Abstract

本项研究得到了中欧国际工商学院众多校友和在读学员的积极参与，学院校友关系事务部、信息 技术部、市场传播部、各课程部门（EMBA, FMBA, GEMBA, HEMBA, MBA和高层经理培训）的 大力支持，以及学院研究经费的资助 (项目号：17BICS)，研究团队对此深表感谢。研究团队负全 部文责。 中欧国际工商学院（以下简称“中欧”）研究团队在2020年4月2日至9日期间就新冠肺炎疫情对 在华商业运营的影响做了线上问卷调查。本次调查共收到1,182份答卷，问卷填 写者中有892位（75.5%）任职于中资公司或中资占50%及以上的合资公司（以下简称“中资企 业”），有290位（24.5%）任职于外资（含港澳台）公司或外资占50%以上的合资公司（以下 简称“外资企业”）。

Keyword

2020 ;  Business Operations ;  China ;  China Business Survey ;  COVID-19 ;  中国 ;  中国商业报告 ;  中资企业 ;  商业运营 ;  外资企业 ;  新冠肺炎疫情

Abstract

CEIBS Research Team with three professors and two research assistants conducted an online survey from April 2nd to April 9th 2020, receiving 1,182 responses in total. 892 (75.5%) survey participants work for Chinese-owned firms or firms with 50% or more Chinese ownership, and 290 (24.5%) work for foreign-owned firms in China or firms with more than 50% foreign ownership.

Keyword

2020 ;  Business Operations ;  China ;  China Business Survey ;  COVID-19 ;  中国 ;  中国商业报告 ;  中资企业 ;  商业运营 ;  外资企业 ;  新冠肺炎疫情

Abstract

特邀编委 李铭俊 丁远 执行编委 陈杰平 编委会成员 许斌 芮萌 陈世敏 白诗莉 陈少晦　

Keyword

Corporate Social Responsibility ;  CSR ;  企业社会责任

Abstract

This paper investigates whether and how emerging markets reward firms’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance. We focus on the socially responsible investment (SRI) index, which lists the top CSR performers and serves as a tool to help investors make investment decisions based on financial and social criteria. We empirically test the financial market responses to the announcements of pioneering SRI indices recently launched in Brazil, China, and South Africa. We find that inclusion on an SRI index in these markets is associated with positive abnormal returns. However, inclusion on an SRI index does not benefit all firms equally: the positive financial response is strengthened by R&D expenditures but weakened by advertising expenditures; it is stronger for firms that have expanded globally to developing countries than those to developed countries. Rajendra Srivastava and V. Kumar served as Special Issue Guest Editors for this article.

Keyword

Corporate social responsibility ;  Emerging markets ;  Event study ;  Socially responsible investment index

Abstract

Keyword

Abstract

The present research investigates how purchase motives (hedonic vs. utilitarian) influence the effectiveness of partitioned versus combined pricing. Across four studies, we find that compared to combined pricing, partitioned pricing increases hedonic purchases, but not utilitarian purchases. We find this happens because consumers considering a hedonic purchase tend to feel anticipated guilt associated with their hedonic spending, and partitioned pricing is used as a guilt-mitigating justification for the spending. Specifically, consumers with a hedonic purchase motive underprocess a surcharge, which enables them to perceive the price of the product as lower than the actual, combined price. This lower price perception helps consumers justify their hedonic purchase as an act of saving money, and as a result, alleviates guilt. These effects are magnified among consumers who have high disposition to feel consumption guilt. When a price discount is offered, it attenuates the effectiveness of partitioned pricing because the price discount serves as a more effective justification by offering actual saving, not just the perception of saving. Our findings contribute to the pricing literature by uncovering a motivational factor influencing the effectiveness of partitioned (vs. combined) pricing, and offer a useful pricing guideline to product managers based on the product-pricing fit revealed in our research. (C) 2019 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keyword

Guilt ;  Hedonic/utilitarian motivation ;  Justification ;  Partitioned pricing

Abstract

Past research offers conflicting findings on whether sadness-evoking charity appeals help solicit a donation. To reconcile these findings, we introduce prospective donors' regulatory focus as a moderator for understanding when and why sadness appeals motivate or demotivate giving. Specifically, we propose that the sense of helplessness or loss of control associated with sadness appeals increases donors' sensitivity to advertiser's manipulative persuasion tactics, as those tactics can threaten donors' control over their donation decision. As a result, sadness appeals are more likely to activate persuasion knowledge among prevention- (vs. promotion-) oriented donors who tend to be vigilant against manipulative persuasion attempts. Across six main studies and two supplementary studies, we find that a prevention (vs. promotion) focus discourages charitable giving when it is solicited using a sadness appeal, whereas regulatory focus does not affect the giving when other emotion appeals (e.g., happiness appeal or guilt appeal) are used. We find that a prevention (vs. promotion) focus demotivates donation solicited by a sadness appeal because it activates persuasion knowledge that evaluates solicitor's motive behind the sadness appeal, resulting in increased skepticism, dampened feelings of sympathy, and consequently, reduced charitable giving. However, when persuasion knowledge is deactivated (e.g., when donors' cognitive capacity is constrained or the soliciting charity has a reliable reputation), regulatory focus no longer affects donor skepticism, sympathy, and charitable giving, even when a sadness appeal is used to call for donation.

Keyword

Charitable giving ;  Persuasion knowledge ;  Regulatory focus ;  Sadness ;  Skepticism ;  Sympathy

Abstract

Keyword

Abstract

Keyword

Abstract

Keyword