Corporate social responsibility and green supply chain efficiency: conditioning effects based on CEO narcissism

China's economic shift towards high-quality development necessitates improvements in enterprise green supply chain efficiency (GSCE). This study explores the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and GSCE, focusing on the moderating role of CEO narcissism. Green supply chains aim to balance economic and environmental benefits, requiring the fulfillment of stakeholder needs. Stakeholder theory suggests CSR, reflecting a company's responsibility to stakeholders, should influence GSCE. Modern enterprise theory emphasizes responsibility to all stakeholders for economic efficiency and social value. The fulfillment of CSR affects both the enterprise and society. This study deconstructs CSR into internal (employees, suppliers, customers) and external (government, community, ecosystem) aspects, examining their differential impacts on GSCE. Expectancy theory suggests stakeholders' perceptions of CSR, influenced by CEOs' actions, affect GSCE. High-echelon theory highlights the influence of CEO characteristics on corporate decisions. CEO narcissism, a prominent personality trait, is examined for its moderating effect on the CSR-GSCE relationship. The study contributes by empirically testing the impact of CSR on GSCE, decomposing CSR into internal and external dimensions, and analyzing the moderating role of CEO narcissism in this relationship, providing insights for manager selection and corporate green governance.

Existing research on GSCE influencing factors focuses on government subsidies, internal environmental management, eco-design, and consumer collaboration. While previous literature has studied CSR as a whole, this paper categorizes CSR into internal and external CSR, and suggests that internal and external CSR may have different impacts on firms’ green supply chain efficiency. Research on CSR's economic consequences includes its impact on long-term firm value, corporate transparency, financing constraints, green innovation, risk reduction, etc. Studies on CEO characteristics focus on demographics (age, gender, race) and implicit characteristics (education, culture). CEO narcissism is increasingly recognized as a significant factor in business management.

This study uses a sample of Chinese A-share non-financial listed companies from 2014-2021, obtaining data from CSMAR, stock exchange websites, and company websites. The sample was screened to exclude companies with special treatment, abnormal financial status, or missing data. Data were winsorized at the 1% level. A three-stage Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method was used to measure GSCE. Stage 1 uses the BC2 model to measure initial efficiency. Stage 2 uses the Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA) model to adjust for environmental variables (years of establishment, asset size) and random errors, correcting for management inefficiencies. Stage 3 reapplies the BC2 model using the adjusted input data from Stage 2. CSR was measured using a disclosure index based on information from social responsibility reports and financial reports, categorized into internal and external CSR. CEO narcissism was measured using two indicators: the ratio of news items about the CEO to total news items on the company website and the proportion of "I" and "we" in CEO statements. Control variables included regional economic development, asset size, return on total assets, ownership type, and company age. Regression models were used to test hypotheses: Model (1) tested the overall effect of CSR on GSCE; Model (2) tested the effects of internal and external CSR on GSCE; and Model (3) examined the moderating effect of CEO narcissism. Robustness tests included propensity score matching (PSM) to address endogeneity, using an alternative CSR measure (Runlin Global's RKS score), and lagging core variables.

The study found a significant positive relationship between CSR and GSCE (Table 6). Internal CSR significantly and positively affected GSCE, while external CSR had a significant negative impact (Table 7). CEO narcissism significantly strengthened the positive impact of internal CSR and the negative impact of external CSR on GSCE (Table 8). Robustness tests using PSM, alternative CSR measures (Table 10), and lagged variables (Table 11) confirmed these findings. Descriptive statistics (Table 4) showed variability in GSCE, CSR, and CEO narcissism across companies. Correlation analysis (Table 5) indicated no multicollinearity issues. The average GSCE was 0.419, with CSR averaging 0.218 (internal 0.213, external 0.236), and CEO narcissism 0.156. The PSM results (Table 9) consistently showed positive and significant average treatment effects, confirming the robustness of the findings even after addressing sample self-selection bias. The alternative CSR measure (Table 10) also produced consistent results, further strengthening the findings. The time-lagged analysis (Table 11) also revealed consistent results.

The findings support the hypotheses that CSR positively influences GSCE, with internal CSR having a stronger positive impact than external CSR. The moderating role of CEO narcissism suggests that narcissistic CEOs can amplify both the positive effects of internal CSR (by focusing on internal stakeholder satisfaction) and the negative effects of external CSR (by prioritizing short-term attention-seeking activities). This highlights the complexity of CSR's impact and the importance of CEO personality in shaping firm strategy and performance. The negative impact of external CSR could be because short-term benefits of external CSR may not compensate for the long-term investments needed to improve GSCE.

This study demonstrates the significant influence of CSR, particularly internal CSR, on GSCE, and the moderating role of CEO narcissism. It offers practical implications for firms to prioritize internal stakeholder engagement and manage CEO personality traits to enhance green supply chain efficiency. Future research could explore other CEO personality traits, examine diverse cultural contexts, or use different methodologies (e.g., case studies) for a deeper understanding of this complex relationship.

The study's limitations include using only two indicators to measure CEO narcissism due to data limitations on Chinese CEOs' disclosures. Future research should aim to include more comprehensive measures of CEO narcissism, explore a wider range of CSR dimensions, and examine the mediating mechanisms through which CSR and CEO narcissism influence GSCE.