Abstract:Problem definition: In this paper, we explore how a firm's concern about profit distribution and the size of downstream firms in supply chains affect corporate social responsibility (CSR) investment strategy. Methodology/results: In a supply chain consisting of one supplier and one manufacturer, both players decide whether to invest to reduce CSR violations, and they negotiate over a wholesale price. Distributive comparison behavior makes the manufacturer compare the profit with his equitable payoff, which is determined by the supplier's profit. Advantageous (resp. disadvantageous) inequality occurs when the manufacturer's profit is higher (resp. lower) than the manufacturer's equitable payoff. We compare this supply chain to the one without distributive comparison behavior. We find that when advantageous inequality occurs, or when neither inequality occurs and the manufacturer's sensitivity to the supplier's profit is low, the manufacturer's distributive comparison behavior makes the manufacturer less (resp. supplier more) likely to invest in CSR, which we call negative (resp. positive) impacts of distributive comparison behavior; otherwise, it makes the manufacturer more (resp. supplier less) likely to invest. In most cases, the weak bargaining power of the small manufacturer leads to larger positive or smaller negative impacts of distributive comparison behavior. Also, the low efficiency of the small manufacturer to reduce CSR violations leads to smaller negative impacts of distributive comparison behavior. Managerial implications: Our results show that governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) should investigate firms' distributive comparison behavior in supply chains. When downstream firms show the aversion to lower (resp. higher) profits than ones from upstream firms, the measures to monitor and support upstream (resp. downstream) firms' CSR investments should be taken to avoid CSR violations. In the supply chains with small downstream firms, extra efforts should be made to induce firms' distributive comparison behavior.

Product Quality and Suppliers’ Collaboration Incentives: the Evidence from Benefit Corporation Laws

Corporate Philanthropy and Corporate Misconduct: Evidence from China

Do Constituency Statutes Really Benefit Customers?

The Spillover Effect of Customers' ESG to Suppliers

Impacts of Distributive Comparison Behavior on Corporate Social Responsibility in Supply Chains: The Role of Small Firms

Impacts of Distributional Social Comparison Behavior on Corporate Social Responsibility: Power of the Small

Does legal justice promote stakeholder justice? Evidence from a judicial reform in China

Stakeholder Orientation and the Cost of Debt: Evidence from a Natural Experiment

Signaling Product Quality Information In Supply Chains Via Corporate Social Responsibility Choices

Competing for government procurement contracts: The role of corporate social responsibility

A Study on Corporate Social Responsibility, Product Quality Choice and Coordination Contracts in Supply Chains

Corporate Social Responsibility in Business-to-Business Markets: How Organizational Customers Account for Supplier Corporate Social Responsibility Engagement

Good for the firm, good for the society? Causal evidence of the impact of equity incentives on a firm's green investment

Performance-Based Budgeting and Corporate Innovation: Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment in China

Institution and Corporate Philanthropy: Evidence from Chinese Private Firms

How Does Supplier CSR Performance Help to Expand Exchange Relationships with Major Buyers? the Moderating Role of Supply‐side and Demand‐driven Uncertainty

Buyer's Bankruptcy Risk, Sourcing Strategy, and Firm Value: Evidence from the Supplier Protection Act

Compensation peer effects of corporate social responsibility

The Quality of Corporate Social Responsibility Information Disclosure and Enterprise Innovation: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies

Corporate social responsibility and value added in the supply chain: Model and mechanism

Creditor Rights, Access to Finance, and Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from a Natural Experiment