Exploring the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Resilience

Abstract

This study constructs a conceptual model based on the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and organizational resilience based on stakeholder theory, resource dependence theory, information asymmetry theory, and signaling theory, and it uses the panel data of Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share listed enterprises in the period of 2010–2021 to conduct empirical research. The results show that (1) corporate social responsibility helps to reduce financial volatility and promote performance growth, which, in turn, contributes to organizational resilience; (2) CSR shapes the enhancement of organizational resilience mainly through three aspects: improving the corporate information environment, easing corporate financing constraints, and improving technological innovation; (3) the effect of CSR on organizational resilience varies according to the degree of board diversity within the enterprise and the degree of regional marketization outside the enterprise, and the enhancement effect of CSR on organizational resilience is more pronounced when the degree of board diversity and the degree of regional marketization are higher. This study provides theoretical support for CSR-enabled organizational resilience in the era of high-quality development, as well as suggestions for strengthening the level of organizational resilience.

1. Introduction

Currently, the globe is going through significant changes that have not been witnessed in a century, and the era and history are developing in a way that has never been seen before. From the changes in the political environment resulting from the Russia–Ukraine war and the Israel–Palestine conflict to the alterations in the economic environment caused by the Sino–US trade frictions, and then to the upheavals in the social environment triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the turbulence in the technological environment brought about by disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, cloud computing and big data, the survival environment of enterprises is confronted with extreme uncertainty and is constantly in the process of responding to explicit and latent crises. Nevertheless, some enterprises crumble in the face of crises, while others manage to turn crises into opportunities. Exactly which factors enable such enterprises to maintain their survival and prosperous development in a turbulent environment? The report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China emphasizes that “high-quality development is the primary task for comprehensively building a modern socialist country.” Furthermore, the Outline of the 14th Five-Year Plan and Long-Range Objectives Through the Year 2035 for National Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China identifies “promoting high-quality development” as its central theme, positioning it as a key guiding principle and strategic orientation for China’s economic and social development during the 14th Five-Year Plan period. Sustainable economic development is an intrinsic requirement for achieving high-quality development in a country’s or region’s economy and society [1]. The high-quality and sustainable development of enterprises, as the micro-subjects and fundamental units of the economic and social system, constitutes a key indicator and significant guarantee for the high-quality and sustainable development of the economy and society. Consequently, in this context, the matter of how enterprises can achieve survival and development in an uncertain environment has emerged as an issue that demands immediate research.

Existing studies suggest that in the face of environmental impacts, certain organizations can rebound, recover, and even outperform others more rapidly because these organizations have greater organizational resilience. Organizational resilience is regarded as a crucial ability for organizations to resist and cope with crises and achieve survival and development in times of crisis [2,3]. From the Chernobyl nuclear disaster to the September 11 attacks and from the 2008 global financial crisis to the worldwide spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, a series of “black swan” and “gray rhino” events have elevated organizational resilience to an increasingly critical focus in academic research. The question of how to cultivate and enhance organizational resilience in enterprises has thus become a topic that demands thorough exploration. Currently, the extant literature has conducted extensive inquiries into the influencing factors of organizational resilience at the individual, organizational, and environmental levels. At the environmental level, modern enterprises, as an open system, are incapable of being self-sufficient and need to extract various resources that support their survival and development through interaction with the environment. By fulfilling social responsibilities and maintaining favorable stakeholder relationships, it is beneficial for enterprises to obtain key resources from stakeholders and enable them to achieve survival and contrarian development in a volatile environment. Hence, actively fulfilling social responsibilities has emerged as a significant factor in fostering and enhancing organizational resilience. After a comprehensive review of the existing literature, it is evident that the current research on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience exhibits several notable deficiencies. On the one hand, the study conducted by Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal [4] holds a certain degree of representativeness in the early stage. Proceeding from a long-term perspective, they discovered that the social and environmental practices of enterprises can effectively increase the long-term survival rate and long-term financial performance of enterprises, which is conducive to enhancing the level of organizational resilience. Accompanied by the subsequent outbreak and proliferation of the global pandemic, the extant research concerning the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience has predominantly concentrated on the research context under the impact of sudden crises. Nevertheless, as the environment characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) becomes increasingly normalized, it is even more imperative to attach significance to the cumulative influence of less perceptible crises on enterprises [5]. On the other hand, existing research has yet to fully unravel the black box of the internal mechanisms through which corporate social responsibility influences organizational resilience, particularly in distinguishing its functioning across different types of crisis contexts. While prior studies have primarily examined corporate social responsibility’s role in response to acute, isolated crisis events, less attention has been paid to how corporate social responsibility contributes to resilience in the face of cumulative crises. Additionally, it has not sufficiently identified the boundary conditions under which corporate social responsibility affects organizational resilience. Therefore, there is a need for more in-depth exploration of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience.

Based on the foregoing deliberations, this study takes the A-share listed enterprises of Shanghai and Shenzhen from 2010 to 2021 as the research objects. Firstly, from a long-term perspective, it demonstrates and analyzes the influence of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience in the context of cumulative crises. Secondly, starting from three paths, namely, the enterprise information environment, financing constraints, and technological innovation, it explores the channel mechanisms through which corporate social responsibility affects organizational resilience. Finally, it examines the heterogeneous impacts of the internal board diversity within enterprises and the degree of regional marketization outside enterprises on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience, thereby conducting a supplementary characterization of the relationship between these two factors.

This study is structured as follows: Section 2 shows the development of the theory and hypotheses. Section 3 explains the research methodology adopted for the study. In Section 4, the empirical analysis results are presented. Section 5 provides conclusions on the findings. Finally, the theoretical and practical implications are presented prior to outlining the limitations of the study and potential directions for future research.

2. Theory and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Resilience

Nevertheless, in the current turbulent and highly uncertain environment, it is of greater significance for enterprises to foster organizational resilience that can resist crises and achieve counter-trend development. Organizational resilience refers to an organization’s capacity to strike a balance between stability and flexibility when confronted with adverse events, facilitating short-term rebound and recovery, as well as long-term surpassing and improvement [6,7]. This is manifested as enterprises experiencing short-term financial fluctuations and achieving long-term performance growth. The active fulfillment of social responsibilities offers a train of thought for shaping organizational resilience. Based on stakeholder theory and resource dependence theory, modern enterprises function as open systems that are intricately connected with their external environment. No enterprise can achieve complete self-sufficiency; therefore, to ensure survival and development, enterprises must acquire diverse resources from their surroundings. By fulfilling social responsibilities and addressing the needs of various stakeholders, enterprises can foster positive relationships and establish cooperative partnerships [8]. This not only facilitates access to essential resources for survival and growth but also enables the organization to enhance its adaptive capacity, environmental sensing, and strategic flexibility, thereby playing a crucial role in shaping and enhancing organizational resilience. Specifically, enterprises need to have sufficient resources to withstand crises when responding to them. By actively fulfilling their social responsibilities, enterprises convey a positive signal to stakeholders that they are responsible. When enterprises thus form a mutually beneficial and trusting mechanism with stakeholders, they can obtain sufficient resource support, such as financial support from shareholders and creditors, preferential policy assistance from the government, stable raw material supply from suppliers, and a good reputation from consumers. This will help enterprises effectively resist risk shocks and enhance organizational resilience.

Organizational resilience possesses dual attributes of short-term recovery and long-term growth. On the one hand, corporate social responsibility helps to reduce the short-term financial fluctuations of enterprises. A lower level of financial volatility not only reflects an enterprise’s operational stability but also indicates its capacity to absorb shocks, adjust its internal structures, and maintain its core functionality in the face of adversity, which are key dimensions of organizational resilience. This resilience requires the enterprise to rapidly identify, respond to, and adapt to crises. Firstly, by fulfilling social responsibilities, enterprises can maintain interaction and communication with all stakeholders in society, helping them to promptly understand the signals of environmental changes, enabling them to quickly identify and handle potential crises, and, thereby, preventing the escalation of dangerous events and reducing losses [9]. Secondly, enterprises that actively fulfill their corporate social responsibilities can garner positive attributions from investors and accumulate moral capital. In times of crisis, these enterprises can serve an “insurance-like” function, providing the necessary time for the organization to absorb shocks and implement appropriate measures. This time-buffer effect enhances the organization’s emergency responsiveness and stability, thereby enhancing the enterprise’s crisis response capabilities [10,11,12]. Finally, actively participating in various social responsibility practices helps enterprises accumulate a comprehensive and diverse understanding of the environment, enabling them to quickly adapt to new business environments [13]. Therefore, fulfilling corporate social responsibility helps enterprises maintain strong stability in the face of environmental shocks, reduces the financial fluctuations of enterprises, and enhances their ability to resist crises.

On the other hand, corporate social responsibility helps achieve long-term performance growth. The long-term development of an enterprise relies on various scarce resources and the establishment of its own competitive advantages. From the perspective of resilience, long-term performance growth is not merely a financial indicator but also reflects an enterprise’s ability to adapt to changing environments, reconfigure resources, and pursue sustainable innovation. Firstly, undertaking corporate social responsibility can help enterprises shape a good image, enhance consumers’ recognition of the enterprises, assist enterprises in expanding market share, and accumulate customer resources for enterprises [14,15]. Secondly, through the fulfillment of social responsibility, the extent of information asymmetry can be mitigated, and a signal indicating the favorable operational status of the enterprise can be emitted. This is beneficial for reducing financing costs, boosting the confidence of the capital market in the enterprise, and enhancing the enterprise’s capacity to acquire financial resources [16]. Thirdly, actively fulfilling corporate social responsibility is conducive to meeting the expectations of the government and regulators for enterprises, earning legitimacy for the enterprises, and making it easier for them to obtain key resources such as government subsidies, thereby bringing political benefits to the enterprises [17]. Finally, the responsibility-fulfilling actions of an enterprise assist it in establishing an extensive knowledge and resource network with stakeholders. This network enhances the organization’s learning and innovation capabilities, which are important drivers for transformation and evolution after a crisis [18]. Therefore, fulfilling corporate social responsibility helps enhance the long-term performance of enterprises and enables them to achieve counter-trend development after a crisis.

In summary, while corporate social responsibility contributes to both reducing short-term financial volatility and promoting long-term performance growth, these two effects should not be viewed in isolation. Reduced financial volatility reflects an enterprise’s ability to stabilize operations and absorb shocks, while long-term performance growth indicates the capacity to adapt, reconfigure resources, and sustain competitive advantages in dynamic environments. Taken together, these two outcomes represent the dual dimensions of organizational resilience, including short-term recovery and long-term surpassing. Therefore, by simultaneously reducing financial volatility and fostering long-term growth, corporate social responsibility fundamentally strengthens organizational resilience, enabling enterprises to withstand crises and achieve counter-trend development.

Based on the above analysis, this study proposes H1.

H1. 

Corporate social responsibility positively impacts organizational resilience.

2.2. The Influence Mechanism of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Resilience

Resilient enterprises can achieve rebound and recovery and can even surpass previous performance levels in the face of crisis events [19]. To facilitate rebound and recovery, enterprises must anticipate environmental changes before a crisis occurs, thereby enabling proactive risk management and prevention of unforeseen disruptions. During a crisis, rapid response is critical to mitigate risks and absorb external pressures. The ability of an organization to not only heal but also advance, eventually gaining a competitive edge and reversing a take-off, is a sign of post-crisis surpassing [20]. In this process, enterprises must first establish a robust information environment to facilitate seamless communication with stakeholders. This enables early warnings at the onset of crises, timely responses during crises, and leveraging informational advantages for strategic development post-crisis. Secondly, financing capacity significantly influences an enterprise’s risk response capability. Adequate financial resources are essential for managing crises effectively and organizing post-crisis operations, thereby enhancing organizational resilience. Finally, in the face of evolving operating environments, enterprises should proactively adapt and innovate to improve their flexibility in crisis management and achieve sustainable long-term development. Actively fulfilling social responsibilities can greatly enhance information processing efficiency, strengthen financial resource acquisition, and accumulate innovation potential, all of which contribute significantly to cultivating organizational resilience. Based on these considerations, this study examines the mechanisms through which corporate social responsibility impacts organizational resilience via three key pathways: improving the information environment, alleviating financing constraints, and boosting technological innovation.

2.2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility, Information Environment, and Organizational Resilience

Enterprises actively undertaking social responsibilities can effectively reduce the degree of information asymmetry, improve the information environment of enterprises, and thereby enhance organizational resilience. According to the theory of information asymmetry, compared with other stakeholders, enterprise shareholders and management possess more information about the enterprise. Therefore, there exists an information asymmetry problem between enterprises and stakeholders. Actively fulfilling corporate social responsibilities plays a positive role in reducing information asymmetry and alleviating agency conflicts. Corporate social responsibility information encompasses the policies, practices, and performance data of an enterprise in aspects such as shareholders, employees, suppliers and customers, the environment, and society. By disclosing this information to the outside world, enterprises not only demonstrate their commitment to the responsibilities towards stakeholders but also provide more comprehensive and accurate information to the stakeholders [21]. This non-financial information is regarded as an important supplement to the financial information of enterprises. Meanwhile, different information can play a cross-verification role, enabling stakeholders to understand the enterprise from various aspects, alleviating the degree of information asymmetry, enhancing the transparency of enterprise information, and facilitating the attention of external analysts and investors. Under the scrutiny of external stakeholders, enterprises are incentivized to enhance their fulfillment of social responsibilities and improve the quality of social responsibility information disclosure. Concurrently, external stakeholders can utilize their relational networks and intelligence-gathering capabilities to provide enterprises with comprehensive, timely, and accurate information. This facilitates seamless information flow both within the enterprise and between the enterprise and its external environment. As a result, stakeholders gain a more holistic understanding of the enterprise, while enterprises receive timely feedback from stakeholders, thereby further enhancing the overall information environment.

A good information environment is a key element for an organization to deal with crises. On the one hand, a good information environment means that the transparency of enterprise information is relatively high, and stakeholders can obtain relevant information of the enterprise in a timely manner. If the information environment of an enterprise is not transparent, negative news within the enterprise will accumulate continuously. If they overflow at a certain point, it is easy to trigger excessive reactions and panic-selling behaviors of investors, causing risks of stock price fluctuations or even crashes, which will make stakeholders lose confidence in the enterprise and be unfavorable for the enterprise to deal with emergencies and long-term development [22]. When information is relatively transparent, the degree of information asymmetry between enterprises and stakeholders is relatively low. Each stakeholder can obtain relevant information about the true situation of the enterprise. At this time, even if a crisis occurs, stakeholders will attribute the losses suffered by the enterprise to objective reasons, reduce the penalties imposed on the enterprise, and enhance the enterprise’s risk-taking ability and subsequent development potential in adverse circumstances [23]. On the other hand, the improvement of the enterprise information environment also means that enterprises can obtain more information and enhance their information acquisition capabilities. Receiving complete, timely, and clear internal and external information from different sources and channels helps to improve the enterprise’s risk perception and sensitivity, as well as the possibility of perceiving and recognizing adverse situations, thereby enabling the early activation of preventive mechanisms [24,25]. Meanwhile, the various types of information obtained by enterprises also serve as the foundation for their decision-making, helping them make wiser strategic and operational decisions, flexibly adjust in an uncertain environment, and, thus, better respond to changes in the external environment and achieve development against the odds. Based on the above analysis, this study proposes H2.

H2. 

Corporate social responsibility can enhance organizational resilience by improving the information environment.

2.2.2. Corporate Social Responsibility, Financing Constraints, and Organizational Resilience

The fulfillment of social responsibility is conducive to alleviating the financing constraints faced by enterprises and promoting the enhancement of organizational resilience [26]. Firstly, according to the signaling theory, fulfilling corporate social responsibility is regarded as a positive signal, conveying the information that the company is currently in good operating condition. This is conducive to enhancing the confidence of creditors and investors in the enterprise and alleviating the financing constraints faced by the enterprise [27,28]. Secondly, actively fulfilling corporate social responsibilities also conveys to the outside world that the enterprise attaches more importance to long-term development rather than merely focusing on short-term interests. This reflects that the enterprise adopts a long-term and stable business model, thereby reducing the risk assessment of creditors and investors towards the enterprise. To a certain extent, this lowers the enterprise’s financing costs and alleviates financing constraints. Thirdly, corporate social responsibility also shapes the image of a responsible enterprise, enhancing its credibility and reputation. Enterprises with a good reputation are more likely to gain recognition from the public, attention from analysts, subsidies from the government, etc., thus reducing business risks, strengthening the willingness of creditors and shareholders to invest in the enterprise, and achieving the effect of easing financing constraints.

In addition, actively fulfilling social responsibilities and promptly disclosing social responsibility information can reduce the degree of information asymmetry; alleviate the principal–agent problems between shareholders, creditors, and investors; and lower the information investigation and supervision costs for creditors and investors. The reduced costs will not be added to the financing costs and passed on to enterprises. At this point, the financing costs faced by enterprises will decrease, and the problem of difficult and expensive financing will be alleviated to a certain extent [29]. Capital is the most crucial resource for enterprises in their production and operation, as well as in withstanding adverse events. The ability to raise funds is the key for enterprises to survive and achieve long-term development. When enterprises are hit by adverse events, funds can help them maintain stability and achieve a rebound in difficult times. Firstly, when enterprises are confronted with adverse events, they need to adopt defensive measures, which often require a large amount of capital investment and have high demands on the speed of capital input. When enterprises face a relatively low level of financing constraints, it means that they can more easily obtain funds to deal with unexpected events and emergencies, which helps enhance their ability to cope with crises and challenges and improve organizational resilience. Secondly, in the recovery and development stage after a crisis, enterprises with more financing channels and lower financing thresholds can effectively avoid the restrictions on business decisions caused by resource scarcity. They can not only organize resources for orderly production and operation but also improve their ability to seize new market opportunities, thereby helping them quickly rebound and recover from the crisis [30]. Based on the above analysis, this study proposes H3.

H3. 

Corporate social responsibility can enhance organizational resilience by alleviating financing constraints.

2.2.3. Corporate Social Responsibility, Technological Innovation, and Organizational Resilience

Fulfilling social responsibility can enhance organizational resilience by boosting an enterprise’s technological innovation level. According to stakeholder theory and resource dependence theory, an enterprise’s survival and development rely on various resources. Actively undertaking corporate social responsibility can help enterprises obtain key resources from stakeholders, thereby creating their own competitive advantages [31]. As a knowledge-intensive activity, technological innovation has higher requirements for the knowledge base. Enterprises cannot merely rely on the knowledge obtained internally to carry out technological innovation activities. Therefore, it is important and necessary for enterprises to rely on the knowledge obtained from the external environment to enhance their technological innovation capabilities. Enterprises with good social responsibility performance are more likely to establish broader and deeper relationship networks with external stakeholders. Since external stakeholders of enterprises possess novel and non-redundant knowledge and skills, mutual exchanges and benefits with external stakeholders can promote the inflow of external knowledge, supplement internal knowledge, further promote the integration and transformation of internal knowledge, achieve the effect of creative leaps through the combination of different knowledge [32], and enhance the technological innovation capabilities of enterprises. In addition, when enterprises integrate their social responsibility activities into business practices, they can provide unique products and services to help shape a competitive advantage that is difficult for competitors to imitate, further enhancing the enterprise’s innovation capabilities [33].

Technological innovation enables enterprises to better cope with various internal and external challenges and changes, which is conducive to enhancing organizational resilience. On the one hand, when enterprises are confronted with the impact of crisis events, problems of functional disorders of the original system in new circumstances will arise. By refining and integrating existing knowledge, technological innovation can help enterprises discover new solutions, enhance the efficiency of resource utilization, and enable them to respond quickly to changes in the internal and external environment of the organization. This, in turn, improves their risk defense capabilities and resilience levels, which is conducive to enterprises resisting crises and achieving short-term survival [34]. On the other hand, technological innovation helps enhance the flexibility of enterprises in developing resources, assists them in integrating diverse resources, and boosts the innovation level of their products. This is conducive to enterprises forming competitive advantages, and by expanding market share, it improves the stability of enterprises when facing crisis shocks, enhances their adaptability in adverse situations, and helps enterprises achieve recovery and long-term development [35]. Meanwhile, technological innovation can also facilitate the accumulation and variation of knowledge and resources within the enterprise organization. Long-term innovation practice can form organizational memory, which can be transformed into predictive, identifying, and adaptive capabilities, thereby enhancing organizational resilience and ensuring that the enterprise can cope with major crises calmly [36]. Based on the above analysis, this study proposes H4.

H4. 

Corporate social responsibility can enhance organizational resilience by boosting technological innovation.

A diagram of the conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Data Sources

This study selected A-share listed enterprises on the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets from 2010 to 2021 as the research subjects, and the raw data are processed through the following steps. Firstly, financial and insurance enterprises were excluded. Secondly, listed enterprises with Special Treatment (ST), Special Treatment with Delisting Risk Warning (*ST), or Particular Treatment (PT) were excluded. Thirdly, samples with missing data were excluded. Meanwhile, to reduce the influence of extreme and abnormal values on the results, the study winsorized all of the continuous variables at the 1% level. After screening, 2489 sample enterprises were obtained, with a total of 17,446 sample observations. The data for this study mainly come from the CSMAR database and the Hexun.com database.

3.2. Variable Selection

3.2.1. Dependent Variable

Organizational resilience (Resilience). Currently, the measurement methods for organizational resilience can be broadly categorized into two approaches: questionnaire design and the utilization of publicly available secondary data. While questionnaires offer a comprehensive assessment of organizational resilience, they are prone to significant subjective bias, and the reliability of survey results may not be assured. Consequently, this study opted for secondary data from public sources to construct measurement indicators for evaluating organizational resilience. In the literature on measuring organizational resilience using secondary data, scholars have adopted either a short-term or long-term perspective. Those adopting a short-term perspective focus on the impact of sudden events on organizations, inferring resilience from the organization’s immediate response to environmental shocks. Specifically, resilience is assessed based on two key outcomes: the severity of organizational losses and the duration of recovery. However, given the increasing prominence of VUCA characteristics in today’s environment and the growing significance of gray rhino events, scholars with a long-term perspective argue that research on organizational resilience should also encompass dynamic, cumulative, and sustained contextual factors [37].

This study adopted the long-term perspective, defining organizational resilience as the ability of enterprises to withstand cumulative crises and achieve counter-cyclical growth. This resilience is characterized by maintaining financial stability and sustaining long-term growth. To measure organizational resilience, this study employs two dimensions: short-term financial volatility (Volatility) and long-term financial growth (Growth). For the short-term financial volatility dimension, the study followed the methodology of Xin, Kong, and Hao [38], using the variance of stock returns as an indicator. A higher variance in stock returns indicates greater stock price volatility, thereby reflecting increased short-term financial instability. For the long-term financial growth dimension, we adopted the approach of Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal [4], measuring it through the cumulative three-year growth in operating revenue.

3.2.2. Independent Variable

Corporate social responsibility (CSR): This study regards corporate social responsibility as the comprehensive behavior of enterprises in meeting the demands and expectations of stakeholders and being accountable to them in accordance with a series of explicit and implicit contracts. It is the comprehensive responsibility that enterprises undertake towards shareholders, creditors, employees, consumers, suppliers, and customers, as well as the environment and society. Drawing on the research of Zhang et al. [39], this study used the data from the HeXun.com corporate social responsibility database report as an indicator to measure the level of corporate social responsibility. This database encompasses five major dimensions of corporate social responsibility that enterprises consider during their operations, namely, shareholder responsibility, employee responsibility, supplier, customer and consumer rights responsibility, environmental responsibility, and social responsibility. This study measured corporate social responsibility by the total score of fulfilling the above five dimensions. The higher the total score, the better the performance of corporate social responsibility.

3.2.3. Control Variables

Considering the influence of other factors on organizational resilience and drawing on the research of DesJardine, Bansal, and Yang [24], this study adopted the following variables as control variables: Firstly, in terms of enterprise characteristics, enterprise size (Size), enterprise age (FirmAge), top five shareholders’ equity concentration (Top5), proportion of independent directors (Indep), concurrent position of the chairman and the general manager (Dual), and nature of property rights (SOE) are selected. The scale of an enterprise is measured by taking the natural logarithm of the total number of employees. The age of an enterprise is measured by taking the logarithm of the year of establishment plus one. The concentration of equity is measured by the proportion of shares held by the top five shareholders to the total number of shares. The proportion of independent directors is measured by the ratio of independent directors to the total number of board members. The concurrent holding of two positions is assigned a value of 1 when the chairman and the general manager are the same person and 0 otherwise. The nature of property rights is assigned a value of 1 for state-controlled enterprises and 0 for others. Secondly, in terms of the enterprise’s operating conditions, the following indicators are selected: the debt-to-asset ratio (Lev), return on total assets (ROA), total asset turnover (ATO), cash flow ratio (Cashflow), capital intensity (Capital), proportion of fixed assets (Fixed), and proportion of intangible assets (Intangible). The debt-to-asset ratio is measured by the ratio of total liabilities to total assets, the return on total assets is measured by net profit divided by the average balance of total assets, and the total asset turnover ratio is measured by the ratio of operating income to the average total assets. The cash flow ratio is measured by the net cash flow generated from operating activities divided by total assets, the capital intensity is measured by capital expenditures divided by total assets, the proportion of fixed assets is measured by the ratio of net fixed assets to total assets, and the proportion of intangible assets is measured by the ratio of intangible assets to total assets. In addition, this study also introduced year dummy variables and industry dummy variables.

3.3. Empirical Models

To examine the impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience, this study employs two fixed-effects panel regression models, with enterprise growth and performance volatility as alternative proxies for resilience. The rationale for choosing these models is threefold.

Firstly, organizational resilience is inherently a dynamic capability, which manifests in both long-term growth potential and short-term shock resistance. Therefore, Equation (1) captures the enterprise’s ability to achieve post-crisis recovery and sustained development through growth, while Equation (2) reflects the enterprise’s capacity to withstand external shocks and maintain performance stability through lower volatility. This dual-metric design enables a more comprehensive assessment of resilience.

Secondly, the use of panel regression models with firm and year fixed effects allows for the control of unobserved heterogeneity across enterprises and time, thereby mitigating potential endogeneity arising from omitted variables that are time-invariant or enterprise-specific.

Thirdly, the inclusion of a set of control variables, along with industry and year dummies, helps isolate the effect of corporate social responsibility from other confounding factors. This modeling strategy aligns with the prior literature examining firm-level outcomes using panel data and supports robust inference [21,39].

$$\begin{array}{c}{Growth}_{i,t}={\alpha }_0+{\alpha }_1{CSR}_{i,t}+\Sigma {\alpha }_k Controls+\Sigma Year+\Sigma Industry+{\epsilon }_{i,t}\end{array}$$

(1)

$$\begin{array}{c}{Volatility}_{i,t}={\beta }_0+{\beta }_1{CSR}_{i,t}+\Sigma {\beta }_k Controls+\Sigma Year+\Sigma Industry+{\epsilon }_{i,t}\end{array}$$

(2)

Here, i represents the enterprise and t represents the year. The dependent variables in the measurement model are the long-term growth dimension (Growth) and the short-term volatility dimension (Volatility) of organizational resilience. The core independent variable is corporate social responsibility (CSR), and there are control variables (Controls). ${\epsilon }_{i,t}$ is the random error. Additionally, this study introduces dummy variables for time (Year) and industry (Industry) to control for year fixed effects and industry fixed effects. If the coefficient ${\alpha }_1$ in Equation (1) is positive and the coefficient ${\beta }_1$ in Equation (2) is negative, it indicates that corporate social responsibility can promote enterprises’ long-term growth and reduce short-term financial volatility, thereby enhancing organizational resilience. Thus, H1 is supported.

4. Analysis of the Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis

This study used Stata 16.0 software for data processing and analysis. The results of the descriptive statistical analysis show that the mean of the long-term performance growth dimension (Growth) of organizational resilience is 28.570, with the minimum value being −86.520 and the maximum value reaching 598.400, indicating significant differences in long-term performance growth among the sample enterprises. The mean of the short-term financial volatility dimension (Volatility) of organizational resilience is 1.126, with a minimum value of 0.192 and a maximum value of 3.477, indicating that there are also significant differences in the level of financial volatility among the sample enterprises. The mean value of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is 24.240, the minimum value is −3.720, and the maximum value is 74.900. The significant gap between the minimum and maximum values indicates that there are considerable differences among enterprises in terms of their fulfillment of social responsibility. In addition, the descriptive statistical analysis results of the control variables show no significant differences from the existing literature.

The results of the correlation analysis show that corporate social responsibility is significantly positively correlated with the long-term growth dimension of organizational resilience and significantly negatively correlated with the financial volatility dimension of organizational resilience, with correlation coefficients of 0.177 and −0.240, respectively, and both are significant at the 1% level. This also preliminarily conforms to the hypotheses of this study. Fulfilling corporate social responsibility can enhance the level of organizational resilience by promoting long-term growth and reducing the financial volatility of enterprises. It is preliminarily judged that the model setting of this study is relatively reasonable.

4.2. Empirical Model Results

Table 1. Regression results of corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience.

	(1) Growth	(2) Volatility	(3) Growth	(4) Volatility
CSR	1.079 *** (0.047)	−0.007 *** (0.000)	0.413 *** (0.045)	−0.004 *** (0.000)
Size			24.880 *** (0.893)	−0.120 *** (0.004)
Lev			32.660 *** (2.992)	0.300 *** (0.028)
ROA			34.687 *** (10.280)	−0.809 *** (0.100)
ATO			53.817 *** (2.736)	0.025 ** (0.012)
Cashflow			−29.811 *** (8.592)	0.088 (0.074)
Capital			4.570 *** (0.318)	−0.007 ** (0.003)
Fixed			−24.673 *** (4.432)	−0.058 * (0.032)
Intangible			−36.393*** (9.667)	0.111 (0.082)
FirmAge			−8.610 *** (2.466)	0.052 *** (0.017)
Indep			69.077 *** (12.525)	0.037 (0.078)
Top5			46.730 *** (4.462)	0.221 *** (0.031)
Dual			4.677 *** (1.322)	0.028 *** (0.011)
SOE			−3.639 *** (1.260)	−0.058 *** (0.009)
Constant	−22.995 *** (3.337)	1.531 *** (0.043)	−266.528 *** (11.019)	2.023 *** (0.075)
N	17,446.000	17,446.000	17,446.000	17,446.000
R2	0.080	0.337	0.300	0.379
Adj.R2	0.079	0.336	0.298	0.377
Year	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Industry	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Note: The significance of each variable is represented by ***, **, and *, which indicate the 99%, 95%, and 90% levels, respectively. The robust standard errors are in parentheses.

presents the benchmark regression results regarding the influence of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience. In the benchmark regression, this research adopted a progressive regression strategy. In Table 1, the regression coefficients of corporate social responsibility on the long-term growth dimension (Growth) and financial volatility (Volatility) dimension of organizational resilience, when only controlling for year and industry fixed effects, are 1.079 and −0.007, respectively, in columns (1) and (2), and both are significant at the 1% level. Columns (3) and (4) of Table 1 show that after including control variables, the coefficients of corporate social responsibility on the long-term growth (Growth) dimension and financial volatility (Volatility) dimension of organizational resilience are 0.413 and −0.004, respectively. At this point, the regression coefficients have both decreased, which may be because some factors affecting organizational resilience have been absorbed after including control variables. However, the results are still significant at the 1% level. This indicates that corporate social responsibility can enhance the level of organizational resilience by promoting long-term growth and reducing the financial volatility of the organization, and H1 is verified.

4.3. Mechanism Tests

Ensuring the survival and development of enterprises in a volatile environment is a key issue that needs to be focused on in today’s VUCA environment. The previous text has comprehensively revealed the impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience. The theoretical analysis indicates that corporate social responsibility shapes organizational resilience through three channels: improving the information environment, alleviating financing constraints, and enhancing technological innovation. Based on this, this study will test the triple-channel mechanism. Given that Jiang [40] pointed out that using the stepwise method to test the mediating effect may lead to endogeneity bias, it is sufficient to prove the causal relationship between the independent variable and the mediator variable, while the impact of the mediator variable on the dependent variable can be explained theoretically by authoritative studies.

That is to say, when the impacts of mediator variables (information environment, financing constraints, and technological innovation) on the dependent variables (Growth and Volatility) have been extensively acknowledged, and based on the empirical verification that the core independent variable (CSR) has a significant influence on the dependent variables (Growth and Volatility), this study further places emphasis on empirically examining the effects of the core independent variable (CSR) on mediator variables (information environment, financing constraints, and technological innovation), so as to test the influence mechanism of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience. Therefore, this study, on the basis of referring to the research of Jiang [40] and drawing on the approaches of Dell [41] and Chen et al. [42], also adopts this method to test the influencing mechanism.

Firstly, based on Equation (1) and Equation (2), this study confirms that there is a statistically significant relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience. The coefficients of corporate social responsibility on the long-term growth (Growth) dimension and financial volatility (Volatility) dimension of organizational resilience are 0.413 and −0.004, respectively, which are shown in columns (1) and (2) of

Table 2. Mechanism test.

	(1) Growth	(2) Volatility	(3) Analyst	(4) FC	(5) Patent1
CSR	0.413 *** (0.045)	−0.004 *** (0.000)	0.010 *** (0.000)	−0.001 *** (0.000)	0.004 *** (0.001)
Controls	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Constant	−266.528 *** (11.019)	2.023 *** (0.075)	−0.711 *** (0.131)	1.895 *** (0.021)	−2.380 *** (0.182)
N	17,446.000	17,446.000	17,419.000	17,429.000	17,446.000
R2	0.300	0.379	0.418	0.659	0.508
Adj.R2	0.298	0.377	0.417	0.658	0.507
Year	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Industry	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Note: The significance of each variable is represented by ***, **, and *, which indicate the 99%, 95%, and 90% levels, respectively. The robust standard errors are in parentheses.

.

Secondly, this study tests the relationships between the core independent variable (CSR) and mediator variables (information environment, financing constraints, and technological innovation) based on Equation (3).

$$\begin{array}{c}{Mediator\left(information environment/financing constrains/technological innovation\right)}_{i,t}\\ ={\lambda }_0+{\lambda }_1{CSR}_{i,t}+\Sigma {\lambda }_k Controls+\Sigma Year+\Sigma Industry+{\epsilon }_{i,t}\end{array}$$

(3)

Thirdly, this study further elaborates on the influence mechanism of the mediator variables (information environment, financing constraints, and technological innovation) on the dependent variable (Growth and Volatility), and provides empirical evidence to them based on Equation (4) and Equation (5). The demonstrations of Step 2 and Step 3 are provided as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}{Growth}_{i,t}\\ ={\sigma }_0+{\sigma }_1{Mediator\left(information environment/financing constrains/technological innovation\right)}_{i,t}+\Sigma {\sigma }_k Controls \\ + \Sigma Year + \Sigma Industry+{\epsilon }_{i,t}\end{array}$$

(4)

$$\begin{array}{c}{Volatility}_{i,t}\\ ={\theta }_0+{\theta }_1{Mediator\left(information environment/financing constrains/technological innovation\right)}_{i,t}+\Sigma {\theta }_k Controls \\ +\Sigma Year+\Sigma Industry+{\epsilon }_{i,t}\end{array}$$

(5)

4.3.1. Improving the Information Environment

To test the relationship between CSR and information environment, this study draws on the practice of Song et al. [43], and analyst attention (Analyst) is adopted to further measure the information environment of listed enterprises. The greater the attention from analysts, the better the information environment of enterprises. Column (3) of Table 2 presents the influence of corporate social responsibility on the enterprise information environment. The coefficient of CSR is 0.010, which is significant at the 1% level.

Moreover, for the relationship between information environment and the dependent variables, a transparent information environment facilitates smooth communication between enterprises and their stakeholders, playing a crucial role in enhancing organizational resilience. From a process perspective, organizational resilience involves an enterprise’s ability to anticipate crises and establish preventive mechanisms before they occur, respond promptly during crises to preserve core structures and resources, and swiftly recover and adjust afterward to ensure long-term development. Information permeates all stages of crisis management. A sound information environment strengthens the bidirectional flow of information both within and outside the organization, thereby enhancing enterprises’ forecasting, response, and adaptation capabilities, which ultimately improves resilience. On the one hand, improvements in the information environment make it easier for stakeholders to access corporate information. Greater transparency reduces information asymmetry between managers and investors, as well as among investors themselves, enabling more rational and objective assessments of an enterprise’s operations and future outlook. As a result, even in times of crisis, investors are more likely to make rational investment decisions, thereby reducing stock price volatility [44]. On the other hand, a favorable information environment provides enterprises with more channels and resources to access external information in a timely manner. Such timely access is key to identifying risks at an early stage and serves as the foundation for strengthening organizational resilience [45].

Extant research also widely suggests that a more transparent information environment not only helps reduce stock price volatility and the risk of stock price crashes [38] but also enhances enterprises’ risk-bearing capacity [46]. Moreover, improvements in corporate information environments facilitate value creation [47] and promote long-term performance, thereby reinforcing organizational resilience. For example, Wang, Tang, and Ma [48] find in their study on business groups that information asymmetry between parent and subsidiary companies reduces the efficiency of operational communication and organizational coordination, which negatively affects resilience, further underscoring the importance of information transparency in cultivating organizational resilience. Meanwhile, as the results of the empirical test shown, when the dependent variables are Growth and Volatility, the coefficients of Information Environment are 8.736 (p < 0.01) and −0.012 (p < 0.05).

Combined with the results of the benchmark regression test, this suggests that corporate social responsibility enhances organizational resilience by improving the information environment. Therefore, H2 is confirmed.

4.3.2. Alleviating Financing Constraints

To test the relationship between CSR and financing constraints, this study refers to the research of Zheng and Zhuang [49] and Gao, Meng, and Tian [50], utilizing the FC index to measure the financing constraints confronted by enterprises. The larger the value of the FC index, the more significant the financing constraints encountered by the enterprise. As can be seen from Columns (4) of Table 2, the coefficient of CSR is −0.001, which is also significant at the 1% level.

Moreover, for the relationship between financing constraints and the dependent variables, the development of enterprises cannot be separated from financial support, however, the prevailing situation of “difficult and costly financing” makes it challenging for many enterprises to obtain sufficient funding. This problem is particularly acute in times of crisis, when enterprises require substantial capital not only to sustain their basic internal operations but also to ensure adequate financial flexibility to adapt to environmental changes and seize turnaround opportunities. Therefore, financing capability plays a critical role in helping firms navigate crises [51]. Alleviating financing constraints enables enterprises to recover more rapidly during crises and fosters subsequent business growth. Existing studies also generally recognize that easing financing constraints is an important mechanism for reducing short-term financial volatility, achieving long-term performance development, and enhancing organizational resilience. For example, Hu, Song, and Guo [52] find that increasing both internal and external financing sources, thereby mitigating financing constraints, can effectively improve organizational resilience. Moreover, the study by Feng and Zhu [53] also demonstrates that heterogeneous government subsidies can relieve financing constraints and, in turn, strengthen organizational resilience. Meanwhile, as the results of the empirical test shown, when the dependent variables are Growth and Volatility, the coefficients of Financing Constraints are −25.981 and 0.188, respectively, and both are significant at the 1% level.

Based on above, corporate social responsibility can enhance organizational resilience by alleviating financing constraints. Thus, H3 is confirmed.

4.3.3. Boosting Technological Innovation

To test the relationship between CSR and technological innovation, this study draws upon the research of Gong and Peng [54] and employs the logarithm of the number of patent applications plus one (Patent1) as the metric for measuring the technological innovation level of enterprises. Column (5) of Table 2 presents the influence of corporate social responsibility on technological innovation. The coefficient of CSR is 0.004, which is significant at the 1% level.

Moreover, for the relationship between technological innovation and the dependent variables, technological innovation primarily concerns value-added outputs, processes, and technology development and commercialization that are directly related to an organization’s core activities, encompassing both product or service innovation and process innovation [55]. By means of technological innovation, enterprises can enhance their flexibility in exploiting resources, which facilitates the rapid organization of resources to respond adaptively in the face of crises, thereby helping organizations maintain stability. Moreover, an improved level of technological innovation enables firms to strengthen their product innovation capacity and further build core competitiveness through mastering key technologies, thus enhancing risk resistance and achieving sustainable development. Existing studies generally suggest that the level of technological innovation constitutes a crucial factor influencing organizational resilience [34]. For example, Jia, Fu, and Li [56], taking the COVID-19 pandemic as the research context, found that technological innovation activities undertaken by enterprises prior to crisis events can significantly improve organizational resilience. Similarly, Zhang et al. [57], in their investigation of the relationship between technological innovation and high-quality development, argued that technological innovation can effectively enhance organizational resilience and thereby promote high-quality development. The research of Bustinza et al. [58] also demonstrated that, under conditions of uncertainty, technological innovation contributes to strengthening corporate resilience, improving adaptive capacity, and ultimately reinforcing organizational resilience. Meanwhile, as the results of the empirical test show that, when the dependent variable are Growth and Volatility, the coefficients of Technological Innovation (for Patent1) are 4.779 (p < 0.01) and −0.009 (p < 0.05), respectively, and both are significant at the 1% level.

In conjunction with the results of the benchmark regression test, this demonstrates that corporate social responsibility enhances organizational resilience by elevating the technological innovation level. Thus, H4 is confirmed.

4.4. Endogeneity and Robustness Testing

4.4.1. Endogeneity Testing

• Consideration of Time Lags.

According to the research of Chen and Wang [30], using lagged independent variables can alleviate the endogeneity problem caused by reverse causality to a certain extent. Accordingly, in this research, the corporate social responsibility scores with a one-period lag (CSR_1) and a two-period lag (CSR_2) were chosen as surrogate variables of the independent variables. As shown in

Table 3. Endogeneity test considering time lags.

	(1) Growth	(2) Volatility	(3) Growth	(4) Volatility
CSR_1	0.273 *** (0.045)	−0.003 *** (0.000)
CSR_2			0.171 *** (0.048)	−0.003 *** (0.000)
Controls	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Constant	−264.293 *** (12.539)	1.817 *** (0.086)	−264.418 *** (14.227)	1.883 *** (0.101)
N	14,247.000	14,247.000	12,108.000	12,108.000
R2	0.297	0.375	0.289	0.364
Adj.R2	0.295	0.373	0.287	0.362
Year	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Industry	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Note: The significance of each variable is represented by ***, **, and *, which indicate the 99%, 95%, and 90% levels, respectively. The robust standard errors are in parentheses.

, the coefficients of corporate social responsibility lagged by one period and two periods on the long-term growth dimension of organizational resilience are 0.273 and 0.171, respectively, and both are significant at the 1% level; the coefficients of the financial volatility dimension are both −0.003, and both are significant at the 1% level. This basically conforms to the results of the benchmark regression, further verifying the establishment of H1.

2.

Instrumental Variable Method.

To further tackle the possible endogeneity problem of the model, in this study, the instrumental variable approach and the two-stage least squares estimation (2SLS) are adopted to solve the perplexity of endogeneity. For the selection of instrumental variables, drawing on the research findings of Zhao and Yu [59], the average social responsibility score of other enterprises in the same region and industry is utilized as the instrumental variable (IV_CSR). As enterprises in the same region and industry operate under comparable institutional, cultural, and economic environments, the average corporate social responsibility level of peer enterprises is likely to influence the corporate social responsibility engagement of a focal enterprise through social norms, industry benchmarking, and regional learning effects. This satisfies the relevance condition for instrumental variable selection. Importantly, although concerns may arise regarding potential unobserved shocks affecting enterprises within the same region or industry, prior research by Zhao and Yu [59] provides empirical support for the exogeneity of similar peer-based instruments. Following this rationale, we argue that while peer enterprises’ corporate social responsibility may affect the corporate social responsibility decisions of the focal enterprise, it is unlikely to directly affect the enterprise’s organizational resilience, thereby meeting the exclusion restriction required for a valid instrument.

Table 4. Endogeneity test with the instrumental variable method.

	(1) First stage CSR	(2) Second stage Growth	(3) Second stage Volatility
CSR		2.298 *** (0.515)	−0.008 ** (0.003)
IV_CSR	0.147 *** (0.016)
Kleibergen-Paaprk	79.673
LM statistic	<0.000>
Kleibergen-Paaprk	80.951
Wald F statistic	[16.380]
Controls	Yes	Yes	Yes
Constant	−2.764 (1.886)	−265.271 *** (11.563)	2.021 *** (0.076)
N	17,419.000	17,419.000	17,419.000
R2	0.387	0.219	0.372
Year	Yes	Yes	Yes
Industry	Yes	Yes	Yes

Note: The significance of each variable is represented by ***, **, and *, which indicate the 99%, 95%, and 90% levels, respectively. The robust standard errors are in parentheses.

presents the regression outcomes of the instrumental variables. As can be seen from column (1) of Table 4, the coefficient of IV_CSR is 0.147, which is significant at the 1% level. From the results, in the test of the instrumental variables, the LM statistic is 79.673, with a p-value of 0.000, rejecting the null hypothesis of unidentifiability, indicating that the instrumental variable IV_CSR is correlated with the endogenous independent variable CSR. The weak instrumental variable test yields a Wald-F statistic of 80.951, which is greater than the critical value of 16.380 at the 10% level, suggesting the rejection of the null hypothesis of weak instrumental variables, that is, there is no issue of weak instrumental variables in the model. Thus, this demonstrates that the selection of instrumental variables in this study is rational. As indicated in columns (2) and (3) of Table 4, the coefficients of CSR are 2.298 and −0.008, respectively, which are significant at the 1% and 5% levels. This indicates that after the endogeneity test, corporate social responsibility can still enhance the organizational resilience level, further supporting the establishment of the hypotheses proposed previously.

4.4.2. Robustness Test

• Replacement of the Measurement Method of the Dependent Variable.

In the long-term growth dimension of organizational resilience, following the approach of Lv et al. [60], this study measures it using the cumulative growth in operating income over four consecutive years (Growth1) and five consecutive years (Growth2), as shown in columns (1) and (2) of

Table 5. Robustness test—replacing the independent and dependent variables and restricting the time period.

	Replacing the Dependent Variable				Replacing the Independent Variable				Restricting the Time Period
	(1) Growth1	(2) Growth2	(3) Volatility1	(4) Volatility2	(5) Growth	(6) Volatility	(7) Growth	(8) Volatility	(9) Growth	(10) Volatility
CSR	0.897 *** (0.297)	0.633 *** (0.062)	−0.004 *** (0.000)	−0.0002 *** (0.000)					0.395 *** (0.046)	−0.003 *** (0.000)
CSR_rank					7.566 *** (1.245)	−0.042 *** (0.007)
CSR_rl							1.487 *** (0.172)	−0.002 *** (0.001)
Controls	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Constant	−515.293 *** (42.698)	−408.382 *** (14.856)	3.169 *** (0.101)	0.181 *** (0.007)	−278.081 *** (11.215)	2.088 *** (0.076)	−359.582 *** (25.242)	1.981 *** (0.136)	−256.354 *** (11.504)	1.856 *** (0.076)
N	17,435.000	17,446.000	17,446.000	17,446.000	17,446.000	17,446.000	4848.000	4848.000	14,972.000	14,972.000
R2	0.089	0.345	0.636	0.327	0.298	0.375	0.393	0.436	0.300	0.406
Adj.R2	0.087	0.343	0.635	0.326	0.296	0.374	0.387	0.431	0.298	0.405
Year	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Industry	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Note: The significance of each variable is represented by ***, **, and *, which indicate the 99%, 95%, and 90% levels, respectively. The robust standard errors are in parentheses.

. The coefficients of corporate social responsibility are 0.897 and 0.633, respectively, and both are significant at the 1% level. In the financial fluctuation dimension of organizational resilience, initially, this study refers to the practice of Xin, Kong, and Hao [38] and measures it by employing the variance calculated from the original returns of individual stocks without eliminating the influence of the overall market returns (Volatility1). Subsequently, this study follows the approach of Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal [4] and carries out measurements using the standard deviation of the monthly individual stock returns, considering the reinvestment of cash dividends (Volatility2). As presented in columns (3) and (4) of Table 5, the coefficients of corporate social responsibility are −0.004 and −0.0002, respectively, and both are significant at the 1% level, further validating the previous research conclusions.

2.

Replacement of the Measurement Method of the Independent Variable.

Firstly, drawing on the practice of Yan, Li, and Zhong [61], in this study, the five ratings of corporate social responsibility of listed enterprises provided by Hexun.com (CSR_rank) are employed as proxy variables, and the ratings of corporate social responsibility (CSR_rank) are assigned values ranging from 1 to 5, thereby obtaining an alternative measure of corporate social responsibility. It can be derived from columns (5) and (6) of Table 5 that the coefficient of corporate social responsibility on the long-term growth dimension of organizational resilience is 7.566, and that on the financial fluctuation dimension of organizational resilience is −0.042, with both being significant at the 1% level. Secondly, considering that there might be certain biases in using the corporate social responsibility data disclosed by Hexun.com, this study uses corporate social responsibility data (CSR_rl) from the Rankins CSR Ratings Database to conduct further examinations [62]. Since the Rankins CSR Ratings Database changed its scoring rules in 2019 from disclosing corporate social responsibility data to disclosing ESG data, this study adopts the corporate social responsibility data disclosed by the Rankins CSR Ratings Database from 2010 to 2018 for robustness tests. It can be seen in columns (7) and (8) of Table 5 that the coefficient of corporate social responsibility on the long-term growth dimension of organizational resilience is 1.487, and the coefficient on the financial fluctuation dimension of organizational resilience is −0.002, with both being significant at the 1% level, further validating the previous conclusion.

3.

Restricting the Time Period to 2010–2019.

Considering the shock of the COVID-19 pandemic to enterprises in 2020, this study eliminated the data of 2020 and 2021 and conducted a re-examination. As can be seen from column (9) of Table 5, the coefficient of corporate social responsibility on the long-term growth dimension of organizational resilience is 0.395; as indicated in column (10) of Table 5, the coefficient of corporate social responsibility on the financial fluctuation dimension is −0.003, and both are significantly significant at the 1% level, further validating the previous research conclusions.

4.

Testing the Sub-Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Columns (1) to (5) of

Table 6. Robustness test—dimensional analysis.

	(1) Growth	(2) Growth	(3) Growth	(4) Growth	(5) Growth	(6) Volatility	(7) Volatility	(8) Volatility	(9) Volatility	(10) Volatility
CSR1	2.066 *** (0.178)					−0.027 *** (0.001)
CSR2		2.369 *** (0.228)					−0.006 *** (0.001)
CSR3			0.637 *** (0.141)					−0.003 *** (0.001)
CSR4				0.689 *** (0.143)					−0.004 *** (0.001)
CSR5					0.345 *** (0.128)					−0.008 *** (0.001)
Controls	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Constant	−274.230 *** (11.113)	−266.863 *** (11.020)	−265.872 *** (11.049)	−265.463 *** (11.068)	−266.296 *** (11.026)	2.123 *** (0.075)	2.026 *** (0.076)	2.020 *** (0.076)	2.018 *** (0.076)	2.015 *** (0.075)
N	17,446.000	17,446.000	17,446.000	17,446.000	17,446.000	17,446.000	17,446.000	17,446.000	17,446.000	17,446.000
R2	0.303	0.302	0.297	0.297	0.296	0.392	0.375	0.375	0.375	0.376
Adj.R2	0.301	0.300	0.295	0.296	0.295	0.390	0.373	0.373	0.373	0.375
Year	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Industry	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Note: The significance of each variable is represented by ***, **, and *, which indicate the 99%, 95%, and 90% levels, respectively. The robust standard errors are in parentheses.

show the impact of the shareholder responsibility, employee responsibility, supplier, customer and consumer rights responsibility, environmental and social responsibility undertaken by enterprises on the long-term growth dimension of organizational resilience. Columns (6) to (10) of Table 6 show the impact on the financial volatility dimension. The results indicate that each sub-dimension of corporate social responsibility is conducive to promoting long-term performance growth and reducing short-term financial volatility. Therefore, whether it is the total score of corporate social responsibility or the test of each sub-dimension of corporate social responsibility, this shows the positive role of corporate social responsibility in cultivating and enhancing organizational resilience, further verifying the validity of the previous hypothesis.

5. Moderating Analysis

To further explore whether the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience varies across different external and internal governance contexts, this study conducts a moderating analysis. Specifically, this study examines whether the impact of corporate social responsibility differs under distinct levels of institutional environment and board diversity, which reflect variations in external formal institutions and internal governance structures, respectively. The model specifications are as follows.

$$\begin{array}{c}{Growth}_{i,t}={\eta }_0+{\eta }_1{CSR}_{i,t}+{\eta }_2{CSR}_{i,t}\ast {Diversity}_{i,t}+{\eta }_3{Diversity}_{i,t}+\Sigma {\eta }_k Controls+\Sigma Year+\Sigma Industry+{\epsilon }_{i,t}\end{array}$$

(6)

$$\begin{array}{c}{Volatility}_{i,t}={\theta }_0+{\theta }_1{CSR}_{i,t}+{\theta }_2{CSR}_{i,t}\ast {Diversity}_{i,t}+{\theta }_3{Diversity}_{i,t}+\Sigma {\theta }_k Controls+\Sigma Year+\Sigma Industry+{\epsilon }_{i,t}\end{array}$$

(7)

$$\begin{array}{c}{Growth}_{i,t}={\gamma }_0+{\gamma }_1{CSR}_{i,t}+{\gamma }_2{CSR}_{i,t}\ast {Market}_{i,t}+{\gamma }_3{Market}_{i,t}+\Sigma {\gamma }_k Controls+\Sigma Year+\Sigma Industry+{\epsilon }_{i,t}\end{array}$$

(8)

$$\begin{array}{c}{Volatility}_{i,t}={\Phi }_0+{\Phi }_1{CSR}_{i,t}+{\Phi }_2{CSR}_{i,t}\ast {Market}_{i,t}+{\Phi }_3{Market}_{i,t}+\Sigma {\Phi }_k Controls+\Sigma Year+\Sigma Industry+{\epsilon }_{i,t}\end{array}$$

(9)

5.1. Board Diversity

In the context of an enterprise encountering a crisis, the crisis perception ability and organizational coordination capacity of enterprise managers are crucial for determining whether the enterprise can successfully cope with the crisis. Regarding the board of directors, as the most significant decision-making body within the enterprise, its governance efficiency and the scientific nature of its decisions are directly associated with the enterprise’s risk response capability and future development [63]. Therefore, board diversity may have an impact on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience. Specifically, on the one hand, the survival and development of enterprises rely heavily on resource support. Given that most enterprises lack the full spectrum of resources required for their growth, they must acquire additional and often scarce resources from external environments. Actively fulfilling corporate social responsibility and fostering positive stakeholder relationships facilitate resource acquisition. However, enterprises vary in their ability to understand, transform, and apply these acquired resources. As the highest decision-making body, the board of directors plays a pivotal role in formulating and supervising strategic goals and determining an enterprise’s direction. A more diverse board implies richer experience, broader knowledge bases, and varied professional backgrounds at the decision-making level. This diversity enhances the board’s capacity to interpret and leverage different types of resources effectively, leading to innovative solutions [64]. Consequently, this improves the accuracy and efficiency of decision-making, increases the enterprise’s resilience during crises, and promotes post-crisis recovery and development. On the other hand, whether an enterprise can establish close relationships with stakeholders by fulfilling its social responsibilities and obtain assistance from them during crises largely depends on stakeholders’ willingness to endorse corporate social responsibility initiatives. Due to information asymmetry and principal–agent problems, management may use corporate social responsibility as a tool to conceal negative information, thereby diverting attention from shareholders and the public. However, a diversified board of directors, characterized by greater independence, can better fulfill its supervisory role over management. This enhances the quality and reputation of the enterprise’s corporate social responsibility efforts [65], leading to greater public recognition of these initiatives. Consequently, this facilitates the quasi-insurance function of corporate social responsibility, enabling the enterprise to secure more stakeholder support during crises and enhance its organizational resilience.

In summary, this study posits that the enhancing effect of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience is more pronounced when board diversity is higher. To measure board diversity (Diversity), this study adopts a comprehensive index based on gender, age, profession, educational background, and experience, following the methodology of Bernile, Bhagwat, and Yonker [66].

Table 7. Moderating analysis.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
	Growth	Volatility	Growth	Volatility
CSR	0.401 *** (0.045)	−0.003 *** (0.000)	0.418 *** (0.047)	−0.004 *** (0.000)
Diversity	7.522 *** (2.676)	0.009 (0.018)
CSR*Diversity	0.409 ** (0.190)	−0.002 ** (0.001)
Market			5.106 * (2.691)	0.006 (0.020)
CSR*Market			0.356 ** (0.160)	−0.003 *** (0.001)
Controls	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Constant	−255.151 *** (11.033)	1.930 *** (0.076)	−254.126 *** (10.957)	1.916 *** (0.077)
N	17,446.000	17,446.000	17,250.000	17,250.000
R2	0.301	0.379	0.303	0.380
Adj.R2	0.299	0.377	0.301	0.378
Year	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Industry	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Note: The significance of each variable is represented by ***, **, and *, which indicate the 99%, 95%, and 90% levels, respectively. The robust standard errors are in parentheses.

presents the regression results incorporating the interaction term between corporate social responsibility and board diversity. Specifically, column (1) shows that the regression coefficient for the interaction term (CSR*Diversity) in the long-term growth dimension is 0.409, which is significant at the 5% level. Column (2) indicates that the regression coefficient for the interaction term (CSR*Diversity) in the financial volatility dimension is −0.002, which is also significant at the 5% level. These findings suggest that board diversity enhances the positive impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience. Notably, although the study adopts interaction terms in the extended regression models, the intention of the study is to conduct heterogeneity analyses. This method is used to examine whether the influence of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience differs across enterprises with varied board characteristics and those that are located in different institutional environments, rather than to formally test moderating mechanisms.

5.2. Regional Marketization

The promoting effect of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience is not only influenced by the characteristics of the enterprise but also related to its development environment. The external market environment of an enterprise is a significant element that impacts its operation and development. As an outcome of a series of reforms in economic, social, legal, and political systems, the degree of marketization reflects the relationship between the government and the market in a region and indicates the extent to which the market functions in resource allocation [67]. Due to the significant differences in the degree of marketization among different regions in our country, the promoting effect of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience will be influenced to varying degrees. Specifically, firstly, in an environment with a relatively high degree of marketization, the level of economic development is usually also higher, and the cultural level and social responsibility awareness of the people are relatively stronger. Therefore, enterprises that fulfill their social responsibilities usually receive more positive feedback and gain recognition from stakeholders (Flammer [68]), thereby helping enterprises obtain more resources from stakeholders and enhancing their organizational resilience. Secondly, in regions with a relatively high degree of marketization, the legalization level is higher [69], and the external supervision and governance mechanisms are more sophisticated. This mitigates the agency problems of enterprise managers, and the “greenwashing” behavior in social responsibility correspondingly diminishes. At such times, enterprises fulfilling social responsibilities are less likely to be perceived as “all talk and no action” or hypocritical. Stakeholders will enhance their trust in enterprises fulfilling social responsibilities, which is conducive to the formation of enterprise moral capital and enables the quasi-insurance role of social responsibility to come into play in times of crisis. Finally, the increase in the degree of marketization means an escalation of free competition and a decrease in monopolistic forces. The government’s power to allocate scarce resources becomes lower. In such an environment, enterprises will not expend a large amount of resources and energy on maintaining relations with the government. They will pay greater attention to the demands of other stakeholders. By establishing ties with a wider range of stakeholders and maintaining good stakeholder relationships, stakeholders can stand by the enterprise in both good and bad times, improving the enterprise’s risk response capability and facilitating its counter-trend development.

Based on the above, this study anticipates that in regions with a high degree of marketization, the enhancement effect of enterprises fulfilling social responsibilities on organizational resilience is more pronounced. Regarding the measurement of the degree of marketization (Market), this study primarily acquires relevant data from the China Provincial Marketization Index Report (2018) and employs the overall marketization index (MKI) of the region to gauge the degree of marketization. Table 7 presents the regression results after including the interaction term of corporate social responsibility and the degree of marketization (CSR*Market). As indicated in column (3), the regression coefficient of the interaction term (CSR*Market) between corporate social responsibility and the degree of marketization in the long-term growth dimension is 0.356, which is significant at the 5% level. As shown in column (4), the regression coefficient of the interaction term (CSR*Market) between corporate social responsibility and the degree of marketization in the financial volatility dimension is −0.003, which is significant at the 1% level. This demonstrates that in regions with a high degree of marketization, fulfilling social responsibilities is more beneficial for reducing short-term financial volatility, promoting long-term performance growth, and, thereby, elevating the level of organizational resilience of enterprises.

6. Conclusions

Drawing on stakeholder theory, resource dependence theory, information asymmetry theory, and signaling theory, this study uses A-share listed enterprises in the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets of China from 2010 to 2021 as the research objects, empirically examines the impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience, and analyzes the mechanism between them. Meanwhile, it further explores the influence of the enterprise’s own characteristics and the external market environment on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience. The main conclusions are as follows. Firstly, actively fulfilling corporate social responsibility helps to enhance organizational resilience. Organizational resilience empowers enterprises to withstand crises and thrive in the face of adversity, as evidenced by lower short-term financial volatility and higher long-term performance growth. On the one hand, the fulfillment of social responsibilities enables enterprises to promptly identify and address crises. It also facilitates their flexible adaptation to environmental changes, thereby mitigating short-term financial fluctuations. This process involves leveraging social responsibility initiatives to enhance an enterprise’s sensitivity to potential threats and its ability to mobilize resources and strategies for effective crisis management. On the other hand, enterprises that actively engage in social responsibility endeavors are better positioned to acquire the diverse scarce resources essential for long-term development. This proactive approach contributes to the cultivation of the enterprise’s core competitiveness, ultimately leading to sustainable long-term performance growth. By investing in social causes, companies can build stronger relationships with stakeholders, gain access to unique knowledge and skills, and enhance their reputation, all of which are crucial factors in driving long-term business success. This finding not only addresses the call by Aguinis and Glavas [70] to further deepen the exploration of the impact of corporate social responsibility but also enriches the exploration of the antecedent variables of organizational resilience.

Secondly, corporate social responsibility enhances organizational resilience by improving the enterprise’s information environment, alleviating financing constraints, and increasing the level of technological innovation. Specifically, to begin with, fulfilling corporate social responsibility can reduce the degree of information asymmetry within an enterprise, thereby facilitating the two-way flow of information between internal and external stakeholders and improving the enterprise’s information environment. This, in turn, helps stakeholders obtain enterprise information in a timely manner, accumulate positive attributions for the enterprise, and mitigate penalties arising from negative events. Meanwhile, an improved information environment also enables the enterprise to acquire external information more easily, laying a foundation for crisis resistance and rebound development. In addition, corporate social responsibility is perceived as a positive signal that can help lower financing costs and alleviate financing constraints. When an enterprise faces lower levels of financing constraints, it becomes more capable of securing funds to establish crisis defense mechanisms and to resume orderly operations after the crisis, thereby achieving recovery and growth. Moreover, actively fulfilling corporate social responsibility enables the enterprise to acquire knowledge resources from the external environment, enhance its technological innovation capabilities, and consequently improve the flexibility of resource utilization and strengthen its competitive advantage. This ultimately allows the enterprise to better cope with crises and achieve long-term development. This finding enriches the current literature on the intrinsic associative mechanisms between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience. Simultaneously, it addresses the shortcoming in the study of Huang, Chen, and Nguyen [9], which failed to empirically examine the mechanisms through which corporate social responsibility influences organizational resilience.

Finally, the level of board diversity within the enterprise and the degree of regional marketization outside the enterprise both have an impact on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience. In terms of internal characteristics, a diverse board structure can better fulfill both advisory and supervisory functions. In enterprises with a higher degree of board diversity, the positive effect of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience is more pronounced. From the perspective of the external market environment, when the level of regional marketization is higher, enterprises’ corporate social responsibility practices tend to gain greater recognition and trust. This helps enterprises secure more scarce resources and further strengthens the impact of corporate social responsibility on enhancing organizational resilience. Notably, although this study does not explicitly perform separate analyses for different industries, industry fixed effects are included in all regression models to control for unobserved heterogeneity across sectors. This approach allows us to account for systematic differences in industry-specific characteristics, thereby enhancing the internal validity of our findings regarding the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience. This finding extends the research conclusions of Zheng and Lin [71] regarding the boundaries of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience, and it enriches the situational research on the aftermath of corporate social responsibility.

7. Discussion

7.1. Theoretical Implications

Firstly, this study extends the research on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience into the context of cumulative crises. Existing studies predominantly focus on the impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience during crisis events. However, as the VUCA characteristics of the environment become increasingly pronounced, the subtle yet significant influence of cumulative crises on enterprises warrants greater attention. Therefore, this study adopts a long-term perspective to examine how corporate social responsibility influences organizational resilience in the context of cumulative crises. By doing so, it broadens the scope of research, refines the theoretical framework linking corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience, and offers new theoretical insights for future research in this domain.

Secondly, this study significantly enriches the research on the mechanisms and boundary conditions of how corporate social responsibility influences organizational resilience. Previous studies on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience in crisis events have mainly focused on the direct impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience. For instance, Huang, Chen, and Nguyen [9] find that enterprises with better corporate social responsibility performance before a crisis are more likely to maintain stability and recover faster after the shock. Ferrón-Vílchez and Leyva-de [72], using small and medium-sized enterprises as their research sample, discovered that actively participating in social and environmental practices helps enterprises maintain flexibility and achieve better business performance in the face of crisis events. Yang, Wang, and David [33], combining the optimal distinctiveness theory, demonstrate that the scope consistency of corporate social responsibility enhances the stability of organizations in crisis events, while the emphasis differentiation of corporate social responsibility improves the flexibility of organizations. However, these previous studies have overlooked the underlying mechanisms linking corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience. This study systematically examines three key channels: improving the enterprise’s information environment, alleviating financing constraints, and enhancing technological innovation levels. By doing so, it sheds light on the black box of the corporate social responsibility–organizational resilience relationship in cumulative crisis situations. Furthermore, this study investigates the heterogeneous effects of internal board diversity and external regional marketization on the corporate social responsibility–organizational resilience link, thereby enriching the understanding of the boundary conditions. These findings provide valuable directions for future research on the factors and mechanisms influencing organizational resilience and offer practical insights into strategies for cultivating and enhancing organizational resilience.

7.2. Practical Implications

It is imperative to strengthen the corporate social responsibility management system and guide enterprises in integrating social responsibility into their strategic agendas. The findings of this study indicate that actively fulfilling corporate social responsibility can reduce short-term financial volatility, support long-term performance growth, and enhance organizational resilience. These insights offer actionable implications for both managers and policymakers. For corporate managers, these findings suggest that corporate social responsibility should not be viewed as a peripheral or compliance-based function but rather as a strategic asset that supports long-term adaptability. Managers are encouraged to embed corporate social responsibility into core business strategies, allocate dedicated resources to corporate-social-responsibility-related initiatives, and incorporate resilience metrics into corporate social responsibility evaluation frameworks. In crisis or high-uncertainty environments, enterprises that proactively engage in corporate social responsibility may experience greater stakeholder trust, operational flexibility, and adaptive capacity. For policymakers, the relatively low level of corporate social responsibility fulfillment among enterprises in China highlights the need for institutional support. A multi-pronged policy approach is recommended. Firstly, the government can introduce targeted incentives (tax breaks or subsidies) for enterprises demonstrating high-quality corporate social responsibility engagement and resilience-building practices. Secondly, regulatory authorities should strengthen legal frameworks to standardize corporate social reporting and align it more closely with resilience indicators, ensuring transparency and comparability. Thirdly, to prevent the misuse of corporate social responsibility as a form of symbolic compliance or greenwashing, enhanced monitoring mechanisms should be put in place to track corporate social outcomes and protect stakeholder interests.

Proactively cultivating a resilience-oriented mindset and enhancing the organization’s capacity to withstand and adapt to shocks are essential in today’s highly volatile and uncertain business environment. This study demonstrates that fulfilling corporate social responsibility can foster organizational resilience through three key mechanisms: improving the information environment, alleviating financing constraints, and strengthening technological innovation. For corporate managers, these insights underscore the strategic value of embedding corporate social responsibility into real-time decision-making and daily operations. Firstly, by enhancing corporate-social-responsibility-related disclosures and improving information transparency, managers can facilitate the timely and accurate exchange of information with stakeholders, thereby enabling faster organizational responses in uncertain or crisis situations. Integrating information governance and corporate social responsibility reporting into risk monitoring systems can further strengthen early warning and adaptive decision-making capabilities. Secondly, corporate social responsibility can be used as a signaling tool to reduce information asymmetry with external investors, lenders, and regulators. Managers should strategically design corporate social responsibility initiatives to build trust and credibility, which can ease access to financing in periods of liquidity pressure or external shocks. Thirdly, aligning corporate social responsibility with the enterprise’s innovation agenda can enhance resilience by promoting long-term learning, experimentation, and technological renewal. Managers are encouraged to prioritize corporate social responsibility investments that directly support research and development, green transformation, and digital-capability-building initiatives that not only meet stakeholder expectations but also empower enterprises to recover and transform in adverse environments.

A diversified board of directors should be established to enhance governance efficiency and the scientificity of decision-making. In light of the findings of this study, a diversified board structure is conducive to giving full play to the advisory and supervisory functions of the board of directors, which helps to strengthen the positive impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience. Therefore, when selecting board members, enterprises should focus on their characteristics. By integrating members with different characteristics, a diversified board team can be formed. This enables the board of directors to think creatively and comprehensively when making relevant decisions while also effectively supervising the management. Specifically, on the one hand, enterprises should formulate clear diversity goals and incorporate them into corporate governance. Meanwhile, corresponding policies and procedures should be established to ensure the effective implementation of these diversity goals. On the other hand, enterprises can foster a diversified corporate culture to raise awareness of diversity within the company, promote diversity initiatives, attract diverse candidates to join, and, ultimately, enhance the level of board diversity.

7.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study investigates the impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience, with a particular focus on the underlying mechanisms linking the two, as well as the boundary conditions that may influence this relationship. While the research yields several meaningful findings, certain limitations remain and call for further exploration in future studies.

On the one hand, for the research samples, the sample used in this study comprises listed enterprises, which may limit the generalizability of the conclusions to non-listed enterprises. Compared with publicly listed enterprises, non-listed enterprises, especially small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), often face more severe challenges related to survival and development and, thus, may have a more urgent need to build and enhance organizational resilience. Future research may consider expanding the sample scope to examine whether the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience holds in the context of non-listed enterprises. Doing so could not only test the universality of the current findings but also provide practical implications for fostering resilience in non-listed enterprises. For the measurement, although this study employs the logarithm of the number of patent applications to measure technological innovation, this indicator may not comprehensively capture the multidimensional nature of corporate innovation capabilities. Patent applications primarily reflect the output aspect of innovation, whereas other important dimensions, such as research and development personnel input, and the efficiency of innovation processes, are not considered. Future research could incorporate more diverse indicators, including research and development expenditure, human capital for innovation, and process-oriented measures, to provide a more holistic assessment of technological innovation and its mediating role in shaping the relationship between corporate social responsibility organizational resilience.

On the other hand, this study examines the mechanisms through which corporate social responsibility affects organizational resilience by focusing on three key pathways: improving the information environment, alleviating financing constraints, and enhancing technological innovation. While three mechanisms are identified, there may be other mediating or moderating variables that can affect the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience, such as corporate reputation, customer loyalty, or institutional quality. Future research could explore these variables to enrich the theoretical framework. Moreover, this study only tests the impact of sub-dimensions of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience from the prospectives of shareholder responsibility; employee responsibility; supplier, customer and consumer rights responsibility; and environmental and social responsibility. Further research investigating the differential impacts of environmental, social, and governance dimensions could provide more targeted insights. Furthermore, different industries may exhibit varying dynamics regarding the implementation and effectiveness of corporate social responsibility. Therefore, future research could benefit from conducting industry-specific analyses to explore whether the mechanisms linking corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience differ across sectors, such as manufacturing, services, or high-tech industries.