2011 5 485 May 2011 Vol. 33 No. 05 * 1 2 1 1. 100871 2. 100089 SE 215 F27 A 1002 5766 2011 05 0070 09 IO 1 RBV Greenwood 2007 2011-01 - 16 * 70302005 71072048 1973 - E-mail dnyang@ gsm. pku. edu. cn 1973 - E-mail linjie@ cyu. edu. cn 1982 - E-mail lixiangjin@ gsm. pku. edu. cn 1 2004 70
2011 5 485 215 1 Adegbesan 2009 Teece Pisano & Shuen 1997 1 Reinhardt 1998 Porter & van der Linde 1995 Klassen & Delmas 2001 King & Lenox 2000 Laughlin 1996 1 Aguilera Rupp Williams & Ganapathi 2007 71
2011 5 485 Hart 1995 RBV Delmas 2001 ISO14001 55 55% 3 2003 2005 Miller & Danny 1988 RBV Ambrosini 2005 2 3 Shrivastava 1995a 1995b Berry & Rondinelli 1998 Ghobadian 1998 96% 2005 4 ISO 14001 9 1 72
2011 5 485 1a H1a 1b H1b 215 1c H1c 3c H3c 2 1 1 2a H2a 144 3 2b H2b 2c H1c 3 5 2 750 373 317 73 1 58 29 29 3a H3a 44 88. 5% 215 3b H3b AC- 1 2003 1 300 3000 4000 500 3000 500 2000 1000 1000 73
2011 5 485 CESS 1 500 31% 500 ~ 999 1 18. 3% 1000 ~ 1999 16. 9% 2000 ~ 3999 13. 7% 4000 ~ 9999 12. 7% 10000 7. 4% 60% 29% 9% 2% 1 ~ 7 1978 57. 1% 1978 ~ 1991 14. 6% 1992 ~ 1999 19. 5% 2000 8. 7% 34. 5% 12 15. 0% 8. 4% 1. 7% ~ 4. 9% 2 10 20. 9% 79. 1% 15. 0% ISO14001 11. 9% 11. 5% 1 2 12 1 7 / RIVAL DISTRIB SUPPLI SRMGR GOV SHARE CLIENT LINEMPL COMMNNIT ENVIORG DECIMAKE BIZPARTN NONCENTE STRATEGIC MANAGERIAL RELATIONAL PROQUALI LONGPROF MGTCAPAB PRODCAPC / SCALENLA SALESPRO COSTLOW EMPSATIS GOVRELAT DISTRELA CAPTITAL 74
2011 5 485 4 0. 8 OBLIMIN 3. 817 0. 698 3 77. 70% 63. 75% 12 500 500 ~ 999 1000 ~ 1999 2000 ~ 3999 4000 ~ 9999 1 ~ 6 B50 - B61 10000 3 1978 1978 ~ 1991 1992 ~ structural e- 1999 2000 1 quation modeling SEM9 ~ 4 LISREL8. 72 1 5 4 GFI = 0. 90 AGFI = 0. 86 NFI = 0. 91 RFI = 0. 88 IFI = 0. 96 CFI = 0. 96 16 1. 91 RMSEA = 0. 065 0. 05 ~ 0. 08 Cronbach α 0. 938 0. 7 1 1 1 7 2 KMO 0. 815 75 1 Chi-Square = 338. 13 df = 177 P-value = 0. 00000 RMSEA = 0. 065 *** p <. 01 ** p <. 05
2011 5 485 2 9 H1a H1b H1c H2a H2b H2c H3a H3b H3c 1 H3a H3b H3c Reay & Germann 2006 2005 2009 1 2002 249 2 H1a H1b H1c 2006 100 3 1 2005 76
2 2011 5 485 CBCSD 1 + 3 1 3 & Jones 1995 King & Lenox 2000 Arora & Cason 1995 Hettige 1996 Wood 1 Adegbesan J. A. On the Origins of Competitive Advantage Strategic Factor Markets and Heterogeneous Resource Complementarity J. Academy of Management Review 2009 34 3 463-475. 2 Aguilera R. Rupp D. Williams C. Ganapathi J. Putting the S Back in Corporate Social Responsibility A Multilevel Theory of Social Change in Organizations J. Academy of Management Review 2007 32 3 836-863. 3 Ambrosini Veronique. Tacit and Ambiguous Resources as Sources of Competitive Advantage M Palgrave Macmillan 2003. 4 Arora Seema & Timothy Cason. An Experiment in Voluntary Environmental Regulation Participation in EPS's 33 /55 Program J. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995 28 271-286. 1 CBCSD 1 + 3 1 + 3 http / /www. cbcsd. org. cn /susproject /CSR 77
2011 5 485 5 Berry M. A. Rondinelli D. A. Proactive Corporate Environmental Management A new Industrial Revolution J. Academy of Management Executive 1998 12 38-50. 6 Delmas M. Stakeholder and Competitive Advantage the Case of ISO 14001 J. Production and Operations Management 2001 10 3 343-358. 7 Delmas M. The Diffusion of Environmental Standards in Europe and in the United States An Institutional Perspective J. Policy Science 2002 35 91-119. 8 Ghobadian A. Viney H. Liu J. James P. Extending Linear Approaches to Mapping Corporate Environmental Behavior J. Business Strategy and the Environment 1998 7 1 13 23. 9 Greenwood Michelle. Stakeholder Engagement Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility J. Journal of Business Ethics 2007 74 315 327. 10 Hart S. L. A Natural-resource Based View of the Firm J. Academy of Management Review 1995 20 4 986-1014. 11 Hettige Huq Q. Pargal S. Wheeler D. Determinants of Pollution Abatement in Developing Countries Evidence From South and Southeast Asia J. World Development 1996 24 1891-1904. 12 Jia Liangding P. Lee M. Henry & L. li. Me or We The Influence of CEO Values on Organizational Performance Through Innovativeness and Stakeholder Considerations J. Academy of Management Proceedings 2009 1-7. 13 King A. Lenox M. Does It Really Pay to Be Green An Empirical Study of Firm Environmental and Financial Performance J. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2001 5 105-116. 14 King A. Lenox M. Industry Self-regulation Without Sanctions The Chemical Industry's Responsible Care Program J. Academy of Management Journal 2000 43 4 698-716. 15 Klassen R. D. McLaughlin C. P. The Impact of Environmental Management on Firm Performance J. Management Science 1999 42 1199-1214. 16 Miller Danny. Relating Porter's Business Strategies to Environment and Structure Analysis and Performance Implications J. Academy of Management Journal 1988 31 2 280-308. 17 Poter M. E. Van der Linde C. Green and Competitive Ending the Stalemate J. Harvard Business Review 1995 73 5 120-134. 18 Reay T. Golden-Biddle K. GermAnn K. Legitimizing a New Role Small Wins and Microprocesses of Change J. Academy of Management Journal 2006 49 977-998. 19 Reinhardt F. Environmental Product Differentiation Differentiation Implications for Corporate Strategy J. California Management Review 1998 40 4 43-73. 20 Shrivastava P. Ecocentric Management for a Risk Society J. Academy of Management Review 1995a 20 118-137. 21 Shrivastava P. Environmental Technologies and Competitive Advantage J. Strategic Management Journal 1995b 16 77-91. 22 Teece D. J. Pisano G. Shuen A. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management J. Strategic Management Journal 1997 18 509-533. 23 Winter S. May P. Motivation for Compliance with Environmental Regulations J. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2001 20 675-698. 24. J. 2004 194 5. 25. J. 2009 2. 26. M. 2005. 27. J. 2003 6 2. 28. J. 2006 16 5. 29. J. 2005 137 2. Stakeholder Engagement and Competitive Advantage of the Firms The Case of Corporate Environmental Management in China YANG Dong-ning 1 ZHOU Lin-jie 2 LI Xiang-jin 1 1. Guanghua School of Management Peking University Beijing 100871 China 2. China Youth College for Political Science Beijing 100089 China Abstract This article examines influences of stakeholder engagement on the competitive advantage specifically investigating how three groups of stakeholders i. e. operation undertakers decision makers and business partners contribute to strategic operational and relational advantage of the firms. I tested hypotheses with original survey data from 215 large and medium-sized manufactures in China focusing on corporate environmental management. Employing a structural equation modeling method I found while engaging operation undertakers more in environmental management may significantly improve all three dimensions of the competitive advantage decision makers have significant negative impact and there is no association between business partners engagement in environmental management and competitive advantage. Explanations and new research avenues are discussed. Key Words stakeholder engagement corporate environmental management competitive advantage 78