CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY DECISION MAKING CONSIDERING MULTIPLE FACTORS IN A DUOPOLY MODEL

Abstract

This study constructs a duopoly model considering corporate social responsibility (CSR), examines the results of different CSR decisions, and analyzes how factors like CSR level, tax rates, externalities, and consumer sensitivity affect results. The findings show that these factors have complex impacts and that the implementation of CSR can create a win-win situation under certain conditions. Firms should consider the CSR actions of their competitors and pay careful attention to taxes, externalities, and consumer sensitivity when making CSR decisions. Implementing CSR benefits firms when CSR levels and tax rates are within a specific range. When consumer sensitivity is high or negative externalities are large, it is conducive to promoting a more active implementation of CSR, thus helping firms obtain higher returns or reduce negative externalities. Keywords: CSR, duopoly, tax rate, negative externalities, consumer sensitivity.

Headnote

Corporate Social Responsibility Decision-Making Considering Multiple Factors in a Duopoly Model

Abstract This study constructs a duopoly model considering corporate social responsibility (CSR), examines the results of different CSR decisions, and analyzes how factors like CSR level, tax rates, externalities, and consumer sensitivity affect results. The findings show that these factors have complex impacts and that the implementation of CSR can create a win-win situation under certain conditions. Firms should consider the CSR actions of their competitors and pay careful attention to taxes, externalities, and consumer sensitivity when making CSR decisions. Implementing CSR benefits firms when CSR levels and tax rates are within a specific range. When consumer sensitivity is high or negative externalities are large, it is conducive to promoting a more active implementation of CSR, thus helping firms obtain higher returns or reduce negative externalities.

Keywords: CSR, duopoly, tax rate, negative externalities, consumer sensitivity.

JEL Classification: D43, D62, L11

Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is that while pursuing economic profits, firms need to undertake multidimensional responsibilities such as environmental, social, and ethical obligations to contribute to society (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012). Since the 1990s, firms have increasingly begun to report on social responsibility to disclose the impacts of their activities related to economic, social, and environmental issues. CSR has become a key factor in business success and has received high attention from firm stakeholders. By integrating CSR into their operations, companies enhance their reputation and create lasting value for both society and themselves. Firms actively participating in CSR are better positioned to secure funding and investment, fostering long-term sustainability. CSR in the current era includes core issues such as organizational governance, human rights, labor, environment, consumers, fair operating procedures, and community participation (Sun et al., 2022), which are of great significance for both the long-term development of the firm and the sustainable development of society.

However, in practice, companies may face challenges and difficulties in implementing CSR. Adopting CSR strategies involves significant allocation of resources and associated costs, Which could impact firm competitiveness and profitability (Hsu and Chen, 2024). Furthermore, the recognition of CSR by consumers 1s dynamic, and companies may need to continuously adjust their level of CSR to meet the expectations of consumers (Zhao and Murrell, 2016; Nie, Wang, and Meng, 2019). Additionally, CSR decision making of companies 1s often influenced by a variety of factors, including changes in the external environment, such as government regulations and policies (Wang et al., 2017), industry development (Singh et al., 2021) and different stakeholders (Siyahhan, 2023). Therefore, CSR is a complex and important topic with significant implications for firms, consumers, and society. This study aims to answer the following questions: What factors need to be covered by CSR in the current era? How does CSR affect firms and society? What are the conditions under which firms choose to implement CSR?

The main contributions of this study are as follows. First, compared to existing studies, this study considers a variety of factors affecting the decision-making about CSR of firms, constructs an analytical framework that considers worker wages, CSR level, tax rate, negative externalities, and consumer sensitivity, and incorporates them into the utility function, which enlarges the utility function of CSR and more comprehensively reflects the multiple links between firms and other stakeholders in the current era. It is a valuable enrichment for the construction of CSR utility functions. Second, this study compares and analyzes the equilibrium outcomes formed by different CSR decision-making and summarizes the boundary conditions and the influencing factors of the CSR implementation of firms, which can provide a more realistic reference for CSR decisionmaking under the influence of multiple factors.

The remaining parts of this study are as follows. Section 1 summarizes the relevant literature. Section 2 describes the research methodology and constructs the basic model. Based on the constructed duopoly competition model, Section 3 examines the equilibrium results under three cases and further explores the influence of different factors on the results. Section 4 explores CSR decision making through the analysis results. Section 5 is the conclusion of this study, which summarizes the comparison and analysis in the previous section and provides advice for firms and government decision-making.

1. Literature review

CSR has become an indispensable and essential part of firm management. Scholars analyze the firm and social effects produced by CSR, explore the factors affecting firms" implementation of CSR, and apply the duopoly model to analyze CSR-related issues.

The impacts of CSR mainly include firm performance, social cooperation, and sustainable development. First, some scholars believe that implementing CSR can improve financial performance (Zhang, Djajadikerta and Trireksani, 2019; Ali, Danish and Asrar-ul-Hag, 2020; Vishwanathan et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2021; Ang et al., 2022). Reputation is recognized as an essential mechanism by which CSR improves financial performance (Lins, Servaesand and Tamayo, 2017; Fourati and Dammak, 2021). By implementing CSR, firms can build a good brand image and enhance their reputation and recognition. Excellent CSR performance can give firms a competitive advantage and thus improve their financial performance (García-Sánchez et al., 2019). Furthermore, the active implementation of CSR by firms is conducive to reducing information asymmetry among subjects, improving the information environment, reducing firm transaction costs, expanding financing channels (Samet, Mouakhar and Jarboui, 2018), and improving the value of firms and shareholders' interests (Deng, Kang and Low, 2013; Taylor, Vithayathil and Yim, 2018; Kim, Mun and Han, 2023; Ouyang, Lv and Liu, 2023). On the contrary, some scholars believe that implementing CSR by firms does not positively affect the improvement of financial performance. The impact of CSR on financial performance depends on the degree of response of stakeholders. If stakeholders do not respond positively to it, then it will not improve firm financial performance (Zhao and Murrell, 2016). Furthermore, implementing CSR needs to spend money and resources, which will impact the firm's finances (Hsu and Chen, 2024). Second, CSR improves the interaction and relationship between firms and society. Implementing CSR can provide tax payment, employment, and charitable funds, which enhances mutual trust and interaction with the community and improves the cooperation between firms and society while promoting community development (Hoi, Wu and Zhang, 2018). It is also beneficial to earn consumer trust, promote better reviews and credit ratings for companies, and help them win the support of stakeholders. Third, CSR promotes the sustainable development of companies. On the one hand, the reputation generated by the implementation of CSR by firms will further form brand effects, which will help firms improve their competitiveness and promote their sustainable development (Wu and Jin, 2022; Hao et al., 2023). However, the implementation of CSR by companies can help them gain access to key resources and improve the stability and sustainability of their long-term development (Dhar, Sarkar and Ayittey, 2022).

Factors that affect CSR decision-making include internal and external factors. Internal factors refer mainly to firm expectations and decision making, including leadership values, structure, and operations. Chen, Dong and Lin (2020) found that institutional shareholders can affect CSR decision-making by influencing related proposals. Lau, Lu and Liang (2016) argued that the proportion of state-owned shares in a firm is positively related to the firm's CSR performance. Borghesi, Houston and Naranjo (2014) found that larger firms with greater free cash flow and higher advertising expenditures tend to have higher levels of CSR. External factors affecting CSR decision making include mainly government policies, social capital, industrial conditions, and consumer evaluation. The government can regulate and adjust the behavior of companies by formulating regulations and laws that play a guiding role in promoting the fulfillment of CSR. (Tang et al., 2018). Social capital is a

source of motivation for companies to implement CSR and is positively related to the effectiveness of the R&D expenditures of firms (Hasan et al., 2020). The more social capital, the stronger the motivation of firms to implement CSR (Wu, Lin and Liu, 2016). Through positive interactions with peer firms, firms can more accurately grasp changes in customer demand, resource and labor markets, and competitive environments, which, in turn, improves CSR engagement and improves firm strategy formulation and implementation (Singh et al, 2021). For firms, consumer satisfaction and identification with their CSR are also critical and directly affect the level of CSR (Wang et al., 2017). These factors affect the degree and manner of decision-making and CSR implementation of firms.

The duopoly model is an economic model commonly used to analyze a market in which only two major firms control the majority of the market share. It is widely used in the study of CSR issues. Kopel (2015) constructed a hybrid duopoly model that includes a pure profit-maximizing firm and a CSR-implementing firm to explore the problem of endogenous choice of price or quantity contracts. Bian, Li and Guo (2016) incorporated CSR into a private duopoly model and dissected how CSR-related incentive design impacts firm profitability, consumer surplus, and social welfare. By constructing the Cournot duopoly model, Fanti and Buccella (2017) and Sharma (2018) explored the issue of strategic choice in CSR. However, Sharma (2018) analyzed under the condition of product homogeneity, while Fanti and Buccella (2017) took into account product heterogeneity. Xing and Lee (2023) considered a polluting Cournot duopoly and investigated the effects of cooperation in ECSR and ER&D on a firm's profitability and social welfare. It can be seen that the duopoly model has been widely used in relevant studies and can help analyze and predict the characteristics and changes in the CSR behaviors of firms in different cases.

In summary, by implementing CSR, firms can enhance their image, strengthen interaction with society, promote sustainable development, and contribute to a win-win situation for both firms and society. However, CSR decision-making and implementation are affected by various internal and external factors, which require firms to fully consider and formulate the corresponding strategies and plans. Based on existing studies, this study constructs a duopoly competition model considering multiple factors to explore the impacts of different factors on the equilibrium results and analyze the conditions for implementing CSR by firms, which is a further advance to the study of CSR.

2. Methodology and model

This study constructs a duopoly model consisting of two firms (Firm 1 and Firm 2), adopts the backward induction method to solve the equilibrium results of each situation, and analyzes the influence of different factors. We make the following assumptions.

Assuming that two firms engage in a Cournot competition and that the products are homogeneous. Production activities of firms have negative externalities while providing tax revenue and creating jobs. The price function of the firm that implements CSR is p; = b + ae - q, - дэ, and the price function of the firm that does not implement CSR is р; = b - q1- q2(Chen et al., 2023). Where а is the level of CSR (0 < a < 1) and e is the consumer sensitivity to the CSR (e > 0). Assuming the marginal cost is 0, the labor cost per product unit is w, and the cost function is с; = wq;. The profit function of the firm that implements CSR is; = (b + ae - q, - q2)qi - wq;, and the profit function of the firm that does not

(ProQuest: ... denotes formula omitted.)

(...)implement CSR is 7; = (b - q1 - q2)q; - wq;. According to the existing studies (Chen, Wang and Liu, 2021), the utility function is U; = (1 - B)T; + a[CS + Bm; - Aq; + wq;], with i = 1,2. Where ß is the tax rate levied by the local government (0 <P < 1), and À is the negative externalities resulting from the firm's production. The consumer surplus

, and the social welfare function is

Assuming the following three cases: in the first case, neither firm adopts CSR, and both pursue (1 - PB); maximization (Model NN). In the second case, Firm 1 implements CSR and aims to maximize U,, while Firm 2 does not engage in CSR and maximizes (1 - 8), (Model CN). In the third case, both firms implement CSR and strive to maximize U; (Model CC). This study examines the CSR decision making of companies through the comparative analysis of these three cases. For the sake of analysis and discussion, the notation used and their definitions are summarized in Table 1.

Under the above assumptions, this study solves the optimal output q; under the three cases, explores the effects of a, 6, À, and e on the equilibrium results, compares the profits under the three cases, analyzes the CSR decision-making, and puts forward the corresponding policy suggestions.

3. Model analysis

3.1. Model NN

In Model NN, both firms do not implement CSR and pursue (1 - В)п; maximization. According to the profit maximization, Firm 1's output satisfies hm = 0, and Firm 2's output satisfies (...). The equilibrium output can be obtained:(...)

(ProQuest: ... denotes formula omitted.)

To ensure that q? > O, we can obtain b - w > O.

Lemma 1. The equilibrium outcomes under Model NN:(...)

To ensure that the equilibrium outcomes are non-negative, 0 < A < 20) should be satisfied.

When neither firm implements CSR, the firms will pay little attention to the interests of society, including consumer interest, tax payment, and reduction of negative externalities, and the effect of CSR cannot be reflected. Therefore, the CSR level, consumer sensitivity, tax rate, and negative externalities do not affect consumer surplus and profit. For social welfare, increasing negative externalities will cause more harm to society, and the reduction of negative externalities can improve social welfare. The government should take measures to regulate and guide firms to minimize the negative impacts caused by negative externalities.

3.2. Model CN

Firm 1's output decision-making satisfies(...) E = O according to the utility maximization; Firm 2's output satisfies (...)E = 0 according to the profit maximization. The equilibrium output can be obtained:

Lemma 2. The equilibrium outcomes under Model CN :

(...)(2)

(...)(3)

(ProQuest: ... denotes formula omitted.)

(...)To ensure that the equilibrium outcomes are non-negative, (0 <е <

is required to be satisfied. We analyze the effects of a, B, À,

and e on the equilibrium outcomes to obtain Proposition 1.

Proposition 1. In Model CN, the effects of a, ß, À, and e on the equilibrium outcomes are as follows.

(a) The effects of a:

has an inverted U-shaped relationship with a, and there exists an

optimal af" that maximizes profits; if

has an inverted U-shaped relationship with a, and there exists

an optimal ; a5" that maximizes oo social . welfare;

(b) The effects of 6:

(с) The effects of 4:

(d) The effects of e:

Proof. See Appendix A.

Based on Proposition 1, we can conduct the following discussion.

First, the CSR level has impacts on stakeholders. Whether CSR implementation by Firm 1 increases profits depends on consumer sensitivity. If consumer sensitivity is below a certain threshold, adopting a suitable level of CSR is optimal. When Firm 1 increases its CSR level, Firm 2's profits decline due to lower prices and production. Higher CSR levels improve the consumer surplus by increasing total output. However, the impact on social

(ProQuest: ... denotes formula omitted.)

(...)welfare depends on the sensitivity of consumers. This implies that blindly pursuing higher levels of CSR does not necessarily lead to higher levels of social welfare and that there is a need to control the range of CSR levels rationally.

Second, tax rates have impacts on stakeholders. For Firm 1, a higher tax rate increases profits when market sensitivity is high. Therefore, an increase in the tax rate may not harm the firm. For Firm 2, as the tax rate increases, production decreases, total production increases, prices decrease, and thus profits decrease. For consumers, raising the tax rate helps expand the total market output and boosts the consumer surplus. Regarding social welfare, tax hikes may diminish welfare when negative externalities surpass a certain level and consumer sensitivity is low. Therefore, carefully designing tax rates is crucial and requires an in-depth understanding of various market factors.

Third, negative externalities have impacts on stakeholders. For Firm 1, negative externalities have a nonlinear effect on profits, which can be positively or negatively correlated. For Firm 2, an increase in negative externalities leads to a decrease in overall market output, which drives prices higher, resulting in increased profits. This highlights that negative externalities may not permanently harm firms, reflecting inefficiencies in the market. However, as negative externalities grow, total output decreases, reducing consumer surplus and damaging social welfare.

Fourth, consumer sensitivity impacts stakeholders. For Firm 1, higher consumer sensitivity leads to higher prices, production, and profits. On the contrary, it exacerbates Firm 2's disadvantages, reducing its profits. Greater sensitivity also makes consumers more willing to pay higher prices, thereby boosting total market output and enhancing consumer surplus. In terms of society, increased consumer sensitivity will encourage companies to implement CSR. Although it is detrimental to Firm 2, it ultimately benefits overall social welfare.

3.3. Model CC

In Model CC, both firms implement CSR and pursue U; maximization, and the output

decision-making satisfies E = 0. The following equilibrium output can be obtained:(...) 1

Lemma 3. The equilibrium outcomes for both firms that implement CSR:(...)

(ProQuest: ... denotes formula omitted.)

(...)To ensure that the equilibrium outcomes are non-negative, e > should be satisfied. By analyzing the effects of a, В, À, and e on the equilibrium outcomes, we can obtain Proposition 2.

Proposition 2. The effects of a, $, À, and e on the equilibrium outcomes in Model CC are as follows.

(a) The effects of a:

has an inverted U-shaped relationship with a, and there exists an optimal af" that maximizes profits;

has an inverted . U-shaped relationship with a, and there exists an optimal a5" that maximizes social welfare.

Proof. See Appendix B.

Based on Proposition 2, we can conduct the following discussion.

First, the CSR level has impacts on stakeholders. For Firms 1 and 2, the effect of the CSR level on profit is uncertain, which is different from that of Model CN. Profit maximization may be possible without implementing CSR or with a moderate level of CSR. Therefore, companies that implement CSR to maximize profits need to consider factors such as tax rate, consumer sensitivity, and negative externalities. Higher CSR levels boost consumer surplus by increasing production. However, the effect of CSR on social welfare varies with consumer sensitivity. Social welfare can be maximized either with no CSR or with an optimal level of CSR, distinguishing it from Model CN.

Second, tax rates have impacts on stakeholders. For both firms, increasing the tax rate reduces profits because both firms implement CSR, and improving CSR levels does not lead to a unigue competitive advantage, which is different from the conclusion of Model CN. The conclusion that raising the tax rate favors an increase in the output of both firms, which in turn increases consumer surplus, is the same as Model CN. As for society, raising

(ProQuest: ... denotes formula omitted.)

(...)the tax rate causes harm to social welfare.

Third, negative externalities have impacts on stakeholders. Higher negative externalities lead to improved profits for firms. An increase in negative externalities reduces output, reducing consumer surplus. For society, as in the case of Model CN, the increase in negative externalities harms social welfare.

Fourth, consumer sensitivity has impacts on stakeholders. There is a difference in the effects of consumer sensitivity on the two firms compared to Model CN. When both firms implement CSR, the increase in consumer sensitivity helps increase the output, which in turn increases the consumer surplus. As consumer sensitivity increases, the profits of both firms increase, leading to higher social welfare.

4. Analysis of CSR decision-making

To determine whether a firm implements CSR, we compare profits in different cases and examine the decision-making of Firm 2 under the preconditions that Firm 1 does not implement CSR and that it implements CSR, respectively. To ensure that all three cases hold and the individual equilibrium outcomes are non-negative, the following conditions(...)

are required:

4.1. Firm 2's decision-making when Firm 1 does not implement CSR

First, we analyze Firm 2's CSR decision when Firm 1 does not implement CSR. When Firm 1 does not implement CSR, the profit of Firm 2 implementing CSR(...)

the profit of Firm 2 not implementing CSR is Tr 2 9 . Firms are motivated to implement CSR only if their profits with the implementation of CSR are not lower than those without the implementation of CSR. Assuming that 473 = m3" - nN the CSR decision-making of Firm 2 depends on the Am). We use the numerical simulation for analysis to more intuitively reflect the trend of Ал}. Assuming b = 100, w = 10,1 = 5, and В = 0.2, (a) in Figure 1 presents the trend of 473 with a for different values of e under the condition that Firm 1 does not implement CSR. Assuming b = 100, w = 10, e = 20, and a = 0.6, (b) in Figure 1 presents the trend of 473 with В for different values of À.

As shown in Figure 1, when Firm 1 does not implement CSR, Firm 2's CSR decisionmaking is influenced by the level of CSR, consumer sensitivity, negative externalities, and tax rate. Only within a specific range does Firm 2's CSR implementation increase profits. We can obtain Corollary 1.

(ProQuest: ... denotes formula omitted.)

(...)Corollary 1

Specifically, according to (a) in Figure 1, when е is low, Firm 2 will choose not to adopt CSR. When e is high, CSR implementation increases profits and is the best choice for Firm 2. When e is at an intermediate level, there exists a making 47 = 0. When a is small, л/с > 7, Firm 2 has the motivation to conduct CSR. When a is large, 73° < x, Firm 2 should choose not to implement CSR. Furthermore, the critical point is influenced by e. The larger the e, the larger the resulting critical value about a. According to (b) in Figure 1, there exists a critical point about В exactly making Ал} = 0. When ß is small, m3" > iN; when ß is large, m3" < IN. Furthermore, the size of the critical value is affected by the negative externalities, and the larger the negative externalities, the larger the critical value. Therefore, under certain conditions, the implementation of CSR is the optimal choice for Firm 2.

4.2. Firm 2's decision-making when Firm 1 implements CSR

Next, we analyze the decision-making of Firm 2 under the condition that Firm 1 implements CSR. When Firm 1 implements CSR, the profit of Firm 2 implementing CSR is(...)

the profit of Firm 2 not implementing CSR is(...)

2's CSR decision-making depends on the sign of 475. Assuming b = 100, w = 10,1 = 5, and ? = 0.2, (a) in Figure 2 presents the trend of AT$ with a for different values of e when

(ProQuest: ... denotes formula omitted.)

Firm 1 implements CSR. To show more clearly the critical points generated by the variation of AS with a, we set the range of a between O and 0.4. Assuming b = 100, w = 10, e = 20, and a = 0.6, (b) in Figure 2 presents the trend of Алб with ß for different values of À.

As shown in Figure 2, when Firm 1 implements CSR, Firm 2's decision-making on CSR is still influenced by the CSR level, consumer sensitivity, tax rate, and negative externalities. We can obtain Corollary 2.

Corollary 2(...)

According to (a) in Figure 2, it can be found that there exists a exactly making 475 = 0. If a is below this critical value, 75 > 75"; if above, 7 < MN. The size of the critical value is affected by the sensitivity of the consumer. The higher the consumer sensitivity, the larger the critical value and the larger the boundary range formed for Firm 2 to choose to implement CSR, indicating that a higher consumer sensitivity is conducive to promoting the implementation of CSR. According to (b) in Figure 2, when e is small, n5 < m5"; when e is large, 75 > 75", implementing CSR is the Firm 2's best choice. When the e is at an intermediate level, with a lower tax rate, 75" > 75, Firm 2 tends to implement CSR, or otherwise, not. It is evident that lower tax rates promote the adoption of CSR by firms. The level of negative externalities directly impacts the decision making of firms about CSR, and higher negative externalities will make firms implement CSR more actively. The reason is that in a competitive market environment, firms tend to increase their participation in CSR to enhance their brand image and long-term development, thus reducing the negative impact of higher negative externalities.

Conclusions

This study constructs a duopoly model considering the functional and decision-making analysis of CSR, analyzes the equilibrium results under different competitive conditions by incorporating the CSR level, consumer sensitivity, negative externalities, and the tax rate into the decision-making model, examines the multiple impacts of several factors, and further identifies the conditions under which firms can implement CSR and draws the following conclusions.

First, the CSR level, tax rate, negative externalities, and consumer sensitivity have multiple impacts on stakeholders. Overall, the implementation of CSR and the increase in consumer sensitivity generally contribute to improving consumer surplus and social welfare, but their impact on firm profits depends on specific conditions. In different models, tax rates and negative externalities have varying effects. On the one hand, higher tax rates may restrict firm profits, while, on the other hand, they could also negatively impact social welfare. Additionally, the increase in negative externalities significantly undermines consumer surplus and overall social welfare. Therefore, the level of CSR, the tax rate, negative externalities and market sensitivity have multiple effects on stakeholders.

Second, the implementation of CSR can create a win-win situation for stakeholders. Improving CSR in both Model CN and Model CC increases consumer welfare. For firms implementing CSR, there is an optimal level that maximizes profits within a specific range of consumer sensitivity. The effect of the CSR level on social welfare is similar, under certain conditions, CSR implementation can create a win-win situation for firms and society. Firms should strengthen cooperation with the government and all sectors of society, while the government should guide firms in implementing CSR from various aspects, rationally standardize CSR behavior, alleviate information asymmetry of all parties, and actively explore the win-win road.

Third, the firm's decision on CSR depends on whether competitors implement CSR and is also affected by multiple factors. Firms have incentives to implement CSR only if the CSR level and tax rate are within a specific range. Higher consumer sensitivity can encourage firms to implement CSR. Furthermore, when a firm's business activities have large negative externalities, it can result in the firm being negatively evaluated and regulated by the public and the government, which will promote the firm to implement CSR more actively to compensate or minimize the negative impacts of negative externalities. Therefore, firms must consider several factors fully to choose the best CSR decisionmaking. The government should also comprehensively consider multiple factors, formulate reasonable and scientific tax rates according to the actual situation, reasonably control negative externalities, and guide firms to actively undertake CSR.

Acknowledgment

The research is supported by Humanities and Social Science Foundation for Young Scholars of Ministry of Education of China (Grant Number: 22YJCZH096).

References

Aguinis, H. and Glavas, A., 2012. What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), pp. 932-968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079

Ali, H.Y., Danish, R.Q. and Asrar-ul-Hag, M., 2020. How corporate social responsibility boosts firm financial performance: The mediating role of corporate image and customer satisfaction. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), pp.166-177. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr. 1781.

Ang, R., Shao, Z., Liu, C., Yang, С. and Zheng, Q., 2022. The relationship between CSR and financial performance and the moderating effect of ownership structure: Evidence from Chinese heavily polluting listed enterprises. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 30, pp.117-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.030.

Bian, J., Li, K.W. and Guo, X., 2016. A strategic analysis of incorporating CSR into managerial incentive design. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 86, pp.83-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2015.11.012.

Borghesi, R., Houston, J.F. and Naranjo, A., 2014. Corporate socially responsible investments: CEO altruism, reputation, and shareholder interests. Journal of Corporate Finance, 26, pp.164-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.03.008.

Chen, J., Sun, C., Wang, Y., Liu, J. and Zhou, P., 2023. Carbon emission reduction policy With privatization in an oligopoly model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(15), pp.45209-45230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24256-2.

Chen, J., Wang, X. and Liu, J., 2021. Corporate social responsibility and capacity sharing in a duopoly model. Applied Economics Letters, 28(6), pp.512-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2020.1761531.

Chen, T., Dong, H. and Lin, C., 2020. Institutional shareholders and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, [online] 135(2), pp.483-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.06.007.

Deng, X., Kang, J. and Low, B.S., 2013. Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value maximization: Evidence from mergers. Journal of Financial Economics, 110(1), pp-87-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.04.014.

Dhar, B.K., Sarkar, S.M. and Ayittey, F.K., 2022. Impact of social responsibility disclosure between implementation of green accounting and sustainable development: A study on heavily polluting companies in Bangladesh. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(1), pp. 71-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2174.

Fanti, L. and Buccella, D., 2017. Corporate social responsibility in a game-theoretic context. Economia e Politica Industriale, 44(3), pp.371-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40812-016-0064-3.

Fourati, Y.M. and Dammak, M., 2021. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: International evidence of the mediating role of reputation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(6), pp.1749-1759. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2143.

García-Sánchez, 1., Hussain, N., Martinez-Ferrero, J. and Ruiz-Barbadillo, E., 2019. Impact of disclosure and assurance quality of corporate sustainability reports on access to finance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(4),

pp.832-848. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr. 1724.

Hao, X., Wen, S., Li, K., Wu, J., Wu, H. and Hao, Y., 2023. Environmental governance, executive incentive, and enterprise performance: Evidence from Chinese mineral enterprises. Resources Policy, 85, article no. 103858. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.resourpol.2023.103858.

Hasan, I., (Stan) Hoi, C.-K., Wu, О. and Zhang, H., 2020. Is social capital associated with corporate innovation? Evidence from publicly listed firms in the U.S. Journal of Corporate Finance, 62, article по. 101623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101623.

Hoi, C.K., Wu, Q. and Zhang, H., 2018. Community Social Capital and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(3), pp.647-665. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-016-3335-z.

Hsu, B.-X. and Chen, Y.-M., 2024. Does corporate social responsibility influence performance persistence? A signal extraction approach with evidence from Fortune 500 companies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 200, article no. 123154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123154.

Kim, H.J., Mun, $. and Han, S.H., 2023. Corporate social responsibility and the alignment of CEO and shareholders wealth: Does a strong alignment induce or restrain CSR ? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(2), рр.720-741. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2384.

Kopel, M., 2015. Price and Quantity Contracts in a Mixed Duopoly with a Socially Concerned Firm. Managerial and Decision Economics, 36(8), pp.559-566. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.2707.

Lau, C., Lu, Y. and Liang, Q., 2016. Corporate Social Responsibility in China: A Corporate Governance Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(1), pp.73-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2513-0.

Lins, K.V., Servaes, Н. and Tamayo, A., 2017. Social Capital, Trust, and Firm Performance: The Value of Corporate Social Responsibility during the Financial Crisis. The Journal of Finance, [online] 72(4), pp.1785-1824. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12505.

Nie, P., Wang, C. and Meng, Y., 2019. An analysis of environmental corporate social responsibility. Managerial and Decision Economics, 40(4), pp.384-393. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3009.

Ouyang, Z., Lv, R. and Liu, Y., 2023. Can corporate social responsibility protect firm value during corporate environmental violation events? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(4), pp.1942-1952. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2465.

Samet, M., Mouakhar, K. and Jarboui, A., 2018. Exploring the relationship between CSR performance and financial constraints: empirical evidence from European firms. Review of Social Economy, 76(4), pp.480-508. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2018.1480795.

Sharma, A., 2018. A note on Stackelberg equilibrium in duopoly: Strategic use of corporate social responsibility. Economics Bulletin, 38(4), pp.1720-1726.

Singh, S., Khare, A., Pandey, S.K. and Sharma, D.P., 2021. Industry and community peers as drivers of corporate social responsibility in India: The contingent role of institutional investors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, article no. 126316. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2021.1263 16.

Siyahhan, B., 2023. Stakeholders and corporate social responsibility: What makes firms tip over to CSR investments? Managerial and Decision Economics, 44(3), pp.1436-1453. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3756.

Sun, Y., Xu, C., Li, H. and Cao, Y., 2022. What drives the innovation in corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures? An integrated reporting perspective from China. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(4), article no. 100267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100267.

Tang, Y., Ma, Y., Wong, C. and Miao, X., 2018. Evolution of Government Policies on Guiding Corporate Social Responsibility in China. Sustainability, 10(3), p.741. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030741.

Taylor, J., Vithayathil, J. and Yim, D., 2018. Are corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives such as sustainable development and environmental policies value enhancing or window dressing? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), pp-971-980. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr. 1513.

Vishwanathan, P., Van Oosterhout, H. (J. ), Heugens, P.P.M.A.R., Duran, P. and Van Essen, M., 2020. Strategic CSR: A Concept Building Meta-Analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), pp.314-350. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12514.

Wang, J., Huang, X., Hu, K., Cui, 7. and Li, X., 2017. An exploration on corporatecommunity relationship in mining sector in China - Lessons from Yunnan Phosphate Chemical Group Co., Ltd. Resources Policy, 52, pp.54-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.resourpol.2017.01.014.

Wu, D., Lin, C. and Liu, S., 2016. Does community environment matter to corporate social responsibility? Finance Research Letters, 18, pp.127-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.frl.2016.04.010.

Wu, L. and Jin, S., 2022. Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability: From a Corporate Governance Perspective. Sustainability, 14(22), article no. 15457. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215457.

Xing, M. and Lee, S., 2023. Non-cooperative and cooperative environmental R&D under environmental corporate social responsibility with green managerial coordination. Managerial and Decision Economics, 44(5), pp.2684-2696. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3842.

Zhang, J., Djajadikerta, H.G. and Trireksani, T., 2019. Corporate sustainability disclosure's importance in China: financial analysts' perception. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(8), pp.1169-1189. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-10-2018-0272.

Zhao, X. and Murrell, A.J., 2016. Revisiting the corporate social performance-financial performance link: A replication of W addock and С raves. Strategic Management Journal, 37(11), pp.2378-2388. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2579.

Zhou, G., Sun, Y., Luo, S. and Liao, J., 2021. Corporate social responsibility and bank financial performance in China: The moderating role of green credit. Energy Economics, 97, article no. 105190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105190.

(ProQuest: ... denotes formula omitted.)

Appendix(...)

(...)(c) The effects of À on the equilibrium outcomes:

(d) The effects of e on the equilibrium outcomes:

(ProQuest: ... denotes formula omitted.)

(...)Appendix B.

(a) The effects of a on the equilibrium outcomes:

relationship with a, and there exists an optimal af" that maximizes profits.(...)

relationship with a, and there exists an optimal a5" that maximizes social welfare. (b) The effects of ß on the equilibrium outcomes:(...)

(ProQuest: ... denotes formula omitted.)

(...)(?) The effects of À on the equilibrium outcomes:(...)

(d) The effects of e on the equilibrium outcomes:(...)

Sidebar

Please cite this article as: Liang, H., Sun, X. and Guo, Y., 2025. Corporate Social Responsibility Decision-Making Considering Multiple Factors in a Duopoly Model. Amfiteatru Economic, 27(68), pp. 214-233.

Article History

Received: 17 September 2024

Revised: 18 November 2024

Accepted: 10 December 2024