How Founding Conditions And Community Dynamics Shape Organizational Responses To Societal Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organizations are increasingly called upon to address grand societal challenges such as climate change, inequality, and social welfare. Yet, despite facing strong external pressures and operating under similar institutional environments, organizations continue to interpret their societal responsibilities in strikingly divergent ways. What accounts for this persistent heterogeneity? Drawing on an analysis of 1,870 Chinese firms’ CSR reports from 2008 to 2022, we show how founding period socio-political contexts create persistent differences in how organizations conceptualize their societal roles. Firms founded during the socialist era (1949-1976) emphasize employee welfare and national fiscal responsibility, reflecting the collective and state-driven priorities of their founding context. In contrast, firms founded during the market reform era (1977-2002) prioritize profit maximization over environmental concerns, consistent with their founding era’s market-oriented imperatives. However, these historical imprints evolve as they interact with contemporary influences: geographic proximity to organizations founded in different eras facilitates exposure to alternative interpretive frameworks, while the standardization of CSR reporting practices accelerates convergence towards global norms. Our study advances theoretical understanding of how founding conditions create persistent differences in organizational attention to societal issues, while identifying specific contemporary forces that reshape these historical influences. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for research on imprinting, grand challenges, and the interplay between socio-political contexts and organizational behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".