social resilience	Community and environment

Collated from relevant information.

). Drawing on the internal logic of the S-O-R model, variables representing the impact of SCSR on organizational resilience were integrated into a new theoretical framework, depicted as the theoretical model of the impact of SCSR on organizational resilience (Figure 2).

4.5.2. Model Logic Structure

The model comprises three primary components:

• Influencing factors: shareholder, supplier, consumer, employee, community, and environmental responsibilities;
• Influencing receptors: development governance, strategic management, relationship, financial, product, cultural, and social resilience;
• Influencing outcomes: organizational resilience.

Causality within the model is structured into four levels: three direct and one indirect. SCSR directly influences stakeholder responsibilities, which in turn affect resilience dimensions. These dimensions then directly shape organizational resilience. Additionally, SCSR indirectly enhances organizational resilience through the mediating effects of the resilience dimensions, establishing indirect causality within the model.

5. Discussion

5.1. Interpretation of the Organizational Resilience Dimensions

This study identifies seven dimensions of organizational resilience within Tesla’s organizational structure by applying grounded theory:

• Development governance resilience
• Strategic management resilience
• Relationship resilience
• Financial resilience
• Product resilience
• Cultural resilience
• Social resilience

As a pioneering automotive enterprise, Tesla is not only an independent commercial entity, but also plays a pivotal role in advancing the development of energy automotive enterprises and the distribution of social resources. Consequently, Tesla must consistently enhance its organizational resilience across these dimensions to align itself with rapidly evolving market demands. The long-term stable development of an enterprise is contingent on the direct relationship between the development of governance and strategic management resilience. These factors are the core components of enterprises.

Development governance resilience can be defined as an enterprise’s focus on its mission and the resilience embodied in business development and corporate governance. It encompasses the core elements of business and corporate governance. Business development can be defined as a comprehensive management process that aims to achieve the organization’s mission and vision through long-term joint efforts and continuously improve the overall capability of the organization. Corporate governance can compensate for deficiencies in organizational resources and relationships (Zhao & Li, 2023) and play an instrumental role in organizational resilience through effective risk management, thereby enabling firms to respond to changes in the external environment more effectively (Armeanu et al., 2017).

Strategic management resilience can be defined as the capacity of a company to make strategic decisions and set long-term development goals that enable it to anticipate and adapt to trends that may threaten the profitability of its core business in a volatile, complex, and uncertain environment (Morais-Storz et al., 2018). This encompasses a range of activities including industry leadership, strategic planning, supply chain management, and corporate change. In contrast to conventional corporate strategies, strategic management resilience not only strives for competitive advantage but also emphasizes the capacity to guarantee long-term competitiveness and stable development. This is achieved by reinforcing an enterprise’s adaptive and resilient capabilities, ensuring its ability to maintain long-term competitiveness and stable development in a dynamic market.

Relationship resilience refers to a firm’s capacity to cultivate and sustain positive relationships with its stakeholders. The concept of relationship resilience, as identified in this study, encompasses three key areas: humanistic care, talent expansion, and customer management. Y. Liu and Yin (2020) discover that positive stakeholder relationships contribute to the development of organizational reliability and flexibility. Kim (2021) investigates the impact of strategic communication and relationship management of employees within organizations on organizational resilience in effective internal crisis communication, stating that managers can cultivate positive employee relationships through two-way symmetric communication, which subsequently enhances organizational resilience. Thus, relational resilience plays an important role in organizational resilience by building positive stakeholder relationships.

Financial resilience is reflected in the effective management of financial resources, capacity to mitigate risks, and overall capability of an enterprise to recover swiftly from a financial crisis. This resilience is primarily determined by financial position, the ability to secure financing, and the effectiveness of performance management. An enterprise’s financial resilience can be divided into two dimensions: financial robustness and financial adaptability. Financial robustness enables firms to respond expeditiously to shifts in market dynamics, whereas financial adaptability facilitates their adaptation to changes in the market environment (Hussain & Papastathopoulos, 2022). Financial resilience can engender positive financial and human resources, thereby promoting organizational resource optimization, transformation, and upgrading (Lee & Chen, 2022).

Product resilience encompasses a range of variables pertaining to specific cognitive abilities, behavioral characteristics, and situational conditions within the context of product innovation. It is a dynamic process that reflects the activities associated with product innovation (Akgün & Keskin, 2014). Product resilience is defined as the ability of a product or service provided by an enterprise to maintain reliability while simultaneously demonstrating its capacity to respond expeditiously, recover, and adapt to external conditions, including competition and shifts in the market environment. X. Guo et al. (2023) distinguishes two forms of product resilience: broad and narrow. The former encompasses the entire life cycle of a product, whereas the latter focuses on the product’s capacity for self-recovery following adverse impacts. This study’s concept of product resilience encompasses product development and innovation, as well as product control and intelligent after-sales service, aligning with the broader definition of product resilience.

Cultural resilience can be defined as the collective patterns that groups adopt to address issues, such as external adaptation and internal integration. These patterns encompass a range of elements, including company philosophy, work climate, and learning optimization. Cultural resilience can be cultivated through the following four key attributes: optimism, decisiveness, integrity, and open communication. Cultural resilience can facilitate communication and the development of interpersonal relationships within projects (Garg, 2019). Conversely, cultural resilience is an organizational environment that can foster resistance and resilience. To enhance cultural resilience in organizations, resilient leadership practices must be developed. Resilient leadership practices help create an adaptive culture by viewing adversity as an opportunity. They can also act as a catalyst to inspire others to demonstrate resistance and resilience beyond expectations.

Social resilience stems from the social capital acquired by enterprises, which is reflected in their ability to build strong interactions in the community and environment and derive resources from them (Bian & Qiu, 2000). Community resilience is a strong network that businesses build within a community, including community engagement, social assistance, and social impact. The ability of businesses to sustain operations and provide goods, services, and employment opportunities is critical to community resilience (Zhao & Li, 2023). Enterprises can build community resilience by actively participating in community affairs, supporting local development, solving social problems, and building partnerships with various parties, including community residents, government agencies, educational institutions, and non-profit organizations, in a joint effort to address challenges and achieve sustainable socioeconomic development. Environmental resilience refers to an enterprise’s ability to establish good environmental relations; reduce negative impacts on the environment; improve resource utilization efficiency; promote ecological balance and sustainable development; and adapt and maintain stable development in the face of environmental changes, challenges, and uncertainties. This concept was first proposed by ecologist Holling (1973), who emphasized the ability of an ecosystem to recover after disturbances. Later, it was widely applied in the fields of socio-ecosystems and organizational management (Walker et al., 2004). In recent years, management scholars have begun to pay attention to the impact of climate change and extreme weather on organizational resilience, emphasizing that organizations need to deal with the risks brought by environmental instability (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014). Against this background, environmental resilience is regarded as part of an enterprise’s strategic social responsibility practices, which helps enhance the organization’s sustainable competitiveness. Through strong environmental performance, enterprises can not only reduce ecological risks but also build a good reputation and gain broader support from stakeholders (Hart & Dowell, 2011).

5.2. The Impact of SCSR on Organizational Resilience

The dynamic capability theory holds that sustained competitive advantage stems from perceiving changes in the external environment, seizing market opportunities, and then reconfiguring organizational assets to achieve dynamic alignment with the environment (Teece, 2007). In the case studies, the case firm demonstrated significant improvements in development governance and strategic management resilience by fulfilling responsibilities to primary stakeholders—shareholders, suppliers, consumers, and employees—thus not only optimizing its governance structure and strategic planning but also demonstrating its ability to dynamically adjust and transform while exemplifying the central, specific, and proactive nature of SCSR. Regarding shareholder responsibility, Tesla prioritizes long-term value creation over immediate financial gain and maintains stability through robust corporate governance practices. In numerous domains, including operations, marketing, collaboration, market dynamics, pricing, and resources, Tesla employs a comprehensive strategic planning approach and proactively modifies production methods, business models, organizational structures, and other elements (X. Li et al., 2023) to adapt swiftly to market competition and shifts, thereby maintaining a leading position in the industry. This enables the company to continuously enhance profitability and expand its market share while generating sustained financial returns for shareholders. Tesla places significant emphasis on sustainable supply chain management in terms of supplier responsibility. It has implemented a Supplier Diversity Plan and engages with numerous internal and external partners. The company encourages the growth of diverse suppliers (Wulijitu & Wang, 2021), facilitates their development, and creates opportunities for collaboration, thereby continuously optimizing the supply chain (Tesla, Inc., 2022). In terms of consumer responsibility, as the world’s leading electric vehicle manufacturer, Tesla is committed to providing high-performance and sustainable products, realizing the transformation from hardware services to software services and from an electric vehicle manufacturer to a global energy company (M. Li & Wang, 2023). Furthermore, the company is dedicated to winning consumer trust and loyalty. In terms of employee responsibility, Tesla encourages the sustainable development of employees, endeavors to address human rights risks, and provides a reliable development platform and workspace for employees that promotes their personal growth and career development. Therefore, by fulfilling these stakeholder responsibilities, the case firm improved organizational resilience across the dimensions of development governance and strategic management resilience.

Fulfilling consumer and employee responsibilities showcased the proactive and voluntary essence of SCSR, significantly bolstering relational resilience. Tesla demonstrates consumer responsibility by prioritizing customer needs, optimizing user experience through high-performance electric vehicles and sustainable energy solutions, and safeguarding data privacy (Tesla, Inc., 2022). Concerning employee responsibility, Tesla fosters a diverse, respectful, and inclusive workplace, offering comprehensive benefits and career development opportunities to attract and retain top global talent. By establishing employee and customer relationships based on trust, respect, and mutual benefit, enterprises accumulate high level of social capital, which supports the organization in maintaining human stability and customer loyalty during crises, thereby enhancing its relationship resilience. These efforts in relationship resilience have enabled Tesla to secure positive feedback, attract employees and customers, and respond effectively to crises.

By addressing shareholder responsibilities, the case firm demonstrated SCSR’s proactive and visible qualities, significantly improving financial resilience—a key factor for navigating economic challenges. Tesla’s diversified financing strategy, encompassing equity, project, and debt financing, ensures prompt access to funds and maintains a balanced capital structure. Furthermore, Tesla’s comprehensive performance management system balances risks, returns, and goals to support stable business operations. Robust financial resilience allows Tesla to maintain liquidity, meet debt obligations, and fund daily operations and strategic investments effectively. This process embodies the core perspective of the resource orchestration theory, which holds that resources themselves are merely the prerequisite for achieving outstanding performance. The key lies in activating the transformation mechanism from resources to capabilities and value creation through effective management and integration, thereby converting resources into a sustainable competitive advantage (Q. Zhang & Hua, 2020). Therefore, by fulfilling responsibilities across stakeholder dimensions, the case firm advanced organizational resilience through relationship and financial resilience.

By fulfilling consumer responsibilities, the case firm showcased the specific and visible nature of SCSR, significantly enhancing organizational resilience through improved product resilience. SCSR guides enterprises to maintain sensitivity to technological, user, and social trends during the process of fulfilling product responsibilities, thereby continuously enhancing the adaptability of products in changing environments through developing forward-looking innovation and building stronger product resilience for organizations. Tesla has demonstrated a high level of concern for and active commitment to consumer social responsibility through product design, introduction of safety features, and optimization of after-sales service. In product design, Tesla prioritizes sustainability by reducing maintenance and charging costs, ensuring its products’ operating expenses are lower than those of traditional fuel vehicles, while maintaining high warranty rates. This approach provides consumers with a cost-effective, value-driven option. Regarding safety features, Tesla has introduced advanced active safety technologies, including traffic signal and stop sign warnings, pedal misuse mitigation, and lane departure and blind spot collision alerts, which substantially enhance driving safety (Tesla, Inc., 2021). Additionally, Tesla has established an intelligent after-sales service system to manage vehicle recalls and accident follow-ups effectively. These measures demonstrate a strong commitment to consumer interests and enhance the firm’s adaptability to market fluctuations and competitive pressures. Consequently, by addressing these stakeholder responsibilities, the case firm strengthened its organizational resilience through improved product resilience.

By addressing employee responsibilities, the case firm highlighted the voluntary and visible nature of SCSR, enhancing organizational resilience through cultural resilience. Corporate culture, as an embedded resource, is highly imitable within an organization. SCSR stimulates employee identification and a sense of mission through cultural construction, creating a highly cohesive organizational atmosphere and providing strategic resource support for shaping cultural resilience. Such resilience relates to employee engagement with the company’s mission, work environment, leadership approach, and opportunities for continuous learning and development. Tesla incorporates global challenges, such as sustainability, climate change, renewable energy, and autonomous technology, into its mission, fostering a sense of responsibility and purpose among employees. Its core values of diversity, equality, and inclusion cultivate a respectful and secure workplace that attracts and retains top talent (Tesla, Inc., 2021). Furthermore, Tesla emphasizes skill enhancement through strategic cooperation and continuous learning, equipping employees to meet market demands and technological advancements while fostering innovation and adaptability. Therefore, by fulfilling these stakeholder responsibilities, the case firm bolstered its organizational resilience through cultural resilience.

Social resilience, closely tied to public stakeholders, encompasses community and environmental responsibilities. According to the stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984), by addressing these obligations, the case firm exemplifies the voluntary and visible essence of SCSR, thus gaining greater social trust and institutional support, reducing external conflicts, and improving its adaptability within the social system. This significantly enhances organizational resilience through strengthened social resilience. Regarding community responsibility, Tesla has been instrumental in creating high-quality jobs and raising salaries to promote local employment. Additionally, the company has participated in the construction of safe communities, promoted vaccination, and actively engaged in social assistance, such as roadside assistance, disaster assistance, and charitable donations. Tesla has invested in education, participated in public welfare, and has continued to deliver its “Make the World a Better Place” initiative. Regarding the environment, Tesla is committed to promoting renewable energy as a replacement for fossil fuels. Specifically, it aims to achieve renewable energy coverage for the entire operating process to the extent possible through the construction of new high-efficiency factories, coverage of solar panels, utilization of artificial intelligence, and other initiatives, with the objective of. Additionally, the reduction of water consumption, collection and reuse of water resources, and other measures are employed to optimize the management of water resources (Tesla, Inc., 2021). The enhancement of social resilience not only serves to elevate Tesla’s reputation and visibility within the social sphere but also facilitates the improvement of the quality of life for local communities and the advancement of social progress. Thus, by fulfilling these stakeholder responsibilities, the case firm has enhanced its organizational resilience through the social resilience dimension.

6. Conclusions

Using programmed grounded theory, this study selected Tesla as a case enterprise to analyze the formation of organizational resilience and the mechanisms through which strategic corporate social responsibility (SCSR) influences its development. Guided by the research proposition “the mechanism of SCSR’s impact on organizational resilience”, the study constructed a theoretical model, leading to the following key conclusions:

• Dimensions of Organizational Resilience

This study utilized NVivo 14.0’s programmed grounded theory to explore the impact of strategic corporate social responsibility (SCSR) on organizational resilience, defining its connotations and identifying seven core dimensions: development governance resilience, strategic management resilience, relationship resilience, financial resilience, product resilience, cultural resilience, and social resilience. Development governance resilience reflects a mission-focused approach to business growth and governance, emphasizing core elements, sustainable development, and organizational management. Strategic management resilience captures an enterprise’s ability to anticipate and respond to threats in complex environments, encompassing industry leadership, strategic planning, supply chain management, and corporate transformation. Relationship resilience demonstrates the ability to foster and sustain strong stakeholder relationships, including talent development, customer care, and humanistic engagement. Financial resilience highlights financial stability, risk management, and the ability to recover from disruptions, emphasizing stable financing and effective performance management. Product resilience reflects the ability to deliver innovative and reliable products and services while adapting to market competition and environmental changes, including quality control and after-sales services. Cultural resilience addresses external adaptation and internal integration challenges through corporate philosophy, work environment, and continuous learning. Social resilience derives from interactions with communities and the environment, encompassing community engagement, social support, environmental stewardship, and broader social impact.

2.

Systematic construction of a theoretical model of the impact of strategic corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience

Through coding analysis and a systematic review of case CSR reports, this study constructed a theoretical model of the impact of SCSR on organizational resilience using the S-O-R model. SCSR is identified as the “stimulus” (S), subdivided into six stakeholder dimensions: shareholder, supplier, consumer, employee, community, and environmental responsibilities. These dimensions influence the “organism” (O), comprising governance, strategic management, relationship, financial, product, cultural, and social resilience. Organizational resilience is defined as the “response” (R).

The study reveals the mechanisms by which SCSR shapes organizational resilience. Fulfilling responsibilities to primary stakeholders—shareholders, suppliers, consumers, and employees—strengthens governance and strategic management resilience. Consumer and employee responsibilities improve relationship resilience, while shareholder responsibilities enhance financial resilience. Additionally, consumer responsibilities optimize product resilience, employee responsibilities deepen cultural resilience, and community and environmental responsibilities reinforce social resilience. The findings suggest that companies can significantly enhance their resilience by cultivating strong stakeholder relationships and strengthening stability and development across governance, strategy, relationships, and financial performance.

The theoretical contribution of this study primarily consists of two aspects: (1) The structure of organizational resilience is explored. As a special organizational capability, organizational resilience is characterized by multi-level and multi-dimensional features. Although some scholars made beneficial attempts to explore the structural dimensions and measurement methods of organizational resilience, no consensus has been reached in the academic community so far. Based on existing research, this study employs qualitative research methods to investigate the formation mechanism of organizational resilience and the key elements involved in the formation process. Seven main categories of organizational resilience are identified, including governance resilience development, strategic management resilience, relationship resilience, financial resilience, product resilience, cultural resilience, and social resilience. This finding is similar to the research conclusions of Godwin and Amah (2013), Richtnér and Löfsten (2014), Prayag et al. (2018), and Y. Liu et al. (2023), who all believe that organizational resilience includes planning ability, organizational learning, organizational capital, organizational strategy, and relationship ability. However, this study discovers that organizational resilience also encompasses governance resilience development, product resilience, and social resilience, which highlights the significant role played by the close interaction between organizational development and governance, products, and the community and environment in which the enterprise operates during the process of crisis response. This knowledge represents a theoretical reference for subsequent research on organizational resilience. (2) The unique role of SCSR in the formation of organizational resilience in enterprises is analyzed. Previous studies focused on exploring the factors influencing organizational resilience, mainly investigating the impact of leadership behavior (Gittell et al., 2006), organizational relationships (Carmeli et al., 2013), organizational communication (Duchek et al., 2020), etc., on organizational resilience. However, there is no clear explanation yet on how organizational resilience is formed. Existing research already noted the significant influence of SCSR on the development of organizational resilience, but there is still lack of research on the mechanism of SCSR’s effect on organizational resilience. This study starts from a micro-level perspective. Based on the construction of an organizational resilience structure, it incorporates SCSR as a “precondition” into the consideration of organizational resilience. Based on construction of the organizational resilience structure, it attempts to build a theoretical model of the impact of SCSR on organizational resilience by using the S-O-R model. It clearly explores the formation mechanisms of developing governance resilience, strategic management resilience, relationship resilience, etc., and explains the internal mechanism of organizational rebound, recovery, and even improvement after encountering crises. It can provide certain theoretical references for subsequent research on SCSR and organizational resilience and is helpful for enterprises to fulfill SCSR and enhance organizational resilience by providing methods and theoretical bases.

The management insights of this study are as follows: (1) Organizational resilience is a key capability for enterprises to survive and thrive in a highly competitive environment. In the context of VUCA, new energy industry enterprises are confronted with multiple challenges such as policy fluctuations, technological updates, and unstable market demands. Instead of merely focusing on short-term indicators such as financial performance, enterprise managers should concentrate on long-term value creation and proactively shape the organization’s long-term adaptability, recovery, and development capabilities in seven dimensions: governance, strategy, relationships, finance, products, culture, and society. New energy enterprises should enhance their strategic management and product innovation resilience, thus gaining the agility to respond and self-repair when facing the pressure of carbon neutrality goals and the impact of emerging technologies. Enterprises should establish a dynamic adjustment mechanism to facilitate the transformation from crisis response to value leap, thereby achieving rebound, recovery, and transcendence in adversity, as well as promoting their long-term sustainable development. (2) The management of enterprises should attach great importance to the practice of SCSR and deeply understand the mechanism of how SCSR influences organizational resilience. Because the new energy industry has a strong policy orientation and high public attention, it requires enterprises to not only meet the demands of major stakeholders such as shareholders and consumers but also actively respond to the expectations of public stakeholders, such as communities and the environment, and enhance mutual trust and cooperation. Enterprises should take SCSR as a strategic tool to promote the construction of green supply chains, employee skills, customer relationships, and social influence, as well as strengthen the strategic foundation of organizational resilience. Through proactive responsibility fulfillment and communication mechanism construction, mutual trust and cooperation can be enhanced, external resource support and internal cohesion can be stimulated, and a stable internal and external linkage mechanism for responding to market fluctuations can be formed. On this basis, new energy vehicle enterprises can deeply integrate SCSR with their core strategies, strengthen their enterprise strategies, enhance their core capabilities, innovate business opportunities, and reduce social risks through the fulfillment of SCSR. This will create a sustainable market atmosphere that can be transformed into brand recognition and competitive advantages and help achieve a “double return” of “enterprise value growth” and “social environmental improvement”, thereby creating shared value for enterprises and the society and achieving a “win-win” situation between SCSR investment and organizational resilience shaping.

This study has some limitations: (1) As only Tesla is used as the research subject, the universality and generalizability of the research conclusions need to be further tested. (2) Due to limited data availability, the research process needs to be further improved. In the future, additional cases could be considered to increase the sample size, and more measurements and statistical tests conducted, based on models that include quantitative methods. (3) This study constructs a seven-dimension framework of organizational resilience but does not deeply analyze the interaction mechanisms among these dimensions. Future research can use path analysis and hypothesis development to systematically reveal the influence paths and logical relationships between dimensions, thereby improving the explanatory power of the theoretical model.