Institutional Pressures and Megaproject Social Responsibility Behavior: A Conditional Process Model

Linlin Xie; Tianhao Ju; Bo Xia

doi:10.3390/buildings11040140

Xie, Linlin;Ju, Tianhao;Xia, Bo

2021-03-31 00:00:00

buildings Article Institutional Pressures and Megaproject Social Responsibility Behavior: A Conditional Process Model 1 1 , 2 Linlin Xie , Tianhao Ju * and Bo Xia School of Civil Engineering & Transportation, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510000, China; llxie@scut.edu.cn School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia; paul.xia@qut.edu.au * Correspondence: 202021009476@mail.scut.edu.cn Abstract: Megaproject social responsibility (MSR) is a critical factor regarding the sustainable delivery of megaprojects and MSR behavior to implement MSR. However, the questions of which factors effectively promote MSR behavior and how these factors work remain underexamined. Thus, this study aims to examine how the external institutional pressure and internal factors composed of rela- tional behavior and pure altruistic values affect MSR behavior. On the basis of a conditional process analysis conducted on a set of survey data from various organizations involved in megaprojects in China, the results revealed that the higher the degree of mimetic pressure, the higher the degree of MSR behavior. Concurrently, relational behavior mediates the relationship between normative pressures and MSR behavior. Relational behavior also drives MSR behavior, and pure altruistic values moderate the relationships between institutional pressures and MSR behavior. These ﬁndings also provide practical suggestions for policymakers on the implementation and governance of MSR. Citation: Xie, L.; Ju, T.; Xia, B. Keywords: megaproject social responsibility; institutional pressures; relational behavior; Institutional Pressures and altruistic values Megaproject Social Responsibility Behavior: A Conditional Process Model. Buildings 2021, 11, 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 1. Introduction buildings11040140 Following USD $6–9 trillion per year investment in the global megaprojects market, the megaproject research has received increasing attention from both industry and academia Academic Editor: around the world [1]. Megaprojects are progressively used as the preferred delivery model Jurgita Antucheviciene across a wide range of ﬁelds, such as infrastructure, big science, information technology, supply chains, major events, air, and space exploration [2]. Megaprojects can be divided Received: 9 March 2021 into three types, namely, scientiﬁc and technological megaprojects, military and national Accepted: 30 March 2021 defense megaprojects, and construction megaprojects [3]. In the construction engineering Published: 31 March 2021 ﬁeld, megaprojects usually refer to large-scale infrastructures, such as railways, airports, canals, bridges, dams, and water supply systems, which are commissioned by governments Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral and signiﬁcantly inﬂuence economic developments, social welfare, and people’s life [4,5]. with regard to jurisdictional claims in Although megaprojects have entailed signiﬁcant beneﬁts to economic growth and published maps and institutional afﬁl- regional development, they are also controversial due to immense environmental im- iations. pact and socio-economic issues [6]. Given the lack of social responsibility, the problems exposed during the construction of megaprojects, such as quality accidents, ecological damage, and social conﬂicts, have led to serious social problems beyond the scope of the project, thereby seriously restricting the project’s sustainable development [7,8]. For Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. example, the Three Gorges Project has been controversial because of its ecological dam- Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. age [9]. Megaproject social responsibility (MSR) refers to the responsibilities implemented This article is an open access article by megaproject stakeholders to achieve social welfare beyond their own [10]. MSR include distributed under the terms and economic, legal, ethical, and political responsibility. MSR is conducive to improving the conditions of the Creative Commons environment, enhancing project performance, and determining the project’s sustainable de- Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// livery [11]. Ultimately, the implementation of MSR is necessary and warranted. Participants creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ of megaprojects must actively and orderly perform MSR to improve project sustainability. 4.0/). Buildings 2021, 11, 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11040140 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings Buildings 2021, 11, 140 2 of 21 In explaining the driving mechanism of social responsibility, institutional theory has a strong explanatory power. Institutional theory postulates that legitimacy is the basis for the survival and development of an organization [12]. The organization’s cognition of legiti- macy creates institutional pressure, thereby affecting organizational behavior [13]. From the perspective of institutional theory, social responsibility behavior is an important measure for organizations to gain legitimacy [14,15]. The role of institutional pressure in promot- ing corporate social responsibility behavior has been conﬁrmed in previous studies [16]. However, unlike corporate social responsibility being undertaken by a single company or individual (e.g., CEO), the implementation of MSR relies on the close collaboration of diverse and heterogeneous participants throughout the project’s life cycle [17]. Moreover, megaprojects are highly embedded in a series of different socio-political environments, and the participating parties are faced with a more complex institutional environment than enterprises [18]. The application value of institutional theory in megaprojects has been emphasized [19], and Scott [20] recommended to adopt institutional theory to research organizational behavior in megaprojects. Institutional theory is a powerful theoretical lens to research MSR behavior. Although institutional environmental elements play a key role in improving the sus- tainability of megaprojects [21], the inﬂuence of the external institutional pressures on MSR behavior has not been fully explored. Unfortunately, existing studies on the inﬂuencing or driving factors of social responsibility behavior in construction megaprojects are very fragmented and most of these studies focus on a single dimension of social responsibility (e.g., ethical responsibility) or the internal factors. Organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment are the ethical responsibility dimension of MSR behavior. Wang et al. [22] explored the impact of environmental responsibility practices on organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment in construction megaprojects and found that perceptions of project participants on megaproject environmental responsibility practices for internal stakeholders motivate organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment, thereby improving the environmental performance of megaprojects. Perceptions of project par- ticipants on megaproject environmental responsibility practices is an internal factor. The impact of institutional pressures on organizational citizenship behaviors for the environ- ment was uncovered in construction megaprojects [23]. Mimetic and normative pressures have a direct positive impact on organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment. However, organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment are just a dimension of MSR behavior. Therefore, those conclusions may not be applicable to MSR behavior, and the impact of institutional pressures on MSR behavior remains unknown. Lin et al. [7] revealed the negative effect of CEO narcissism on the social responsibility practice of construction megaprojects and also the mediating effect of CEO’s social responsibility cog- nition on the relationship between CEO narcissism and MSR practice, revealing the internal inﬂuence mechanism of MSR behavior. Xie et al. [24] have explored the impact of a few factors on MSR behavior choices in construction megaprojects, such as institutional pres- sure, relationship quality, mutual feedback mechanism, and social responsibility cognition. The result uncovered that hypocritical behavior is impacted negatively by institutional pressure and relationship quality and impacted insigniﬁcantly by social responsibility cognition. Moreover, synergistic behavior is impacted positively by relationship quality and impacted insigniﬁcantly by institutional pressure and social responsibility cognition. However, its research object is limited to the two types of social responsibility behaviors (i.e., hypocritical and synergistic behaviors) and does not cover all dimensions of the MSR behavior. Therefore, on the basis of institutional theory, exploring the driving effect of institutional pressure on the MSR behavior is necessary. The research ﬁndings help clarify the driving mechanism of institutional pressure on the MSR behavior and achieve the extensive goal of promoting megaproject sustainability. The remainder of this article is organized as follows. The second part introduces the theoretical basis and proposed research hypotheses. The third part presents the research methods. The fourth part is where we conducted data analysis. The ﬁfth part discusses Buildings 2021, 11, 140 3 of 21 the research results. Finally, the last part presents the theoretical contribution and practical implications and summarizes the conclusions. 2. Theoretical Background and Research Hypotheses According to research of DiMaggio [25], the institutional environment is characterized by three types of institutional pressures, namely, coercive, normative, and mimetic pres- sures, which profoundly impact organizational behavior [23]. Especially faced with the highly complex external environment of megaprojects, explaining the organizational behav- ior of participating parties from the perspective of institutional theory is necessary [20,26]. Relational behavior includes three dimensions: information exchange, ﬂexibility, and solidarity [27]. Among them, information exchange is positioned as the common expectation that information is exchanged continuously and freely. Flexibility is deﬁned as the common expectation of each other ’s behavior between partners when the contract environment changes. Solidarity refers to the common expectation of cooperation between partners that is conducive to the overall cooperation rather than their own interests. Team altruistic theory considers that altruistic value motivations include self-interested and pure altruisms [28]. Given that most of the participants in megaprojects are state-owned enterprises, they do not consider their own interests stingily, but pay more attention to improving social welfare [29,30]. Therefore, this article selects pure altruistic values to measure the altruistic values of megaproject managers. 2.1. Relational Behavior Megaprojects are characterized by high risk and uncertainty, which requires all partic- ipants to develop a ﬂexible coordination mechanism to quickly resolve management issues and potential conﬂicts [31]. For examples, ﬂexible response to environmental changes, deliver information timely, and maintain long-term cooperative relationships [27]. These positive behaviors that promote collaboration among organizations are called relational behaviors [32,33]. Relational behavior had been proven to improve the performance of megaprojects and facilitate successful delivery [34,35]. The existence of institutional pres- sure will promote the relational behavior of actors. Li et al. [36] pointed out that the external institutional framework will encourage actors to actively adopt development relationships. Zheng et al. [27] revealed that stakeholder pressure perceived by megaproject participants can signiﬁcantly promote relational behavior. Concurrently, relational behaviors have also been proven to increase the willingness of megaproject participants to cooperate and promote collaboration among all parties to fulﬁll their social responsibilities [24]. Therefore, relational behavior may play a mediating role. 2.2. Pure Altruistic Values Even in the same institutional environment, the level of organizational social responsi- bility behavior may be different [37]. To explain the differences of organizational behavior behind institutional convergence, Hoffman [38] recommended to link the institutional pressure with the internal of the organization. Li et al. [28] noted that benign organiza- tional behavior will be driven by external and internal factors. Only when the external institutional pressure is effectively transmitted by internal factors, can organizations be encouraged to better fulﬁll their social responsibilities. Therefore, the effect of internal factors on the relationship between external institutional pressure and social responsibility behavior must be explored. From the internal perspective of the organization, organiza- tional social responsibility decision making largely depends on the manager ’s cognition of the external environment [39,40]. Moreover, this process will be ﬁltered by the manager ’s values [41]. The role of top managers’ altruistic values or moral standards has been empha- sized in promoting the organization’s social responsibility performance [30,42]. However, what remains undecided is whether the altruistic values of top managers can effectively transmit institutional pressure, thereby promoting the practice of organizational social Buildings 2021, 11, 140 4 of 21 responsibility behavior. Therefore, the altruistic values may moderate the relationship between institutional pressures and MSR behavior. 2.3. Coercive Pressure and MSR Behavior Coercive pressure emphasizes the external restrictions and constraints imposed by statutory or recognized rules, including laws and government regulations on behavior [25]. Coercive pressure is often linked to the government [43]. On the one hand, the government restricts the social responsibility practices of project participants by promulgating manda- tory measures, such as legal institutions, industry standards, and management regulations. Megaprojects have been severely criticized for ecological damage, thereby facing strict envi- ronmental review [10]. Wang et al. [23] uncovered that when project participation is subject to these coercive pressures, they will have an emotional attachment and responsibility to environmental concerns, thereby increasing their investment in environmental protection. On the other hand, the government can restrict and guide the MSR practice by con- structing special project management entities. Li et al. [44] unveiled that the government is the most important stakeholder in megaprojects, and many megaprojects are subject to direct government intervention and management. Especially in China, a temporary quasi-government organization named the command headquarter has become the main tool for the state to supervise and guide the completion of megaprojects [45]. Through the headquarters, the government can exercise state power to force project participants to temporarily integrate processes for the overall beneﬁt of the project [45]. The role of com- mand headquarters in regulating the social responsibility practices of participants has been observed in megaprojects during the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge; the bridge is forecasted to cross the Chinese White Dolphin National Nature Reserve. HZM Bridge Advanced Work Coordination Group and Joint Works Committee of the Three Local Governments are required to achieve the goal of pollution-free ecosystem and zero death of white dolphins. To achieve this goal, the owners, professional institutions, and various participants cooperated closely; they optimized the construction scheme and carried out various special protection measures [46]. On the basis of the above analysis, we propose the ﬁrst hypothesis as follows. Hypothesis 1 (H1). Coercive pressure is positively related to MSR behavior. 2.4. Normative Pressures and MSR Behavior Normative pressure emphasizes the expectations and requirements of social norms and professional institutions for behavior [25]. Megaprojects involve many complex ex- ternal stakeholders, such as the public, media, local communities, and NGOs [10]. The expectations that these external stakeholders request are the social responsibility practices of megaproject participants that constitute a source of normative pressure. Environmental, social, and human issues caused by megaprojects have received increasing attention [47]; the actors of megaprojects must properly respond to the public’s legitimate demands for sustainable development [48]. Lin et al. [7] uncovered that public attention is the main driving force for promoting project participants to implement social responsibility. When the public demands strengthening, participants in megaprojects must pay attention to public interests and fulﬁll social responsibilities. Moreover, social responsibility demands of external stakeholders will signiﬁcantly curb the behavior to ostensibly implement social responsibility [24]. If the social responsibility practice of megaprojects goes against the external expectations, external stakeholders can create external pressure on project partici- pants through protests and boycotts. For example, local residents boycotted the PX project because of the project’s negative externalities and inadequate information disclosure [17]. If participants in megaprojects fail to handle and respond to these conﬂicts in a timely manner, the project may be delayed or even terminated [49,50]. In addition, the participation of professional institutions helps create normative pres- sure. Campbell [15] uncovered that the professional norms established by industry associ- Buildings 2021, 11, 140 5 of 21 ations will promote enterprises to act in a socially responsible manner. Many managers of megaprojects hold concurrent positions in semi-ofﬁcial industry associations [30]. As the actual decision makers of the project, these managers can exert their inﬂuence to pro- mote the dissemination of related norms about social responsibility within megaprojects. Megaprojects have a long-term and far-reaching impact on social and economic develop- ment, and the participation and support of experts, consultancies, universities, and other professional institutions are also essential [23]. These professional organizations can not only improve the quality and transparency in project decision making, but also serve as an external supervisory force to guide managers’ social responsibility practices. Existing cases have conﬁrmed the role of professional institutions participating in improving the social responsibility practice of megaprojects. For example, the improvement of safety culture in the Delhi Metro project in India [51]. Therefore, Zhou and Mi [52] recommended to propose a social responsibility register through some methods, such as expert judgment and interviews, to facilitate the dynamic management of social responsibility throughout the megaproject life cycle. On the basis of the above analysis, we propose the second hypothesis as follows. Hypothesis 2 (H2). Normative pressure is positively related to the MSR behavior. 2.5. Mimetic Pressures and MSR Behavior Mimetic pressure emphasizes the pressure of an organization to imitate other suc- cessful organizations when faced with uncertainty [25]. Megaprojects are characterized by high risk and uncertainty, and project management often faces severe social, technological, economic, environmental, and political challenges [2,53]. Faced with huge pressure and un- certainty, the actors of megaprojects will seek answers through clues from the surrounding environment [54]. Learning and imitation are the natural response of the organization to the external uncertain environment [55]. Especially in the absence of contractual requirements on social responsibility issues, learning and imitating the best social responsibility practices in the industry have become rational behaviors for megaproject participants to maintain their competitiveness. An empirical study supports that imitation pressure can drive the emergence of organizational citizenship behaviors in the environment more than coercive and normative pressures [23]. Moreover, the example can effectively motivate others to voluntarily conduct altruistic behaviors [56]. Mimetic pressure from internal participants of megaprojects cannot be ignored. MSR are distributed through a complex stakeholder network, and all stakeholders must take the responsibility and perform collaboratively [17]. This means that any party cannot imple- ment social responsibilities alone, but will be affected by the other stakeholders’ willingness and performance about social responsibility. To ensure the effective implementation of social responsibility with different participants at different stages of the project, stakehold- ers must use formal and informal means to pressure other stakeholders and urge them to implement their social responsibility. For example, owners often place mimetic pressure on other parties by setting benchmarks. Owners often initiate labor contests and commend advanced collectives or individuals for things beyond their roles [57]. The establishment of these benchmarks helps form a proactive cultural atmosphere within the project, which drives the learning and imitation of other participants and enhances the overall MSR performance. On the basis of the above analysis, we propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3 (H3). Mimetic pressure is positively correlated with MSR behavior. 2.6. The Mediating Effect of Relational Behavior The priority of the participants is to establish a reliable relationship with other partici- pants to achieve the predetermined project goals in megaprojects [58]. Relational behavior refers to the behavior of establishing, maintaining, and preserving a cooperative relation- ship [59]. Relational behavior can alleviate conﬂicts and promote project progress. For Buildings 2021, 11, 140 6 of 21 example, Chi et al. [60] reported that during the construction of the T3 terminal of Beijing Capital International Airport, faced with many claims and disputes in the project, all participants still actively conduct relational behavior and cooperate closely to ensure that the project is delivered on time. The three dimensions of relational behavior facilitate MSR behavior. Flexibility mainly reﬂects when parties make their own decisions on unexpected situations. Greater ﬂexibility among parties enables them to adapt more rapidly to environmental changes [61]. Long- term mutuality cannot be achieved without ﬂexibility [62]. Information sharing means communicating information actively and validly. The greater the information sharing among participants is, the more they are able to respond to one another ’s needs. Frequent and effective communication enhances satisfaction and understanding of one another ’s intent [63]. Effective and efﬁcient information sharing among participating organizations builds cooperation and trust and reduces conﬂicts [64]. Solidarity arises when common responsibilities and interests dominate a relation- ship [65]. Solidarity increases participants’ conﬁdence and reduces the incentive of shirk- ing [66]. Implementing social responsibility will generate additional cost [67]. Additional cost is the most critical barrier of MSR implementation [68]. Furthermore, successful implemen- tation of MSR requires close cooperation and collaboration of all parties throughout the whole project life cycle [17]. However, the above-mentioned analysis of relational behavior has proven that relational behavior can reduce these barriers. Therefore, by remaining ﬂexible in unexpected situations, sharing information actively, and acting with solidarity among one another, MSR behavior can be implemented better. In addition to complying with laws and government regulations, participants will actively establish relationships between individuals and organizations with the government in megaprojects. On the one hand, the government–enterprise relationship as a lubricant can help companies obtain additional political propaganda and resource support [2]. On the other hand, the government also expects participants to actively conduct relational behaviors to quickly and ﬂexibly resolve difﬁculties [60]. These advantages will facilitate MSR behavior. On the basis of the above analysis, H4a is derived as follows: Hypothesis 4a (H4a). Relational behavior mediates the relationship between coercive pressure and MSR behavior. Normative pressures come from shared norms and values that are consistently recog- nized in the ﬁeld. The relational behavior of organizations in megaprojects is also greatly inﬂuenced by industry guidelines, norms, and expectations to regulate their behaviors [69]. Collins and Hitt [70] proposed that to acquire external knowledge, organizations must establish effective relationships. Through relational behavior, parties can obtain, interpret, evaluate, and share knowledge and information on different aspects of social responsibility. The lack of relational behavior will hinder information sharing and knowledge among stakeholders [71]. Hypothesis 4b (H4b). Relational behavior mediates the relationship between normative pressure and MSR behavior. Mimetic pressure comes from an organization’s response to uncertainty and its per- ception of a rival’s success. A project participating organization is inevitably subject to pressure from competitors who are also conducting relational behaviors and achieving the associated beneﬁts [69]. When a positive relationship exists between two actors, and they interact and communicate more frequently, they are likely to develop similar attitudes toward a behavior and imitate each other ’s behavior [72]. Hypothesis 4c (H4c). Relational behavior mediates the relationship between mimetic pressure and MSR behavior. Buildings 2021, 11, 140 7 of 21 2.7. The Moderating Effect of Pure Altruistic Values Values are directions that guide individuals to judge the environment and determine behavior [73]. Pure altruistic values refer to the willingness to act completely altruistic out of moral consideration or humanitarianism [28]. Given that social responsibility behaviors are not mandatory and mainly rely on self-fulﬁllment mechanisms, the values of managers signiﬁcantly impact organizational social responsibility performance [74]. Aguilera et al. [75] revealed that top managers with altruistic values are ethically committed to do the right thing. The moral commitment of managers helps managers perceive and understand external pressures, thereby transforming passive external pressures into active social responsibility practices [76]. With a high level of pure altruistic values, participants will be more willing to value social responsibility and have high expectations for social responsibility activities [77]. Participants in megaprojects are mostly state-owned enterprises that have achieved greater success [78]. They are more likely to perceive the pressure from government on their social responsibilities, and transmit the pressure to the organizational strategy level. Thus, we propose the ﬁfth hypothesis as follows: Hypothesis 5a (H5a). Pure altruistic values positively moderate the relationship between coercive pressure and MSR behavior. Soyez [79] argued that subjective norms become signiﬁcant only if relevant groups share a speciﬁc value orientation. As altruistic values reﬂect prosocial motives [80], partici- pants with altruistic orientation are more likely to be motivated by social norms. Moreover, affected by Confucian culture, a strong social value orientation is that collective interests are more important than personal interests [81,82]. Participants with altruistic values are willing to make sacriﬁces to improve project performance, thus fulﬁlling more social responsibilities [29]. Hypothesis 5b (H5b). Pure altruistic values positively moderate the relationship between norma- tive pressure and MSR behavior. People with stronger altruistic value orientation are more perceptive of environmental problems and are more inclined to assume responsibility and behave in a more eco-friendly way [83]. Participants with altruistic values pay more attention to learning and imitating excellent benchmarks, such as actively participating in competition organized by the owner to improve production efﬁciency. Hypothesis 5c (H5c). Pure altruistic values positively moderate the relationship between mimetic pressure and MSR behavior. Figure 1 shows the proposed theoretical model. Buildings 2021, 11, 140 8 of 21 Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22 Figure 1. Conceptual model. Figure 1. Conceptual model. 3. Research Method 3. Research Method 3.1. Measures 3.1. Measures In behavioral research, questionnaires are widely recognized as data collection tools [84]. In behavioral research, questionnaires are widely recognized as data collection tools To ensure the accuracy and validity of the questionnaire, we have adopted the following [84]. To ensure the accuracy and validity of the questionnaire, we have adopted the fol- design process. First, we reviewed the pertinent literature on MSR and clarified the conno- lowing design process. First, we reviewed the pertinent literature on MSR and clarified tations of the variables used in this study. Second, we selected scale items that have been the connotations of the variables used in this study. Second, we selected scale items that proven to be reliable as the initial scale items. With respect to the scale used to measure MSR have been proven to be reliable as the initial scale items. With respect to the scale used to behavior, we mainly referred to the work of Lin et al. [7] and used 17 items from the four measure MSR behavior, we mainly referred to the work of Lin et al. [7] and used 17 items dimensions (i.e., economic, legal, ethical, and political responsibilities). We adapted the mea- from the four dimensions (i.e., economic, legal, ethical, and political responsibilities). We sures for coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures based on the work of Wang et al. [23]. adapted the measures for coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures based on the work We modified and expanded it to ensure that it is applicable to this study and finally designed of Wang et al. [23]. We modified and expanded it to ensure that it is applicable to this 11 items. Consistent with the literature of Zheng et al. [27], relational behavior involves study and finally designed 11 items. Consistent with the literature of Zheng et al. [27], 10 items in three dimensions: information sharing, flexibility, and solidarity. Pure altruistic relational behavior involves 10 items in three dimensions: information sharing, flexibility, values were measured via the scale adapted from the research of Yang et al. [30] and Li and and solidarity. Pure altruistic values were measured via the scale adapted from the re- Liang [82], and we finally selected four items. We evaluated all items on a five-point scale search of Yang et al. [30] and Li and Liang [82], and we finally selected four items. We from 1 (very bad/strongly disagree) to 5 (very good/strongly agree). evaluated all items on a five-point scale from 1 (very bad/strongly disagree) to 5 (very We conducted a pretest involving 30 megaproject professionals (with over 5 years good/strongly agree). of experience) to verify the content, clarity, and language of the questionnaire. On the We conducted a pretest involving 30 megaproject professionals (with over 5 years of basis of the feedback from the pretest respondents, some measurement items in the initial experience) to verify the content, clarity, and language of the questionnaire. On the basis questionnaire were further revised, and then we formed the ﬁnal version. Table 1 presents of the feedback from the pretest respondents, some measurement items in the initial ques- all constructs along with their measurement items. tionnaire were further revised, and then we formed the final version. Table 1 presents all Given the potential common method bias, we used the pre-procedural remedies constructs along with their measurement items. recommended [85]. We designed the questionnaire in two separate parts. The ﬁrst part contains questions about the respondents’ background information, whereas the second Table 1. Construct Measurement. part focuses on the respondents’ views on the last megaproject they have recently under- taken. Second, to minimize informant bias, we sampled respondents with similar roles in Construct Code Item a their respective organizations and ensured the anonymity of their answers. We asked the MSR behavior E1 The cost control of the megaproject that the organization participated in. respondents to answer questions on the basis of the last megaprojects and informed them The construction period control of the megaproject that the organization participated E2 that there is no wrong answer. Respondents provided a relatively clear description of the in. MSR practices and thereby avoided preferentially selecting their most successful experience E3 The quality of the megaprojects that the organization has participated in. on MSR behavior, which ultimately reduced the risk of socially desirable responding. We E4 This megaproject has many innovations and new technologies. Buildings 2021, 11, 140 9 of 21 distributed the survey items under general topics rather than grouped by construct, thereby reducing the inertia of respondents in answering questions. Table 1. Construct Measurement. Construct Code Item MSR behavior E1 The cost control of the megaproject that the organization participated in. E2 The construction period control of the megaproject that the organization participated in. E3 The quality of the megaprojects that the organization has participated in. E4 This megaproject has many innovations and new technologies. The organization ﬁts the technical speciﬁcations and functional needs of this E5 megaproject. The organization strictly abides by the laws, regulations, and industry standards of L1 this megaproject. L2 The organization pays attention to fair competition in the industry in this megaproject. L3 The organization follows international industry standards in this megaproject. L4 The organization discloses project information in this megaproject timely. M1 The organization reasonably applies resources and reduces resource waste. M2 The organization shows concern for the safety and health of workers. M3 The organization’s pollution prevention and treatment in this megaproject. The ecological environment protection carried out by the organization in M4 this megaproject. P1 The employment opportunities created by the organization in this megaproject. P2 The organization’s development of local public welfare activities in this megaproject. The degree of interaction between the organization and your community in P3 this megaproject. P4 The organization has promoted public participation in this megaproject. Government attaches importance to the performance in fulﬁlling social responsibilities Coercive pressure CP1 in this megaproject. Government responds quickly to violations of social responsibility reported by CP2 the public. Government promotes the concept of social responsibility to your organization through CP3 various methods. Industry associations value participants’ performance in fulﬁlling social responsibilities CP4 in this megaproject. The consultant proposes the organization to fulﬁll social responsibilities in this NP1 Normative pressure megaproject. The expert team in this megaproject proposes the organization to fulﬁll its NP2 social responsibilities. The media pays attention to and reports organization’s performance in fulﬁlling its NP3 social responsibilities in this megaproject. Organizations in this megaproject were rewarded or recognized for their good MP1 Mimetic pressure performance of social responsibility. Peer project participants in the industry have expanded their visibility due to their MP2 better fulﬁllment of social responsibilities. Peer project participants with good performance of social responsibility strongly MP3 impacts the organization. Peer project participants all attach great importance to social responsibility issues MP4 in megaprojects. The organization strives to work with other participants to solve problems that arise Relational behavior RBS1 during the construction of the project. RBS2 The organization does not mind that other participants owe your organization favors. RBS3 The organization is committed to enhancing relationships with other participants. When unexpected situations occur during the construction of the project, the RBF1 organization can ﬂexibly manage other participants. RBF2 The organization responds ﬂexibly to conﬂicts between organizations. The organization can ﬂexibly respond to the change requests of each organization RBF3 during the construction process. When unexpected situations occur during the construction of the project, the RBF4 organization will invite other participants to formulate new agreements. Buildings 2021, 11, 140 10 of 21 Table 1. Cont. Construct Code Item The organization will provide other participants with proprietary information, if the RBI1 information is helpful to other participants. The organization will promptly inform other participants of events or changes that may RBI2 affect them. The organization will not only provide other participants with the project information RBI3 required by the contract, but also provide additional project information. In this megaproject, the organization believes that actions should be taken to gain public Pure altruistic values PV1 trust and respect. In this megaproject, the organization believes that actions should be taken to help solve PV2 social issues and fulﬁll social responsibilities. In this megaproject, the organization believes that actions should be taken to promote PV3 technological progress in the industry. In this megaproject, the organization believes that actions should be taken to increase PV4 industry trust and social identity. a b The scale of the measure is as follows: 1 = very bad; 2 = bad; 3 = neutral; 4 = good; 5 = very good. The scale of the measure is as follows: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree. 3.2. Sample and Data Collection The scale of project investment is the most common criterion for judging whether it is a megaproject. Flyvbjerg [2] considered that megaprojects refer to large and complex projects that usually cost over US$1 billion. However, Hu et al. [86] supported that US$1 billion is established on the basis of the conditions of developed countries and are not applicable to developing countries. According to the research of Wang et al. [23] and Zheng et al. [27], China’s megaprojects can be deﬁned as large-scale infrastructure projects costing over 1 billion RMB and signiﬁcantly impact social production, economic growth, people’s lives, and the natural environment. The formal questionnaire survey will be conducted in China from September 2020 to November 2020. As China is experiencing the biggest infrastructure investment boom in recent years [87], many megaprojects provide ﬁrst-hand data for empirical investigations. We selected various megaprojects with different project types to increase the represen- tativeness of the overall sample and provide a broader view of industry practice. We collected 334 responses from 960 respondents, representing a response rate of 34.8%. We only regarded respondents with experience of social responsibility practice in megaprojects as the target respondents. These respondents should also be familiar with laws, regulations, and policies related to social responsibility. After cleaning out the short response time responses or invariant responses in a row, 149 valid responses remained for the analysis. The surveyed megaprojects included 89.3% costing from 1–5 billion RMB and 4.7% costing over 5 billion RMB. The remaining demographic characteristics for these projects and the survey respondents are shown in Table 2. To improve the quality of the answers, we informed all respondents of the purpose of the study and assured them that their answers to the questionnaire were conﬁdential. After completing the investigation, we gave each respondent who answered effectively a small monetary reward through WeChat. Using Harman’s single-factor test, we tested the data for common method bias [88]. The ﬁrst factor, which was extracted using principal axis factoring without rotation, accounts for only 36.43% of the overall variance. The result satisﬁed the required threshold (36.43% < 50%) regarding the ratio of the ﬁrst factor accounting for the overall variance. Hence, we conclude that common method variance is not a critical issue for our analysis. To test for non-response bias, we compared the ﬁrst and last waves of respondents on all the variables using Mann–Whitney U Test [89]. The signiﬁcance level of each variable was over 0.05. Hence, no critical degree of non-response bias exists. Buildings 2021, 11, 140 11 of 21 Table 2. Demographics of surveyed projects and respondents. Category Attribute Count % Government 2 1.3 Owner 11 7.4 Designer 6 4.0 Contractor 101 67.8 Types of respondent ﬁrms Supervisor 21 14.1 Consultant 2 1.3 Testing company 1 0.7 Operator 3 2.0 Supplier 2 1.3 Below bachelor ’s 62 41.6 Bachelor ’s 81 54.4 Education Master ’s 5 3.4 Ph.D. 1 0.7 1–5 years 51 34.2 Work experience 5–10 years 42 28.2 More than 10 years 56 37.6 Less than 2 years 37 24.8 Project duration 2–3 years 67 45.0 More than 3 years 45 30.2 3.3. Data Analytic Strategy This study analyzed the data using Smart PLS 2.0 M3 and PROCESS analysis for SPSS (v.3.3). For the limitation of samples, we adopted partial least squares (PLS) and a component-based structural equation modeling (SEM) technique that was appropriate for small sample size and non-normal datasets to validate the measurements [90]. To test for the hypothesized relationships, we employed contemporary practices of moderation and mediation advocated by Hayes [91]. Traditional approaches for examining mediation and moderated mediation have several conceptual and mathematical limitations [92]. The PROCESS presented in Hayes [91] allows the estimation of mediating and moderating effects using bootstrapping procedures on the basis of generating multiple random samples. We used bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 samples to test the signiﬁcance of the mediating and the moderating effect and produce 95% conﬁdence interval. If the conﬁdence interval does not include zero, then the effect is signiﬁcant at p < 0.05. Bootstrapping procedures make no normality assumption and provide stronger accuracy in conﬁdence intervals [92]. Given non-normal samples, bootstrapping procedures as a method for statistical inference ﬁt well with this study. 4. Research Results 4.1. Evaluation of the Measurement The adequacy of the measurement model was evaluated with reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Reliability was examined using the composite reliability (CR) values. Table 2 shows that all of the values (minimum = 0.774) were above the commonly acceptable threshold, 0.7 [93]. Convergent validity was assessed by two criteria [94]: (1) all indicator loadings should be signiﬁcant and exceed 0.6 [90]; and (2) the average variance extracted (AVE) by each construct should exceed the variance due to the measurement error for that construct (i.e., AVE should exceed 0.50). As shown in Table 3, all of the items exhibit a loading higher than 0.6 on their respective construct and all of the AVEs ranged from 0.535–0.799, thus satisfying both conditions for convergent validity. Buildings 2021, 11, 140 12 of 21 Table 3. Evaluation of Measurement Models. Construct/Item Loading t Value AVE CR Coercive Pressures 0.688 0.898 CP1 0.845 26.618 CP2 0.777 12.153 CP3 0.883 35.341 CP4 0.808 18.911 Mimetic Pressures 0.603 0.858 MP1 0.732 11.639 MP2 0.836 26.313 MP3 0.798 18.391 MP4 0.735 14.939 Normative Pressures 0.701 0.875 NP1 0.880 39.290 NP2 0.870 36.013 NP3 0.756 14.195 Relational Behavior 0.751 0.901 RBF 0.675 0.892 RBF1 0.893 38.783 RBF2 0.854 19.353 RBF3 0.837 23.015 RBF4 0.688 12.452 RBI 0.649 0.847 RBI1 0.867 30.342 RBI2 0.795 22.593 RBI3 0.752 12.981 RBS 0.535 0.774 RBS1 0.668 7.829 RBS2 0.701 10.647 RBS3 0.816 24.351 MSR behavior 0.799 0.941 Economy 0.539 0.854 E1 0.769 16.828 E2 0.680 12.534 E3 0.780 22.272 E4 0.735 18.658 E5 0.702 12.655 Law 0.567 0.840 L1 0.797 21.839 L2 0.759 20.109 L3 0.711 13.572 L4 0.743 12.008 Moral 0.656 0.884 M1 0.808 25.813 M2 0.788 17.131 M3 0.811 23.157 M4 0.832 23.613 Politics 0.585 0.849 P1 0.720 13.219 P2 0.760 15.439 P3 0.742 15.808 P4 0.832 31.845 Pure Altruistic Values 0.674 0.892 PV1 0.821 17.412 PV2 0.772 12.328 PV3 0.847 22.630 PV4 0.841 23.308 Note: RBS = solidarity in relational behavior; RBF = ﬂexibility in relational behavior; RBI = information exchange in relational behavior. Buildings 2021, 11, 140 13 of 21 As suggested by Chiu et al. [95], discriminant validity was veriﬁed on the basis of three criteria: (1) factor loadings of all items for a construct should exceed cross factor load- ings [96]; (2) all of the correlations among the constructs should be below the 0.85 threshold; and (3) the correlations between a construct and other constructs in the model should be lower than the square root of the AVE for the construct [94]. As shown in Table 4, the square root of AVE for each construct in the diagonal is greater than its highest off-diagonal correlation with any other construct and all of the correlations that ranged from 0.435–0.813 are below the 0.85 threshold. Each item is loaded onto a construct that is higher than any of its cross loadings with other constructs (see Supplemental Materials). Table 4. Correlations of Latent Variables and Evidence of Discriminant Validity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Coercive Pressures 0.829 2. Mimetic Pressures 0.752 0.777 3. Normative Pressures 0.813 0.720 0.837 4. MSR Behavior 0.593 0.597 0.598 0.894 5. Relational Behavior 0.568 0.569 0.615 0.531 0.867 6. Pure Altruistic Values 0.595 0.572 0.563 0.435 0.661 0.821 Note: The number in bold represents the square root of AVE. Regarding the second-order construct, the relational behavior has strong relationships with its ﬁrst-order constructs—solidarity (0.856), ﬂexibility (0.906), and information shar- ing (0.836). Additionally, the MSR behavior has strong relationships with its ﬁrst-order constructs—economy (0.935), law (0.866), moral (0.917), and politics (0.855). Hence, all ﬁrst-order constructs are sufﬁciently highly correlated for their second-order constructs. 4.2. Hypothesis Testing To investigate H1–H4, the bootstrapping method with an SPSS application (PROCESS, Model 4) provided by Preacher and Hayes [97] was used. As can be seen in Table 5 and Figure 2, the results indicate, as expected, a positive relationship between mimetic pressures and MSR behavior ( = 0.22, p < 0.05). Therefore, H2 is supported. An insigniﬁcant relationship between coercive pressures and MSR behavior exists (p > 0.05). In addition, normative pressures are insigniﬁcantly related to MSR behavior (p > 0.05). Hence, H1 and H3 are unsupported. Table 5. Summary of Model 4. Path Coefﬁcient RB MSR Behavior Bootstrap 95%CI Bootstrap 95%CI Variable Boot SE t Boot SE t LLCI ULCI LLCI ULCI CP 0.092 0.148 0.763 0.214 0.375 0.18 0.096 1.568 0.067 0.311 MP 0.184 0.111 1.777 0.04 0.399 0.22 0.085 2.191 * 0.007 0.345 NP 0.392 0.118 3.382 ** 0.182 0.641 0.171 0.083 1.482 0.021 0.304 RB 0.198 0.063 2.49 * 0.019 0.264 R 0.385 0.44 F (df) 30.223(3, 145) *** 28.277(4, 144) *** Indirect effect of Predictor on MSR behavior through relational behavior Predictor Bootstrapped indirect effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI CP 0.018 0.033 0.044 0.093 MP 0.037 0.024 0.009 0.085 NP 0.078 0.041 0.007 0.167 Note: Standardized regression coefﬁcients are reported. CP = coercive pressures; MP = mimetic pressures; NP = normative pressures. LLCI = lower limit in 95% conﬁdence interval; ULCI = upper limit in 95% conﬁdence interval. Bootstrap sample size = 5000; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 (2-tailed). Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 22 cant relationship between coercive pressures and MSR behavior exists (p > 0.05). In addi- tion, normative pressures are insignificantly related to MSR behavior (p > 0.05). Hence, H1 and H3 are unsupported. The mediation test for relational behavior was performed. The indirect effect is sig- nificant if no zero is included in the 95% confidence interval (CI). The lower part of Table 5 shows that the indirect effect of normative pressure on MSR behavior through relational Buildings 2021, 11, 140 14 of 21 behavior (H4c: β = 0.078) based on 5000 bootstrap samples is estimated to lie between 0.007–0.167 with 95% confidence interval. Similarly, the bias-corrected bootstrap confi- dence interval for the indirect effects of coercive pressure and mimetic pressure both in- clude zero. Hence, H4c is supported, but H4a and H4b are not supported. Figure 2. Theoretical model of institutional pressure on MSR behavior with relational behavior. Figure 2. Theoretical model of institutional pressure on MSR behavior with relational behavior The mediation test for relational behavior was performed. The indirect effect is Table 5. Summary of Model 4. signiﬁcant if no zero is included in the 95% conﬁdence interval (CI). The lower part of Table 5 shows that the indirect effect of normative pressure on MSR behavior through Path Coefficient relational behavior (H4c: = 0.078) based on 5000 bootstrap samples is estimated to lie RB MSR behavior between 0.007–0.167 with 95% conﬁdence interval. Similarly, the bias-corrected bootstrap Bootstrap 95%CI Bootstrap 95%CI Variable β Boot SE conﬁdence t interval for the indirect effectsβof Boot coerciveSE pressur e andt mimetic pressure both LLCI ULCI LLCI ULCI include zero. Hence, H4c is supported, but H4a and H4b are not supported. CP 0.092 0.148 0.763 −0.214 0.375 0.18 0.096 1.568 −0.067 0.311 Next, H5 was tested for whether pure altruistic values interact with three kinds of insti- MP 0.184 0.111 1.777 −0.04 0.399 0.22 0.085 2.191 * 0.007 0.345 tutional pressures in predicting MSR behavior, by entering the interaction terms of pure al- NP 0.392 0.118 3.382 ** 0.182 0.641 0.171 0.083 1.482 −0.021 0.304 truistic values with each institutional pressure respectively. Thereby, to test the moderation RB 0.198 0.063 2.49 * 0.019 0.264 effects (H5), the PROCESS (Model 5) was performed. As shown in Table 6, pure altruistic R 0. values have385a positively moderating effect on the relationship0. between44 MSR behavior and three kinds of institutional pressures, including coercive (Unstand.coeff. = 0.187, p < 0.001), F (df) 30.223(3, 145)*** 28.277(4, 144) *** mimetic (Unstand.coeff. = 0.191, p < 0.01), and normative pressures (Unstand.coeff. = 0.182, Indirect effect of Predictor on MSR behavior through relational behavior p < 0.01). Therefore, H5a, H5b, and H5c are supported. The outcomes of the moderating Predictor Bootstrapped indirect effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI effect between MSR behavior and institutional pressures on pure altruistic values are CP 0.018 0.033 −0.044 0.093 presented in Figure 3. MP 0.037 0.024 −0.009 0.085 NP 0.078 0.041 0.007 0.167 Table 6. Results of Moderation Analyses. Note: Standardized regression coefficients are reported. CP = coercive pressures; MP = mimetic pressures; NP = normative pressures. LLCI = lower limit in 95% confidence interval; ULCI = upper limit in 95% confidence interval. Bootstrap sample Unstand.coeff. se t LLCI ULCI DR2 size = 5000; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 (2-tailed). CP*PV 0.187 0.047 4.007 *** 0.095 0.279 0.057 *** MP*PV 0.191 0.057 3.373 ** 0.079 0.303 0.041 ** Next, H5 was tested for whether pure altruistic values interact with three kinds of NP*PV 0.182 0.054 3.393 ** 0.076 0.289 0.042 ** institutional pressures in predicting MSR behavior, by entering the interaction terms of Note: Unstand.coeff. = unstandardized coefﬁcient; PV = pure altruistic values; ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. To further explore the moderating effect, we investigated the direct effect of the three kinds of institutional pressures on MSR behavior at three values of pure altruistic values, i.e., at the low-, at the mean-, and at the high-level PV. The impact of coercive pressures on MSR behavior is signiﬁcant in the high-and mean-PV groups and was stronger in the high-PV group (see Table 7). In low-level PV, the direct impact of coercive pressures was insigniﬁcant. The impact of mimetic pressures on MSR behavior was signiﬁcant in the high-and mean-level PV groups and was stronger in the high-level PV group (see Table 7). In the low-level PV, the direct impact of mimetic pressures was insigniﬁcant. The impact of Buildings 2021, 11, 140 15 of 21 normative pressures on MSR behavior was signiﬁcant in high-level PV groups and was stronger in the high-PV group (see Table 7). In low- and mean-level PV, the direct impact Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22 of normative pressures was insigniﬁcant. Figure 3. Moderating effect of PV on the relationship between institutional pressures and MSR behavior. Figure 3. Moderating effect of PV on the relationship between institutional pressures and MSR behavior. Table 7. Effects of institutional pressures on MSR behavior at different levels of pure altruistic values. 5. Discussions Institutional Pressures Level Effect SE t Different types of institutional pressure affect MSR behavior distinctly. Coercive low PV 0.065 0.084 0.774 pressure does not significantly affect MSR behavior, which differs from expected results. CP mean PV 0.182 0.082 2.213 * However, this result is similar to the result that coercive pressure has no significant impact high PV 0.274 0.088 3.104 ** on organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment in megaprojects [23]. One low PV 0.091 0.086 1.061 possible explanation is that because megaprojects are often led by the government, and MP mean PV 0.211 0.082 2.592 * mandatory pressure is often related to government supervision, which makes the govern- high PV 0.305 0.088 3.453 ** ment play the role of an athlete and a referee. This situation is likely to reduce the impact low PV 0.005 0.089 0.051 mean PV 0.119 0.081 1.461 NP of coercive pressure on MSR behavior. high PV 0.209 0.085 2.451 * Mimetic pressure can facilitate MSR behavior, and its path coefficient is 0.22. Com- Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, (2-tailed). pared with general projects, replicating previous experiences of megaprojects is difficult due to their uniqueness and one-off nature [98], and megaprojects are characterized by 5. Discussions huge risks and complexity [99]. Thus, imitating other organizations with good practice on Different types of institutional pressure affect MSR behavior distinctly. Coercive MSR can help a company manage the complex environment in megaprojects more easily. pressure does not signiﬁcantly affect MSR behavior, which differs from expected results. Mimetic pressure formed by conducting oneself in an exemplary way is important, be- However, this result is similar to the result that coercive pressure has no signiﬁcant impact cause the phenomenon wherein managers only have verbal promises but no substantive on organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment in megaprojects [23]. One actions often occur [100]. Normative pressure significantly affects MSR behavior, which possible explanation is that because megaprojects are often led by the government, and also differs from expected results. The reason may be that normative pressure involves mandatory pressure is often related to government supervision, which makes the govern- social cognition of behavior, and social norms alone are not enough to affect MSR behav- ment play the role of an athlete and a referee. This situation is likely to reduce the impact ior. Therefore, the influence of normative pressure on MSR behavior must be further ex- of coercive pressure on MSR behavior. amined through relational behavior. The results confirm part of the mediating role of relational behavior. Although meg- aprojects are temporary organizations, the influence of the relationship between partici- pating parties cannot be ignored. The results show that normative pressure significantly and positively impacts MSR behavior through relational behavior. This finding provides a certain explanation for how institutional pressure spreads in the organization. This may Buildings 2021, 11, 140 16 of 21 Mimetic pressure can facilitate MSR behavior, and its path coefﬁcient is 0.22. Com- pared with general projects, replicating previous experiences of megaprojects is difﬁcult due to their uniqueness and one-off nature [98], and megaprojects are characterized by huge risks and complexity [99]. Thus, imitating other organizations with good practice on MSR can help a company manage the complex environment in megaprojects more easily. Mimetic pressure formed by conducting oneself in an exemplary way is important, because the phenomenon wherein managers only have verbal promises but no substantive actions often occur [100]. Normative pressure signiﬁcantly affects MSR behavior, which also differs from expected results. The reason may be that normative pressure involves social cognition of behavior, and social norms alone are not enough to affect MSR behavior. Therefore, the inﬂuence of normative pressure on MSR behavior must be further examined through relational behavior. The results conﬁrm part of the mediating role of relational behavior. Although megaprojects are temporary organizations, the inﬂuence of the relationship between partic- ipating parties cannot be ignored. The results show that normative pressure signiﬁcantly and positively impacts MSR behavior through relational behavior. This ﬁnding provides a certain explanation for how institutional pressure spreads in the organization. This may be because the normative pressure is caused by related organizations (for example, industry associations and consulting companies) that will conduct publicity and education through formal education and professional networks to gradually develop a common view on things [101]. Moreover, relational behavior includes the dimensions of information sharing, and relational behavior can improve relationship quality [27]. With the relational behavior among members of the organization, normative pressure is diffused in the process of member interaction. This study validated the moderating effect of pure altruistic values. The results indi- cate that at the high altruistic values, the three types of institutional pressure signiﬁcantly affect MSR behavior. The degree of inﬂuence in descending order is mimetic, coercive, and normative pressures. The moderating effect may be because for a strong altruistic practitioner, taking MSR behavior is consistent with his/her personal values and can meet his/her own identity needs. Therefore, any external pressure can facilitate it to conduct MSR behavior. 5.1. Theoretical Contributions First, this study expands existing MSR research and promotes the ongoing research on institutional pressures and values as driving factors. Although previous research uncovered that institutional pressure is an important factor in MSR behavior [24], it failed to explore the impact of different types of institutional pressure on MSR behavior. The empirical results unveil that mimetic pressure positively affects MSR behavior, whereas coercive and normative pressures do not signiﬁcantly affect MSR behavior. Therefore, this study provides new insights into the antecedents of MSR behavior, which are related to decision makers concerning MSR behavior. Regarding values, a value–action gap in socially responsible behavior (e.g., waste recycling, environmental action [102]) was found. A possible reason for a gap is that it does not consider the constraints of culture, institution, and structure on people’s actions [103]. The fact that values cannot directly affect behavior has also appeared in this study (see Table 5); however, this study uses pure altruistic values as a moderating item for further research. The results unveil that altruistic values can positively moderate the impact of the three types of institutional pressures on MSR behavior. Therefore, this study provides new insights into the value–action gap problem. Second, this research ﬁlls in the research gap by integrating the altruistic values of managers and relational behaviors into the model of the inﬂuence of external institutional pressures on MSR behavior to achieve the research goals. The introduction of relational behavior is to explain the mechanism of how institutional pressure affects MSR behavior. The results indicate that relational behavior mediates mimetic pressure and MSR behavior. The result of the moderating effect reveals the inﬂuence of the interaction of managers’ altruistic Buildings 2021, 11, 140 17 of 21 values and institutional pressure on MSR behavior. The results uncover that MSR behavior is affected by internal and external factors. The synergy between internal and external factors can better promote MSR behavior. 5.2. Practical Implications These ﬁndings provide project managers and decision makers with practical advice on motivating MSR behavior and governance. The results reveal that pure altruistic values can positively moderate the impact of the three institutional pressures on MSR behavior and promote the fulﬁllment of MSR behavior, which would promote the sustainable delivery in megaprojects. For the internal and external factors to coincide, an effective MSR behavior governance strategy must be designed and established. First, practitioners should be trained to have a sense of mission and pride in participating in megaprojects from a historical perspective to improve their altruistic values level, thereby promoting the implementation of MSR behavior. For example, to create sublime sustainability and brand it [104], and take advantage of the special symbolism of megaprojects to build an altruistic organizational culture [29]. Second, policymakers should formulate effective institutional arrangements or policies to increase various institutional pressures. For example, timely and continuous project information disclosure [17], and organizing regular communication activities with peer projects [23]. Third, different stakeholders should be encouraged to strengthen cooperation, and participating parties should seek to establish a blameless and win-win culture [105], promoting the relational behavior. 6. Conclusions This paper is an exploratory study in the ﬁeld of MSR. Public incidents caused by the lack of social responsibility in megaprojects exert a heavy negative impact on the local community and the natural environment [10]. Therefore, MSR behavior must be studied to achieve the sustainable delivery of megaprojects. In megaprojects, institutional pressure is an important factor affecting MSR behavior [24]. However, how institutional pressure affects MSR behavior in megaproject environments remains unclear. Thus, this study estab- lished a model on the basis of institutional theory to test ﬁve hypotheses with institutional pressures as predictors, relational behaviors as mediator, altruistic values as moderator, and MSR behavior as the outcome. Then, we collected a sample of 149 megaprojects participants in China and analyzed them using PLS-SEM and PROCESS. The results reveal that MSR behavior is driven by mimetic pressure and relational behavior, while relational behavior only mediates normative pressure. Coercive and mimetic pressures do not signiﬁcantly impact MSR behavior through relational behavior. Second, coercive and normative pressures will not directly affect MSR behavior. In addition, the moderating role of altruistic values is particularly important. Altruistic values can actively moderate the relationship between the three types of institutional pressures and MSR behavior, especially at the high level of altruistic values. These ﬁndings provide a theoretical contribution to previous studies and managerial implications. This study has two limitations that must be resolved in future work. The ﬁrst is to use a cross-sectional survey method. The survey ignores the dynamics of MSR behavior during the entire megaproject life cycle. During this period, the types and importance of social responsibility issues concerned by various stakeholders are changing. The behavioral goals of MSR will also alter accordingly. Future research should consider longitudinal analysis to understand how MSR behavior evolves over time. Second, this study only collected data from megaprojects in China. Given the differences in regional economic development and cultural backgrounds, different countries and regions deal with social responsibility issues distinctly. Therefore, the sampling method may also affect the robustness of the survey results, and future research must verify the robustness. Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10 .3390/buildings11040140/s1. The ﬁle, titled “Cross loading,” is the result of comparison between items’ factor loading and cross loading. Buildings 2021, 11, 140 18 of 21 Author Contributions: Resources, L.X.; data curation and formal analysis, T.J.; writing—original draft, T.J.; writing—review and editing, L.X. and B.X.; project administration, L.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 71871096. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Acknowledgments: The authors wish to express gratitude to the National Natural Science Founda- tion of China (Grant No. 71871096) for ﬁnancial support on this research. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. References 1. Li, Y.; Lu, Y.; Taylor, J.E.; Han, Y. Bibliographic and comparative analyses to explore emerging classic texts in megaproject management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 342–361. [CrossRef] 2. Flyvbjerg, B. What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Proj. Manag. J. 2014, 45, 6–19. [CrossRef] 3. He, Q.; Wang, T.; Chan, A.P.C.; Xu, J. Developing a List of Key Performance Indictors for Benchmarking the Success of Construction Megaprojects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 4020164. [CrossRef] 4. Wang, G.; Locatelli, G.; Wan, J.; Li, Y.; Le, Y. Governing behavioral integration of top management team in megaprojects: A social capital perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2020. [CrossRef] 5. Zhou, Z.; Zhou, X.; Qian, L. Online Public Opinion Analysis on Infrastructure Megaprojects: Toward an Analytical Framework. J. Manag. Eng. 2021, 37, 4020105. [CrossRef] 6. Wang, G.; Wu, P.; Wu, X.; Zhang, H.; Guo, Q.; Cai, Y. Mapping global research on sustainability of megaproject management: A scientometric review. J. Clean Prod. 2020, 259, 120831. [CrossRef] 7. Lin, H.; Sui, Y.; Ma, H.; Wang, L.; Zeng, S.X. CEO narcissism, public concern, and megaproject social responsibility: A moderated mediating examination. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 4018018. [CrossRef] 8. Gil, N.; Beckman, S. Introduction: Infrastructure meets business: Building new bridges, mending old ones. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2009, 51, 6–29. [CrossRef] 9. Stone, R. China’s environmental challenges. Three Gorges Dam: Into the unknown. Science 2008, 321, 628. [CrossRef] 10. Zeng, S.X.; Ma, H.Y.; Lin, H.; Zeng, R.C.; Tam, V.W.Y. Social responsibility of major infrastructure projects in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 537–548. [CrossRef] 11. He, Q.; Chen, X.; Wang, G.; Zhu, J.; Li, Y. Managing social responsibility for sustainability in megaprojects: An innovation transitions perspective on success. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118395. [CrossRef] 12. Meyer, J.W.; Rowan, B. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. Am. J. Sociol. 1977, 83, 340–363. [CrossRef] 13. Suchman, M.C. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 571–610. [CrossRef] 14. Barrena Martínez, J.; López Fernández, M.; Romero Fernández, P.M. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution through institu- tional and stakeholder perspectives. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2016, 25, 8–14. [CrossRef] 15. Campbell, J.L. Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Responsible Ways? An Institutional Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 946–967. [CrossRef] 16. Neubaum, D.O.; Zahra, S.A. Institutional ownership and corporate social performance: The moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination. J. Manag. 2006, 32, 108–131. [CrossRef] 17. Ma, H.; Zeng, S.; Lin, H.; Chen, H.; Shi, J.J. The societal governance of megaproject social responsibility. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1365–1377. [CrossRef] 18. Qiu, Y.; Chen, H.; Sheng, Z.; Cheng, S. Governance of institutional complexity in megaproject organizations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 425–443. [CrossRef] 19. Biesenthal, C.; Clegg, S.; Mahalingam, A.; Sankaran, S. Applying institutional theories to managing megaprojects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 43–54. [CrossRef] 20. Scott, W.R. The institutional environment of global project organizations. Eng. Proj. Organ. J. 2012, 2, 27–35. [CrossRef] 21. Dimitriou, H.T.; Harman, R.; Ward, E.J. Incorporating principles of sustainable development within the design and delivery of major projects: An International study with particular reference to major infrastructure projects. In OMEGA Centre; University College London: London, UK, 2010. 22. Wang, G.; He, Q.; Meng, X.; Locatelli, G.; Yu, T.; Yan, X. Exploring the impact of megaproject environmental responsibility on organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment: A social identity perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1402–1414. [CrossRef] Buildings 2021, 11, 140 19 of 21 23. Wang, G.; He, Q.; Xia, B.; Meng, X.; Wu, P. Impact of Institutional Pressures on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors for the Environment: Evidence from Megaprojects. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 4018028. [CrossRef] 24. Xie, L.; Han, T.; Chu, H.; Xia, B. Behavior Selection of Stakeholders toward Megaproject Social Responsibility: Perspective from Social Action Theory. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 1–14. [CrossRef] 25. DiMaggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 147–160. [CrossRef] 26. Morris, P. Reconstructing Project Management Reprised: A Knowledge Perspective. Proj. Manag. J. 2013, 44, 6–23. [CrossRef] 27. Zheng, X.; Lu, Y.; Le, Y.; Li, Y.; Fang, J. Formation of Interorganizational Relational Behavior in Megaprojects: Perspective of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 4017052. [CrossRef] 28. Li, N.; Kirkman, B.L.; Porter, C.O. Toward a model of work team altruism. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2014, 39, 541–565. [CrossRef] 29. Xing, X.; Chalip, L. Marching in the glory: Experiences and meanings when working for a sport mega-event. J. Sport Manag. 2009, 23, 210–237. [CrossRef] 30. Yang, D.; He, Q.; Cui, Q.; Hsu, S. Non-economic motivations for organizational citizenship behavior in construction megaprojects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2020, 38, 64–74. [CrossRef] 31. Denicol, J.; Davies, A.; Krystallis, I. What Are the Causes and Cures of Poor Megaproject Performance? A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Proj. Manag. J. 2020, 51, 328–345. [CrossRef] 32. Ning, Y.; Ling, F.Y.Y. Boosting public construction project outcomes through relational transactions. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, 4013037. [CrossRef] 33. Heide, J.B.; John, G. Do norms matter in marketing relationships? J. Mark. 1992, 56, 32–44. [CrossRef] 34. Adami, V.S.; Verschoore, J.R.; Junior, J.A.V.A. Effect of Relational Characteristics on Management of Wind Farm Interorganizational Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 5018019. [CrossRef] 35. Wang, D.; Fang, S.; Fu, H. Impact of control and trust on megaproject success: The mediating role of social exchange norms. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, e4850921. [CrossRef] 36. Li, S.X.; Yao, X.; Sue-Chan, C.; Xi, Y. Where Do Social Ties Come From: Institutional Framework and Governmental Tie Distribution among Chinese Managers. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2011, 7, 97–124. [CrossRef] 37. Marn, L.; Rubio, A.; Maya, S.R.D. Competitiveness as a Strategic Outcome of Corporate Social Responsibility. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2012, 19, 364–376. [CrossRef] 38. Hoffman, A.J. Linking organizational and ﬁeld-level analyses: The diffusion of corporate environmental practice. Organ. Environ. 2001, 14, 133–156. [CrossRef] 39. David, P.; Hillman, B.A.J. Investor Activism, Managerial Responsiveness, and Corporate Social Performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 91–100. [CrossRef] 40. Julian, S.D.; Ofori-Dankwa, J.C.; Justis, R.T. Understanding strategic responses to interest group pressures. Strateg. Manag. J. 2008, 29, 963–984. [CrossRef] 41. Hambrick, D.C.; Mason, P.A. Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reﬂection of Its Top Managers. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1984, 9, 193–206. [CrossRef] 42. Lin, H.; Zeng, S.; Ma, H.; Chen, H. Does commitment to environmental self-regulation matter? An empirical examination from China. Manag. Decis. 2015, 53, 932–956. [CrossRef] 43. Zhang, B.; Wang, Z.; Lai, K. Mediating effect of managers’ environmental concern: Bridge between external pressures and ﬁrms’ practices of energy conservation in China. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 43, 203–215. [CrossRef] 44. Li, Y.; Lu, Y.; Cui, Q.; Han, Y. Organizational behavior in megaprojects: Integrative review and directions for future research. J. Manag. Eng. 2019, 35, 4019009. [CrossRef] 45. Zhai, Z.; Ahola, T.; Le, Y.; Xie, J. Governmental governance of megaprojects: The case of EXPO 2010 Shanghai. Proj. Manag. J. 2017, 48, 37–50. [CrossRef] 46. Xiao, Y. Protection of Chinese White Dolphins during the Construction and Operation Periods of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. China Fish. 2020, 1, 57–59, In Chinese. 47. Wang, Y.; Han, Q.; de Vries, B.; Zuo, J. How the public reacts to social impacts in construction projects? A structural equation modeling study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1433–1448. [CrossRef] 48. Chang, R.; Zuo, J.; Soebarto, V.; Zhao, Z.; Zillante, G.; Gan, X. Sustainability transition of the Chinese construction industry: Practices and behaviors of the leading construction ﬁrms. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 32, 5016009. [CrossRef] 49. Lee, C.; Won, J.W.; Jang, W.; Jung, W.; Han, S.H.; Kwak, Y.H. Social conﬂict management framework for project viability: Case studies from Korean megaprojects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1683–1696. [CrossRef] 50. Mok, K.Y.; Shen, G.Q.; Yang, J. Stakeholder management studies in mega construction projects: A review and future directions. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 446–457. [CrossRef] 51. Mahalingam, A.; Levitt, R.E. Safety Issues on Global Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2007, 133, 506–516. [CrossRef] 52. Zhou, Z.; Mi, C. Social responsibility research within the context of megaproject management: Trends, gaps and opportunities. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1378–1390. [CrossRef] 53. Boateng, P.; Chen, Z.; Ogunlana, S.O. An Analytical Network Process model for risks prioritisation in megaprojects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1795–1811. [CrossRef] Buildings 2021, 11, 140 20 of 21 54. Dyer, R. Cultural sense-making integration into risk mitigation strategies towards megaproject success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1338–1349. [CrossRef] 55. Qian, W.; Burritt, R. The Development of Environmental Management Accounting: An Institutional View. In Environmental Management Accounting for Cleaner Production; Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R.L., Jasch, C., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 233–248. 56. Brocke, J.V.; Lippe, S. Managing collaborative research projects: A synthesis of project management literature and directives for future research. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1022–1039. [CrossRef] 57. Yang, D.; He, Q.; Cui, Q.; Hsu, S.C. Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Construction Megaprojects. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018017. [CrossRef] 58. Cheung, S.O.; Yiu, T.W.; Lam, M.C. Interweaving trust and communication with project performance. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 941–950. [CrossRef] 59. Hewett, K.; Bearden, W.O. Dependence, Trust, and Relational Behavior on the Part of Foreign Subsidiary Marketing Operations: Implications for Managing Global Marketing Operations. J. Mark. 2001, 65, 51–66. [CrossRef] 60. Chi, C.S.; Ruuska, I.; Levitt, R.; Ahola, T.; Artto, K. A relational Governance Approach for Megaprojects: Case Studies of Beijing T3 and bird’s Nest Projects in China. In Proceedings of the Engineering Project Organizations Conference, Estes Park, CO, USA, 11 September 2011. 61. Lusch, R.F.; Brown, J.R. Interdependency, Contracting, and Relational Behavior in Marketing Channels. J. Mark. 1996, 60, 19–38. [CrossRef] 62. Gundlach, G.T.; Achrol, R.S.; Mentzer, J.T. The Structure of Commitment in Exchange. J. Mark. 1995, 59, 78–92. [CrossRef] 63. Izogo, E.E. Should relationship quality be measured as a disaggregated or a composite construct? Manag. Res. Rev. 2016, 39, 115–131. [CrossRef] 64. Paulraj, A.; Lado, A.A.; Chen, I.J. Inter-organizational communication as a relational competency: Antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative buyer–supplier relationships. J. Oper. Manag. 2008, 26, 45–64. [CrossRef] 65. Achrol, R.S. Changes in the Theory of Interorganizational Relations in Marketing: Toward a Network Paradigm. J. Acad. Market Sci. 1996, 25, 56–71. [CrossRef] 66. Mathew, S.K.; Chen, Y. Achieving offshore software development success: An empirical analysis of risk mitigation through relational norms. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2013, 22, 298–314. [CrossRef] 67. Sprinkle, G.B.; Maines, L.A. The beneﬁts and costs of corporate social responsibility. Bus. Horiz. 2010, 53, 445–453. [CrossRef] 68. Alotaibi, A.; Edum-Fotwe, F.; Price, A.D. Critical barriers to social responsibility implementation within mega-construction projects: The case of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1755. [CrossRef] 69. Phua, F.T.T. When is construction partnering likely to happen? An empirical examination of the role of institutional norms. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006, 24, 615–624. [CrossRef] 70. Collins, J.D.; Hitt, M.A. Leveraging tacit knowledge in alliances: The importance of using relational capabilities to build and leverage relational capital. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2006, 23, 147–167. [CrossRef] 71. Ning, Y. Quantitative effects of drivers and barriers on networking strategies in public construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 286–297. [CrossRef] 72. Brass, D.J.; Butterﬁeld, K.D.; Skaggs, B.C. Relationships and Unethical Behavior: A Social Network Perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 14–31. [CrossRef] 73. Georgel, J.M.; Jones, G.R. Experiencing work: Values, attitudes, and moods. Hum. Relat. 1997, 50, 393–416. [CrossRef] 74. Heugens, P.P.M.A.; Kaptein, M.; Oosterhout, J.V. Contracts to Communities: A Processual Model of Organizational Virtue. J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 45, 100–121. [CrossRef] 75. Aguilera, R.V.; Rupp, D.E.; Williams, C.A.; Ganapathi, J. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 836–863. [CrossRef] 76. Tian, Q.; Liu, Y.; Fan, J. The effects of external stakeholder pressure and ethical leadership on corporate social responsibility in China. J. Manag. Organ. 2015, 21, 388–410. [CrossRef] 77. Tolmie, C.R.; Lehnert, K.; Zhao, H. Formal and informal institutional pressures on corporate social responsibility: A cross-country analysis. Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 786–802. [CrossRef] 78. Li, Y.; Lu, Y.; Ma, L.; Kwak, Y.H. Evolutionary Governance for Mega-Event Projects (MEPs): A Case Study of the World Expo 2010 in China. Proj. Manag. J. 2018, 49, 57–78. [CrossRef] 79. Soyez, K. How national cultural values affect pro-environmental consumer behavior. Int. Market Rev. 2012, 29, 623–646. [CrossRef] 80. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6, 81–97. 81. Ping, P.F.; Tsui, A.S.; Li, J.L.A.L. Pursuit of Whose Happiness? Executive Leaders’ Transformational Behaviors and Personal Values. Admin. Sci. Quart. 2010, 55, 222–254. 82. Li, X.; Liang, X. A Confucian social model of political appointments among Chinese private-ﬁrm entrepreneurs. Acad. Manag. J. 2015, 58, 592–617. [CrossRef] 83. Liobikiene, ˙ G.; Juknys, R. The role of values, environmental risk perception, awareness of consequences, and willingness to assume responsibility for environmentally-friendly behaviour: The Lithuanian case. J. Clean Prod. 2016, 112, 3413–3422. [CrossRef] 84. Baruch, Y. Response Rate in Academic Studies—A Comparative Analysis. Hum. Relat. 1999, 52, 421–438. [CrossRef] Buildings 2021, 11, 140 21 of 21 85. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879. [CrossRef] 86. Hu, Y.; Chan, A.P.C.; Le, Y.; Jin, R. From Construction Megaproject Management to Complex Project Management: Bibliographic Analysis. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 4014052. [CrossRef] 87. Ansar, A.; Flyvbjerg, B.; Budzier, A.; Lunn, D. Does infrastructure investment lead to economic growth or economic fragility? Evidence from China. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Pol. 2016, 32, 360–390. [CrossRef] 88. Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [CrossRef] 89. Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T.S. Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. J. Mark. Res. 1977, 14, 396–402. [CrossRef] 90. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [CrossRef] 91. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; The Guildford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. 92. Hayes, A.F. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium. Commun. Monogr. 2009, 76, 408–420. [CrossRef] 93. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016. 94. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef] 95. Chiu, C.; Wang, E.T.G.; Fang, Y.; Huang, H. Understanding customers’ repeat purchase intentions in B2C e-commerce: The roles of utilitarian value, hedonic value and perceived risk. Inform. Syst. J. 2014, 24, 85–114. [CrossRef] 96. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998, 295, 295–336. 97. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 2004, 36, 717–731. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 98. Van Marrewijk, A. The Multivocality of Symbols: A Longitudinal Study of the Symbolic Dimensions of the High-Speed Train Megaproject (1995–2015). Proj. Manag. J. 2017, 48, 47–59. [CrossRef] 99. Kardes, I.; Ozturk, A.; Cavusgil, S.T.; Cavusgil, E. Managing global megaprojects: Complexity and risk management. Int. Bus. Rev. 2013, 22, 905–917. [CrossRef] 100. Boiral, O.; Talbot, D.; Paillé, P. Leading by Example: A Model of Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2015, 24, 532–550. [CrossRef] 101. Zhang, Y.; Wei, Y.; Zhou, G. Promoting ﬁrms’ energy-saving behavior: The role of institutional pressures, top management support and ﬁnancial slack. Energy Policy 2018, 115, 230–238. [CrossRef] 102. Barr, S. Environmental Action in the Home: Investigating the ‘Value-Action’ Gap. Geography 2006, 91, 43–54. [CrossRef] 103. Blake, J. Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environ. 1999, 4, 257–278. [CrossRef] 104. Sankaran, S.; Müller, R.; Drouin, N. Creating a ‘sustainability sublime’ to enable megaprojects to meet the United Nations sustainable development goals. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2020, 37, 813–826. 105. Suprapto, M.; Bakker, H.L.M.; Mooi, H.G.; Moree, W. Sorting out the essence of owner-contractor collaboration in capital project delivery. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 664–683. [CrossRef]

http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Buildings Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/institutional-pressures-and-megaproject-social-responsibility-behavior-z0MgTWlBLA

Institutional Pressures and Megaproject Social Responsibility Behavior: A Conditional Process Model

Loading next page...

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright: © 1996-2021 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN: 2075-5309
DOI: 10.3390/buildings11040140
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Journal

Buildings – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Mar 31, 2021

Keywords: megaproject social responsibility; institutional pressures; relational behavior; altruistic values

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Institutional Pressures and Megaproject Social Responsibility Behavior: A Conditional Process Model

Institutional Pressures and Megaproject Social Responsibility Behavior: A Conditional Process Model

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Institutional Pressures and Megaproject Social Responsibility Behavior: A Conditional Process Model

Institutional Pressures and Megaproject Social Responsibility Behavior: A Conditional Process Model

References

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies