Rankings (RKS) and Hexun are the two most widely used corporate social responsibility (CSR) ratings in research on CSR in China’s capital market. These scores are used as a proxy for CSR performance and disclosure quality. However, research is lacking on the validity of measuring CSR performance and disclosure quality, as well as the convergent validity between these scores. In this paper, a comparative and quantitative analysis was performed for the period 2010–2017, and the following results were obtained: (1) Based on a comparison of the rating methods, information sources, and other factors, RKS is more suitable for measuring the CSR disclosure quality, while Hexun is more suitable for measuring the CSR performance; (2) based on a Spearman correlation analysis, the convergent validity between these two scores is very low, particularly after 2013; and (3) the sub-indicator weights of the RKS system always maintain a high stability, whereas those of the Hexun system suffer from severe fluctuations starting in 2013.

This paper investigates the influence of board network centrality on corporate social responsibility (CSR) decoupling. CSR decoupling refers to the gap between corporate internal and external actions in CSR practices. Specifically, we measure CSR decoupling as the difference between corporate social disclosure (CSD) and corporate social performance (CSP). This paper uses a sample of Chinese A-share listed firms during 2009–2018, takes the technical dimension score (T-score) and content dimension score (C-score) of RKS ratings as proxies of CSD and CSP, and obtains CSR decoupling as the difference between CSD and CSP. Our results show that (1) board network centrality is positively related to over-decoupling in the pre-adoption period (2009–2014) of the new environmental law but negatively related to over-decoupling in the post-adoption period (2015–2018) and (2) centrality is not related to under-decoupling in the pre-adoption period but a significantly positive related in the post-adoption period. Our finding reveals a complex role of the board network in CSR practices in China.

No abstract