|
|
|
| Research on Institutional Gap, Aspiration Gap, and Overseas Compliance Risks of Chinese Multinational Enterprises |
| Liu Huiqian1,2,3, Zheng Yali1,3, Cai Wanlin1,2,3, Liu Yiqun1,2,3 |
1.School of Economics, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou 310018, China
2.Zhejiang Institute of “Eight-Eight” Strategies, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou 310018, China
3.Institutes for Central Asia Studies, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou 310018, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Against the backdrop of the increasingly stringent global regulatory system, Chinese multinational enterprises (MNEs) face frequent overseas compliance risks, which has become a core constraint on their high-quality international development. Overseas compliance risks are characterized by a dual nature that combines the proactiveness of behavioral decision-making with the passiveness of responding to regulatory constraints, and its formation is the result of the interactions between internal and external factors. However, existing studies have mostly focused on issues within a single compliance domain, emphasizing the analysis of the causes of compliance risks from a single dimension or within a single context, without forming a systematic analytical framework that integrates internal and external factors. In particular, existing research has overlooked the directionality and interactive effects of the institutional gap and aspiration gap, thus making it difficult to clarify the differentiated formation mechanisms through which overseas compliance risks have arisen across different cross-border contexts.From a dual perspective of integrating institutional theory and aspiration theory, this study took Chinese MNEs listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share markets that experienced overseas compliance risks from 2009 to 2023 as the sample, and conducted empirical tests using paired samples through propensity score matching. The results revealed that in the context of negative institutional gap, negative aspiration gap had a linear positive correlation with overseas compliance risks, and positive aspiration gap had a linear positive correlation with overseas compliance risks; in the context of positive institutional gap, there was an inverted U-shaped relationship between negative aspiration gap and overseas compliance risks, and there was a U-shaped relationship between positive aspiration gap and overseas compliance risks. Mechanism tests revealed that in the context of negative institutional gap, negative aspiration gap increased overseas compliance risks by intensifying managerial myopia, whereas positive aspiration gap increased overseas compliance risks by intensifying managerial overconfidence. In the context of positive institutional gap, problem search intensity mediated the inverted U-shaped relationship between negative aspiration gap and overseas compliance risks, while host country’s media attention played a mediating role in the U-shaped relationship between positive aspiration gap and overseas compliance risks. Further analysis showed that compliance management mitigated overseas compliance risks under the “negative institutional gap-positive aspiration gap” and “positive institutional gap-negative aspiration gap” contexts, whereas organizational stigma exacerbated overseas compliance risks under the contexts of “positive institutional gap–negative aspiration gap” and “positive institutional gap–positive aspiration gap”.The theoretical contributions of this study are mainly reflected in two aspects. First, this study breaks through the limitations of previous fragmented studies and constructs an interactive analytical framework of “institution-aspiration”, which provides an integrated theoretical explanation for understanding the formation mechanism of enterprises’ overseas compliance risk, and offers empirical evidence based on the practices of Chinese MNEs, enriching the theoretical research on overseas compliance risk of emerging-market multinational enterprises. Second, this study systematically examined the differentiated patterns of enterprises’ overseas compliance risks across various combinations of negative and positive “institutional-aspiration” gaps, and revealed the mediating roles of managerial myopia, managerial overconfidence, problem search intensity, and host country’s media attention. This helps to bridge the internal divides between institutional paradox and aspiration paradox, and clarifies the contextual dependencies in the formation process of overseas compliance risks. The conclusions of this study provide a theoretical basis for Chinese MNEs to formulate context-specific compliance management strategies, and offer insights for enhancing their overseas compliance capabilities and achieving high-quality international development.
|
|
Received: 13 July 2025
|
|
|
|
1 陈瑞华：《企业合规制度的三个维度——比较法视野下的分析》，《比较法研究》2019年第3期，第61-77页。
2 过勇、张裕泳：《何以嵌入：境外国企廉洁合规建设的实践逻辑、现实挑战与治理对策——基于F公司的案例研究》，《理论探讨》2024年第6期，第79-87页。
3 张广荣：《外资并购中的“国家安全”法律问题研究——基于我国企业境外资源能源类、高新技术类投资并购受阻的思考》，《国际贸易》2008年第9期，第62-66页。
4 Chen L.， “Local institutions， audit quality， and corporate scandals of US-listed foreign firms，” Journal of Business Ethics， Vol. 133， No. 2 （2016）， pp. 351-373.
5 俞荣建、何新伟、张思：《美国实体清单制裁的战略应对——基于24家被制裁中国企业的实证研究》，《南开管理评论》2025年第7期，第78-88页。
6 梅傲、侯之帅：《互联网企业跨境数据合规的困境及中国应对》，《中国行政管理》2021年第6期，第56-62页。
7 Mishina Y.， Dykes B. J. Block E. S. et al.， “Why ‘good’ firms do bad things： the effects of high aspirations， high expectations， and prominence on the incidence of corporate illegality，” Academy of Management Journal， Vol. 53， No. 4 （2010）， pp. 701-722.
8 Chen F.， Zhu J. Wang W.， “Overseas compliance risk prevention for multinational corporations in a law and economics perspective： empirical evidence from Chinese MNCs，” Multinational Business Review， Vol.31， No.1 （2023）， pp. 136-156.
9 贺小刚、邓浩、吴诗雨等：《赶超压力与公司的败德行为——来自中国上市公司的数据分析》，《管理世界》第2015年第9期，第104-124页。
10 Cao G. Zhang J.， “Guanxi， overconfidence and corporate fraud in China，” Chinese Management Studies， Vol. 15， No. 3 （2021）， pp. 501-556.
11 Zuo Y.， Hu Y. Liu X. et al.， “Corporate misconduct and analyst forecasting accuracy： evidence from China，” Emerging Markets Finance and Trade， Vol. 58， No. 10 （2022）， pp. 3006-3022.
12 何轩、朱丽娜、马骏：《中国上市公司违规行为：一项以制度环境为视角的经验性研究》，《管理工程学报》2019年第4期，第61-73页。
13 汪涛、贾煜、王康等：《中国企业的国际化战略：基于新兴经济体企业的视角》，《中国工业经济》2018年第5期，第175-192页。
14 Mirza S. S. Ahsan T.， “Corporates’ strategic responses to economic policy uncertainty in China，” Business Strategy and the Environment， Vol. 29， No. 2 （2020）， pp. 375-389.
15 Zeng Y. Xu D.， “Liability of foreignness and the constitutive legitimation of foreign firms in a host country，” Journal of World Business， Vol. 55， No. 5 （2020）， pp. 1-13.
16 Hernández V. Nieto M. J.， “The effect of the magnitude and direction of institutional distance on the choice of international entry modes，” Journal of World Business， Vol. 50， No. 1 （2015）， pp. 122-132.
17 Gao Y.， Yang H. Zhang M.， “Too bad to fear， too good to dare？ performance feedback and corporate misconduct，” Journal of Business Research， Vol. 131， No. 3 （2021）， pp. 1-11.
18 吴小节、马美婷、汪秀琼：《制度差异方向、关系网络与跨国投资区位选择》，《管理工程学报》2023年第1期，第31-46页。
19 Xu D.， Zhou K. Z. Du F.， “Deviant versus aspirational risk taking： the effects of performance feedback on bribery expenditure and RD intensity，” Academy of Management Journal， Vol. 62， No. 4 （2019）， pp. 1226-1251.
20 Fainshmidt S.， White G. O. III Cangioni C. “ Legal distance， cognitive distance， and conflict resolution in international business intellectual property disputes，” Journal of International Management， Vol. 20， No. 2 （2014）， pp. 188-200.
21 衣长军、刘晓丹、王玉敏等：《制度距离与中国企业海外子公司生存——所有制与国际化经验的调节视角》，《国际贸易问题》2019年第9期，第115-132页。
22 谢佩洪、陈怡霏：《基于合法性视角下中国跨国企业双重劣势对企业绩效的影响研究》，《国际商务研究》2022年第2期，第1-12页。
23 Park B. I.， Hong S. J. Xiao S. S.， “Institutional pressure and MNC compliance to prevent bribery： empirical examinations in South Korea and China，” Asian Business Management， Vol. 21， No. 4 （2022）， pp. 623-656.
24 张红娟、周常宝、孙为政等：《制度落差、社会资本与跨国公司海外子公司合法性》，《管理学报》2015年第7期，第969-975页。
25 Harris J. Bromiley P.， “Incentives to cheat： the influence of executive compensation and firm performance on financial misrepresentation，” Organization science， Vol. 18， No. 3 （2007）， pp. 350-367.
26 Wiengarten F.， Fan D. Pagell M. et al.， “Deviations from aspirational target levels and environmental and safety performance： implications for operations managers acting irresponsibly，” Journal of Operations Management， Vol. 65， No. 6 （2019）， pp. 490-516.
27 Giuliani E.， Nieri F. Vezzulli A.， “Big profits， big harm？ exploring the link between firm financial performance and human rights misbehavior，” Business Society， Vol. 62， No. 6 （2023）， pp. 1248-1299.
28 连燕玲、刘依琳、郑伟伟：《经营期望落差、管理自主权与企业财务造假》，《上海财经大学学报》2021年第2期，第46-60页。
29 Muzio D.， Faulconbridge J. Gabbioneta C. et al.， “Bad apples， bad barrels and bad cellars： a ‘boundaries’ perspective on professional misconduct，” Organizational Wrongdoing， Vol. 2， No. 1 （2016）， pp. 141-175.
30 Anand A.， Rottig D. Parameswar N. et al.， “Diving deep into the dark side： a review and examination of research on organizational misconduct in emerging markets，” Business Ethics， the Environment Responsibility， Vol. 32， No. 2 （2023）， pp. 612-637.
31 胡楠、薛付婧、王昊楠：《管理者短视主义影响企业长期投资吗？——基于文本分析和机器学习》，《管理世界》2021年第5期，第139-156页。
32 钟熙、宋铁波、陈伟宏等：《经营期望顺差与企业商业腐败行为》，《华东经济管理》2019年第7期，第169-177页。
33 冉启斌、陈伟宏、张平：《高管过度自信、企业国际化经验与企业海外子公司生存率》，《科学学与科学技术管理》2020年第8期，第131-147页。
34 Zhang L.， Ren S. Chen X. et al.， “CEO hubris and firm pollution： state and market contingencies in a transitional economy，” Journal of Business Ethics， Vol. 161， No. 2 （2020）， pp. 459-478.
35 Ref O.， Hu S. Milyavsky M. et al.， “Motivation and ability： unpacking underperforming firms’ risk taking，” Organization Science， Vol. 35， No. 6 （2024）， pp. 2141-2159.
36 杨勃、刘娟：《来源国劣势：新兴经济体跨国企业国际化“出身劣势”——文献评述与整合框架构建》，《外国经济与管理》2020年第1期，第113-125页。
37 March J. G. Shapira Z.， “Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention，” Psychological Review， Vol. 99， No. 1 （1992）， pp. 172-183.
38 Mazzei M. J.， DeBode J. Gangloff K. A. et al.， “Old habits die hard： a review and assessment of the threat-rigidity literature，” Journal of Management， Vol. 51， No. 6 （2025）， pp. 2154-2181.
39 焦豪、杨季枫、金宇珂：《企业消极反馈对战略变革的影响机制研究——基于动态能力和冗余资源的调节效应》，《管理科学学报》2022年第8期，第22-44页。
40 Hu S.， Gu Q. Xia J.， “Problemistic search of the embedded firm： the joint effects of performance feedback and network positions on venture capital firms’ risk taking，” Organization Science， Vol. 33， No. 5 （2022）， pp. 1889-1908.
41 梁肖梅、汪秀琼、叶广宇等：《绩效反馈理论述评：知识框架与研究展望》，《南开管理评论》2023年第3期，第197-212页。
42 Titus V.， O’Brien J. P. Dixit J.， “Does performance breed slack？ ownership as a contingency to the performance feedback and slack relationship，” Journal of Management， Vol. 48， No. 5 （2021）， pp. 1270-1298.
43 Nayyar R.， Mukherjee J. Varma S.， “Institutional distance as a determinant of outward FDI from India，” International Journal of Emerging Markets， Vol. 17， No. 10 （2022）， pp. 2529-2557.
44 江乾坤、王成哲：《东道国媒体情绪与海外子公司绩效——基于合法性的视角》，《国际商务——对外经济贸易大学学报》2025年第5期，第115-135页。
45 温素彬、周鎏鎏：《企业碳信息披露对财务绩效的影响机理——媒体治理的“倒U形”调节作用》，《管理评论》2017年第11期，第183-195页。
46 董静、谢韵典：《绩效反馈与公司风险投资的行业选择》，《南开管理评论》2022年第2期，第101-114页。
47 宋铁波、钟熙、陈伟宏：《期望差距与企业国际化速度：来自中国制造业的证据》，《中国工业经济》2017年第6期，第175-192页。
48 郑丽、陈志军、赵月皎：《子公司绩效反馈、变革能力与自主决策权》，《外国经济与管理》2020年第1期，第126-139页。
49 Haans R. F.， Pieters C. He Z. L.， “Thinking about U： theorizing and testing U-and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research，” Strategic Management Journal， Vol. 37， No. 7 （2016）， pp. 1177-1195.
50 陈初昇、燕晓娟、衣长军等：《国际化速度、营商环境距离与海外子公司生存》，《世界经济研究》2020年第9期，第89-103页。
51 类晓东、周建：《穷则独“善”其身？绩效期望落差持续性与企业ESG漂绿》，《科学学与科学技术管理》2026年第1期，第168-185页。
52 雷星晖、吴甲春、苏涛永等：《管理者谦卑、绩效期望落差与战略风险承担》，《外国经济与管理》2024年第5期，第51-64页。
53 赵晓梅、闫珍丽、梁上坤等：《合规管理能否赋能高质量发展——来自中央企业合规管理实施的证据》，《财经研究》2025年3月27日在线发表。
54 鄢姿俏、宣扬、李婉丽：《行政监管与央企合规——基于中央企业合规管理指引的准自然实验》，《会计研究》2025年第4期，第119-132页。
55 常钟元、姜丽群、郭昕：《让步抑或坚守：组织污名、进入模式与海外子公司生存》，《财会通讯》2025年第18期，第27-31页。 |
|
|
|
2026, Vol. 56 
