ABSTRACT Organizational resilience is key for tourism companies in coping with crises; however, little is known about how tourism companies can become more resilient. Furthermore, much of

the empirical evidence in the extant literature comes from developed countries. The study identifies key factors affecting organizational resilience based on a

“resource–capacity-relationship” theoretical framework, incorporating the number of COVID-19 cases as an external factor in the stress-state-response (PSR) model, with the epidemic as

pressure, corporate governance, and redundant resources as the enterprise state, and CSR performance as the response. The fsQCA method was used to analyse the interaction and joint effects

under low epidemic pressure, resource deployment and CSR driven under low financial risk and CSR driven under low financial risk. Of these, CSR at the response level as a core condition is

key to developing high organizational resilience. (2) Corporate governance capabilities play a high role in fostering organizational resilience under epidemic pressure and can compensate for

organizational deficiencies in resources and relationships. (3) Under specific objective endowment conditions, unabsorbed redundant resources and absorbed redundant resources can substitute

to some extent for deficiencies in capabilities and relationships. (4) The low organizational resilience configurations suggest that potentially redundant resources may be the key to low

organizational resilience. CSR is not the ‘golden key’ to organizational resilience but is influenced by redundant resources. Furthermore, the key variables affecting organizational

resilience were significant during the studied period. The research provides a theoretical reference and practical guidance for the sustainable development of tourism enterprises in the

context of major public health crises. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS A CONTINGENT VALUE OF BRICOLAGE STRATEGY ON SMES’ ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE: LESSONS FROM THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Article Open access 13 February 2024 THE ROLE OF ESG PERFORMANCE DURING TIMES OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC Article Open access 31 January 2024 FROM COMMITMENT TO ACTION: UNRAVELING THE PATHWAYS FROM

TOP MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY IN THE CHINESE BANKING SECTOR Article Open access 03 December 2024 INTRODUCTION As an important component of the global economy

(Nooripoor et al., 2021), tourism contributes significantly to the economic development of all regions (Glowka and Zehrer, 2019). Tourism is a highly competitive, risky, leveraged and

capital-intensive industry (Singal, 2015). Furthermore, it is inherently vulnerable to various types of crises (Hu and Xu, 2022), especially regional epidemics (Butler, 2020; Duro et al.,

2021; Hall et al., 2021). Crises and disasters always damage tourism (Breitsohl and Garrod, 2016). Thus, “tourism resilience” has been an important theme in tourism research since before the

COVID-19 pandemic (Arrowsmith and Inbakaran, 2002; Calgaro and Lloyd, 2008; Strickland-Munro et al., 2010; Lew, 2014; Cheer and Lew, 2017). In the last 2 years or so, the global tourism

industry has been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic (Škare et al., 2021), and the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and tourism provides a realistic perspective for exploring the

resilience of the tourism industry (Utkarsh, 2021; Yang et al., 2021), encouraging tourism scholars and practitioners to think about the ways in which the industry can recover quickly (Yeh,

2020) and the direction of tourism development in the postpandemic era (Yang et al., 2021). COVID-19 was first detected in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in December 2019. The continued

spread of the epidemic has had a huge social and economic impact, and the tourism industry has suffered a huge impact. The hotel industry in China, for example, suffered a loss of

approximately US$9.57 billion during January and February, with occupancy dropping to close to 10% (Becker, 2020). However, through multiple pandemic control campaigns, the government gained

effective control of the crisis by March 13, 2020 (Xinhua Net, 2020), when 87% of hotels reopened (Smith Travel Research, 2020). While many travel companies have struggled with the effects

of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, some have managed to cope with the situation with aplomb. What are the factors that influence and determine the fate of tourism companies? Faced with the

risks and challenges brought about by environmental uncertainty, only resilient companies can actively adapt to changes, survive the crisis and achieve sustainable growth (Zhang et al.,

2020). The COVID-19 pandemic outbreak demonstrated the importance of tourism resilience research and provided a real stress test for researchers and practitioners on how to improve tourism

resilience and cope with a terrible crisis (Hu and Xu, 2022). The way in which tourism survived the outbreak and recovered quickly has become a major concern for researchers and

practitioners alike. The concept of resilience has seen a proliferation of different definitions, of which one of the most utilized is the one provided by the United Nations Office for

Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR, 2002). It defines resilience as “the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and

recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner”. Crisis and risk are key scenarios for measuring resilience in tourism, and crisis management has been regarded as a

means of improving resilience in tourism (Filimonau and De Coteau, 2020; Lew, 2014; Paraskevas et al., 2013; Prayag, 2018). In terms of research on resilience management in tourism

organizations, risk and crisis assessment, crisis response and crisis recovery are important components of tourism resilience management. Paraskevas and Quek (2019) proposed a five-stage

resilience management framework for tourism organizations, which includes sensing the risk landscape, risk assignment, risk treatment, crisis response, and crisis recovery. Considering

tourism resilience management in the context of the pandemic, Kuščer et al. (2021) divided the process into three stages: the response phase, the recovery phase, and the restart phase. These

resilience management frameworks provide a theoretically complete explanation of the process of managing resilience in tourism organizations, but little is known about how to foster

organizational resilience. The aim of this paper is to develop a complete framework for analysing organizational resilience in tourism enterprises applicable to crisis scenarios, dividing

organizational resilience cultivation into three processes: stress-state-response (PSR) and highlighting the analysis of the impact of changes in the epidemic on organizational resilience.

From a meso-scale study of tourism organizational resilience. Research on themes related to organizational resilience has been conducted by scholars based primarily on resource, capacity,

and relationship perspectives. The resource perspective focuses on the impact of a firm’s resource base on organizational resilience, such as material resources (R. Toubes et al., 2020),

including human capital (Barasa et al., 2018; Biggs et al., 2015), cash holdings (Wieczorek-Kosmala, 2022) and intangible resources such as organizational culture (Brown et al., 2017; Barasa

et al., 2018). The capabilities perspective explores how core corporate capabilities are drivers of organizational resilience, such as innovation capabilities (R. Toubes et al., 2020) and

corporate governance capabilities such as governance processes (Barasa et al., 2018) and leadership practices (Barasa et al., 2018; R. Toubes et al., 2020). The relationship perspective

explores the role of a firm’s relationships with internal and external stakeholders on organizational resilience, such as social capital (Brown et al., 2017; Chowdhury et al., 2018) and

corporate social responsibility (Torres et al., 2001). Research on the joint role of capabilities, resources, and relationships on organizational resilience has found that corporate social

responsibility (CSR) and corporate governance have different effects on firm value in times of uncertainty (Jiang et al., 2019). Borghesi et al. (2019) argued that while CSR behaviour plays

a key role in enhancing organizational resilience as a reservoir of social capital, corporate governance may limit the ability to perform in response to economic crises. The above studies

have enriched and deepened the understanding of organizational resilience, but there are still three shortcomings. First, in terms of the theoretical framework, most of the existing studies

focus on individual theoretical perspectives, neglecting the integration of theoretical perspectives, which is not conducive to identifying the key conditions for the formation of

organizational resilience (Shan et al., 2021). Second, in terms of research methodology, most of the existing studies focus on the “net effect” of individual variables without identifying

the “joint effect” of multiple variables, whereas the formation of high organizational resilience is not the result of individual factors but the result of the combined effect of multiple

dimensions (Zhang et al., 2021). Traditional regression analysis cannot explain this causal complexity problem well (Fiss, 2011). Third, organizational resilience is a highly situational

variable, and most previous studies have used crisis events as a window into organizational resilience and have isolated factors such as the external environment and corporate management for

a single-dimensional theoretical interpretation, without forming a complete theoretical framework for the management of public emergencies. Fourth, in terms of antecedent interactions, few

studies have explored the interactions between different factors, while the interaction between multiple factors may have complementary or alternative effects, which limits managers’

understanding of the synergistic matching and alternative effects between the multiple factors of resources, capabilities, and relationships behind the formation of organizational

resilience. In addition, most of the relevant literature is based on empirical evidence from firms in developed countries, and there is a lack of studies on the organizational resilience of

tourism firms in developing countries. With this in mind, we examine the organizational resilience cultivation of Chinese tourism firms in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic using a sample

of Chinese-listed tourism firms. We chose Chinese firms for this study because, first, as the first country to be hit hard by the COVID-19 crisis, China initially took steps to cope with

the devastating consequences of the epidemic with some success (Xinhua Net, 2020), and the systemic shock of the COVID-19 epidemic and the subsequent recovery in China makes China a suitable

context for studying organizational resilience. Second, China’s tourism industry started late with uneven regional development (Sui and Zhang, 2020). Chinese tourism firms are likely to

face more changes and uncertainties in the business environment, which makes them more vulnerable to the COVID-19 epidemic than firms in developed countries. To further refine the existing

research, this paper uses the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic event as the observation window, applies the fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) method, uses a sample of 35

Chinese listed tourism companies, and establishes a framework for analysing the pathway of cultivating organizational resilience with the epidemic as the pressure, redundant resources

(resource perspective) and corporate governance (competence perspective) as the corporate state, and CSR fulfilment (relationship perspective) as the response, based on the PSR model. By

examining the impact of three key factors, resources, capabilities and relationships, on organizational resilience, we identify the mechanisms that drive organizational resilience and aim to

answer the following three research questions: RQ1: What sets of conditions drive organizational resilience to reach the same goal by different means? RQ2: Which conditions are more

important for organizational resilience? RQ3: Which conditions have matching and substitution relationships with each other? The present article is expected to contribute to the extant

literature in several ways. First, it embeds the resource–capacity-relationship framework into the PSR model, expanding the application of the PSR model in organizational resilience research

and providing a theoretical reference for resilience development in tourism enterprises. Second, unlike previous QCA method studies that have taken individual years as the study interval,

the study attempts to expand the research content by comparing and analysing the configurations of listed tourism companies with high organizational resilience for three years from 2018 to

2020, discovering the “commonality” and “individuality” of resilience configurations in epidemic crises and noncrisis situations and highlighting the analysis of the impact of changes in the

epidemic on organizational resilience. Third, based on panel data from 2010 to 2020, the net effect of a single antecedent variable of organizational resilience is supplemented using the

time-fixed effects model in the traditional regression method, which verifies the reliability and extensibility of the QCA method and the existence of a bridge of communication and

integration with other methods. LITERATURE REVIEW The concept of “resilience” originated in the field of materials science and has been applied in the fields of engineering, ecology,

psychology, and management. Meyer (1982) introduced the concept of “organizational resilience” and defined organizational resilience as the ability of an organization to cope with

disturbances and restore the previous order. This study follows this definition and defines organizational resilience as the ability of an organization to recover to its initial state in a

timely and effective manner when faced with an external shock, specifically at the firm level, where organizational resilience is expressed as the recovery of share price after a crisis

event. Researchers in organizational resilience have focused on the factors that can enhance resilience. Three main perspectives on organizational resilience have emerged from the

literature: the resource perspective, the capability perspective, and the relationship perspective. In the following, the logic of differentiation and relevance of the three theoretical

perspectives in explaining organizational resilience is systematically described. RESOURCE PERSPECTIVE The core logic of the resource perspective is to view the firm as a combination of

resources, and its theoretical foundations are mainly resource base theory and resource redundancy theory. Whether it is to recover from a crisis or to improve through such recovery, the

enterprise must properly allocate redundant resources and implement organizational flexibility (Lu and Xiang, 2021). In an epidemic crisis, redundant corporate resources become an important

safeguard for organizational recovery. According to resource redundancy theory, the redundant resources of an organization can be classified as unabsorbed redundancy, absorbed redundancy,

and potential redundancy (L. J. Bourgeois, 1981). Many studies have focused on the role of these three types of resources in organizational resilience. The level of cash holdings (Xiao et

al., 2020) and financial resources (Tognazzo et al., 2016) have been found to have a positive effect on organizational resilience. Wieczorek-Kosmala (2022) assesses cash holdings in the

tourism industry in four Central European countries and concludes the importance of financial redundancy and cash holdings in determining resilience. The buffering effect of redundant

resources in the aftermath of an outbreak has been studied by scholars. Jin et al. (2021) study how organizational redundancy affects the return of A-share listed firms after an epidemic

outbreak. Their study shows that the return of listed firms generally decreases after an epidemic outbreak, while organizational redundancy plays a moderating role in mitigating the epidemic

shock. Studies have been conducted to explore the buffering effect of absorbed redundancy on crisis firms, including R&D investment (Tognazzo et al., 2016) and knowledge resources

(Mafabi et al., 2012). However, the impact of absorbed redundant resources on organizational resilience has not been uniformly concluded; for example, Tognazzo et al. (2016) found that small

firms’ R&D investment prior to the global financial crisis in 2008 did not enhance the speed of recovery from the crisis. Li and Liu (2010) found that the magnitude of the utility of

redundant resources is influenced by a firm’s ability to allocate and utilize resources. In addition, redundant resources have a significant impact on the fulfilment of CSR. Studies have

shown that in state-owned enterprises, the relationship between absorbed redundancy and CSR has an “inverted U-shape”, while in private enterprises, the two are positively correlated (Hu et

al., 2019). CAPABILITY PERSPECTIVE The core logic of the capability perspective is that firms can adapt to rapidly changing environments (Teece et al., 1997), such as crisis events and

adversity events, through the ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external resources. The main theoretical underpinning for this is the theory of enterprise

capabilities, which argues that building capabilities that can adapt to environmental change through continuous learning are key to making a firm organizationally resilient (Shan et al.,

2021; Tsiapa and Batsiolas, 2019). Studies have been conducted on individual and corporate capabilities and have mainly examined the impact of managers’ capabilities on organizational

resilience, especially those of top managers because top managers have stronger human and social capital than ordinary employees and can play a greater role in crisis situations. Research in

this area has examined the positive effects of transformational leadership (Sun et al., 2021), entrepreneurial spiritual capital (Wu and Gu, 2021), managerial competencies (Xu et al.,

2020), and team leadership (Barton and Kahn, 2018) on organizational resilience. Research in the main area of business capability has examined the contribution of innovation capability

(Tognazzo et al., 2016) and technological capability (Bustinza et al., 2016) to organizational resilience. Few studies have taken a governance capability perspective. Core competence theory

also argues that core competence is not simply the possession of resources but that core competence is closely related to organizational structure in addition to the effective use of

resources. A company’s core competency is not science and technology in the general sense; it should be an institutionalized system of interdependent and interconnected knowledge that

manifests itself as the company’s overall ability to act. Corporate governance is in line with the content and characteristics of corporate capability theory: corporate governance is a set

of institutional arrangements for the enterprise, and the institution itself is a resource, whose scarcity is reflected in the scarcity of professional managers, whose internal institutional

arrangements are different, especially in terms of the allocation of control, which makes it inimitable and irreplaceable (Tan, 2009). In a crisis, corporate governance as a core competency

is crucial for organizational resilience recovery, and existing studies have examined the joint role of corporate governance and CSR in enhancing organizational resilience (Sajko et al.,

2021; Torres and Augusto, 2021). Some studies have also focused on the positive effects of executive compensation (Flammer, 2015) and independent directors (Xiao and Xue, 2014) on CSR. While

it is not known whether corporate governance capabilities directly contribute to organizational resilience in crisis, we argue that corporate governance capabilities are also a key to

resilience recovery in crisis and fill this gap in the literature by including them in the study. RELATIONSHIP PERSPECTIVE The core logic of the relational perspective is that organizations

should balance the interests of different stakeholders and focus not only on the accumulation of shareholder wealth but also on their own social benefits, based on stakeholder theory. Based

on the stakeholder theory proposed by Friedman, a company is essentially a set of “contracts” entered into by various stakeholders, including shareholders, managers, employees, creditors,

customers, and suppliers. Research has recognized the importance of a dynamic collaborative process of stakeholder engagement in crisis management in the hospitality industry (Li et al.,

2021). Tourism resilience research at different scales suggests that cooperation and mutual assistance (social capital) (Brown et al., 2017; Choi et al., 2021; Chowdhury et al., 2018;

Cirer-Costa, 2020; Espiner and Becken, 2014; Powell and Holladay, 2013; Kimbu et al., 2018) are central to improving local, organizational and individual resilience; therefore, the close

relationships that firms build with stakeholders can help improve organizational resilience in the face of a crisis. A number of studies have explored the impact of firms’ precrisis CSR

performance on the speed of recovery after a crisis and found that CSR positively affects organizational resilience (Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal, 2015; DesJardine et al., 2019; Sajko et

al., 2021). In the context of an epidemic crisis, in addition to taking responsibility for shareholders and creditors, at the employee level, CSR contributes to employee resilience through

employee perceived satisfaction with the epidemic response (He et al., 2020). At the same time, the fulfilment of CSR also helps reduce employees’ intention to leave (Shen et al., 2018). At

the public level, CSR fulfilment can help reduce employee turnover. At the public level, the fulfilment of CSR can also bring political legitimacy to the company (Luo et al., 2017) and can

earn public trust (Wang and Qian, 2011). At the consumer level, the fulfilment of CSR helps enhance consumers’ perceptions of the company’s reputation (Lai et al., 2010) and foster customer

satisfaction (Mcwilliams and Wright, 2006). At the government level, establishing a good relationship with the government can help companies improve their access to scarce resources (Faccio,

2006). As seen from the above, the literature provides rich theoretical references and empirical evidence for understanding organizational resilience at three levels—resources, capabilities

and relationships—and provides solid theoretical support for this paper to build an analytical framework for organizational resilience. There is still room for expansion of existing

research. First, resilience studies based on the capability perspective lack exploration of the impact of corporate governance capability on organizational resilience. Based on core

capability theory, the internal systems and structures of organizations under crisis are also an important guarantee for organizational resilience recovery. Second, the process of adjusting

to external shocks and restoring order after a crisis is a complete process, and few studies have included external shocks in their research, lacking a process perspective on organizational

resilience. Third, a review of the literature reveals that corporate governance and redundant resources can have a significant impact on CSR. The variables of corporate governance, redundant

resources, and CSR do not act alone on organizational resilience but rather are linked to enhance organizational resilience. Variables from different theoretical perspectives may also have

alternative effects in enhancing organizational resilience. Taking the relationship and resource perspectives as an example, by building high-quality social ties with internal and external

stakeholders, companies can input heterogeneous resources, such as legitimacy resources (Luo et al., 2017) and employee resilience (He et al., 2020), but this may also have a substitution

effect on other organizational resources. Fourth, most of the existing studies have examined the impact of certain types of factors on organizational resilience separately based on

resource-based theory, core competency theory and stakeholder theory. In reality, organizational resilience is affected by a combination of internal and external factors, and the findings

from the same theoretical perspective are inconsistent (Tognazzo et al., 2016). This is because examining which resources, capabilities or relationships are more important to organizational

resilience in isolation, without considering the interaction of multiple theoretical perspectives, may weaken the explanatory power of the findings for real-life situations. In summary, we

will use the “resource–capacity-relationship” as the theoretical framework to select the key conditions that influence organizational resilience, and the “resource–capacity-relationship”

paradigm has also been used by scholars to analyse issues such as growth paths (Luo et al., 2016) and innovation performance of enterprises (Jiang and Tang, 2018), which has better

explanatory power and stronger theoretical support. In terms of research models, few studies have incorporated external shocks into organizational resilience analysis models. We aim to

develop a complete model of organizational resilience analysis for tourism enterprises applicable to crisis scenarios, attempt to analyse the process of enterprise organizations responding

to environmental conditions after being stressed by epidemic shocks, highlight the analysis of the epidemic, and divide the cultivation of organizational resilience into three processes:

PSR. The PSR model can be adapted to the process of organizational resilience, from the stress caused by the epidemic outbreak to the state of the organization its response during the

epidemic, and its recovery after adapting to the crisis. The cause–effect-feedback logic reflected in the PSR model fully reflects the complex interactions between nature and human society

and environmental systems. It also reveals the dynamic recovery process of organizational resilience after a crisis. Due to its dynamic systems theory thinking, the PSR model has also been

widely used in ecological safety assessment (Jin and Wang, 2020), disaster risk assessment (Liu et al., 2018), ecological safety assessment (Zhao et al., 2014), sustainable tourism

development (Salemi et al., 2019) and various disaster risk assessment studies. In this paper, the use of the PSR model can better reflect the impact mechanism of major public health events

on tourism enterprises and evaluate the state of enterprises in public health events as well as their response measures; therefore, the PSR model is applicable to the study of the

organizational resilience of construction enterprises during major public health emergencies. Specifically, we use the COVID-19 epidemic as the source of stress (P), corporate governance and

redundant resources as the state (S), and corporate fulfilment of CSR (R) as the response and select three levels of corporate governance, redundant resources, and CSR as the key conditions

affecting organizational resilience based on the “resource–capacity-relationship” theoretical framework. In terms of methodology, fsQCA is used to analyse the combined effects of epidemic

pressure, corporate governance, redundant resources, and CSR on organizational resilience, with a view to providing a theoretical reference for the cultivation of organizational resilience

in tourism enterprises in the context of public health crises. The fixed effects model in the traditional regression approach is also effectively integrated with fsQCA to complement and

validate the findings of fsQCA, providing a methodological reference for the application of fsQCA in related fields. THEORETICAL BASIS AND MODEL CONSTRUCTION PSR THEORETICAL MODEL The PSR

model was first proposed by Canadian statisticians. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been using the PSR model for environmental quality evaluation since

1970 and has achieved good results. In the field of tourism research, the PSR model has been applied to the evaluation of the landscape carrying capacity of ecotourism areas (Zhang et al.,

2020) and the coupled and coordinated evaluation of tourism development and the ecological environment (Li et al., 2021). In the PSR model, “P” reflects the disturbance and influence of

external factors on the system. “S” reflects the state of the system itself under pressure. “R” reflects the response measures taken by the system under the influence of pressure. At the

stress level, the outbreak of COVID-19 has put tremendous pressure on tourism companies to continue operating. Following the closure of Wuhan due to the epidemic, the Department of Culture

and Tourism issued an emergency notice on January 24, 2020, to suspend the business activities of tourism enterprises. Travel agencies, scenic spots, and cultural and entertainment venues in

various regions suspended their operations one after another, and the massive loss of customers led to serious disruptions in business activities. Yan and Wang (2020) summarized the impact

of the epidemic on small and medium-sized tourism enterprises at the micro level, including pressure on travel agents to withdraw bookings, pressure on rents, pressure on stable jobs, and

salary payments. At the state level, national epidemic prevention and control policies and people’s awareness of life safety have led to a sharp decline in tourists’ willingness to travel,

and tourism business enterprises’ original corporate governance structure is facing adjustments. Redundant resources as buffer resources are vital to resolving short-term corporate crises.

At the response level, while actively deploying epidemic prevention efforts after the outbreak, listed tourism companies are equally active in fulfilling their CSR and building close

relationships with stakeholders. By fulfilling their CSR after the epidemic, enterprises establish interdependent relationships with their stakeholders and form a network of resources and

knowledge with them to improve their flexibility and efficiency in decision-making (Chen and Xie, 2011), thereby increasing their resilience during the epidemic crisis. Overall, the

formation of the organizational resilience of listed tourism enterprises under the impact of the epidemic is a complex process, and the introduction of the PSR model into the analysis

process of organizational resilience can better explain the complex relationship of the combination of multiple factors. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PSRO ANALYSIS MODEL FRAMEWORK The outbreak of

COVID-19 as an external factor causes disruption and disturbance to the system, while the system itself is in a state of stress, and the measures taken as a result of the stress can be

explained by the “resource–capacity-relationship” theoretical framework. Resources and capabilities characterize a firm’s state of preparedness for an epidemic shock and influence the

response at the relational level. The impact of resources, capabilities, and relationships on organizational resilience is seen to intersect and interact. Corporate governance affects

organizational resilience by influencing the fulfilment of CSR (Flammer, 2015; Xiao and Xue, 2014), and redundant resources (Hu et al., 2019) directly affect the resilience of a firm in a

crisis. We use a “resource–capacity-relationship” theoretical framework to identify the conditions for organizational resilience and embed “resource–capacity-relationship” theory in the PSR

model to analyse organizational resilience. We construct a stress, state, response framework for analysing organizational resilience (PSRO) by considering epidemic shocks as the source of

pressure (P), corporate governance capacity and redundant resources as the firm’s state (S), and the firm’s commitment to social responsibility and building close relationships with

stakeholders as the response (R). The PSRO model provides a more systematic framework for explaining the interactions of multiple factors, facilitating the analysis of resilience system

formation mechanisms from a holistic perspective. Due to the variability of research objects, different listed tourism enterprises have different epidemic pressures in their locations. There

are also large differences in corporate governance structure, redundant resource status and fulfilment of CSR. This combination of factors will result in different resilience performances

during the epidemic. The fsQCA method allows for the identification of different configurational compositions that yield resilience. In this paper, we refer to mainstream qualitative

comparative analysis (QCA) research and consider several practical criteria for the selection of antecedents: first, we refer to the recommendations given by Du and Jia (2017) to select the

key constructs in the theoretical framework and the important antecedent conditions in the existing literature; second, we refer to Ragin’s (2008) recommendation that the purpose of the QCA

method is not to exhaust all variables but to analyse the consistency of the sample on important variables, and it is generally suitable for analysing groups of four to seven conditions. We

finally defined seven antecedent conditions: the number of confirmed diagnoses at the firm’s location (epidemic pressure), executive compensation and the proportion of independent directors

(corporate governance status), unabsorbed redundant resources, absorbed redundant resources and potentially redundant resources (redundant resources status), and CSR (epidemic response), in

an attempt to examine the interaction of these seven conditions on the configuration effect of organizational resilience. Based on the PSR model, we establish a framework for analysing the

influencing factors of organizational resilience, as shown in PSRO analysis framework (Fig. 1). DATA AND METHODOLOGY DATA The focus of this study is on listed companies in the tourism and

airline categories that were highly affected by the epidemic in FY2020. Against the backdrop of a downward macroeconomic situation, changes in stock market sentiment can precisely reflect

changes in investor sentiment and the economic performance of real companies in real-time (Chen, 2020); therefore, the resilient performance of tourism companies can be analysed from the

perspective of the stock market. However, the factors affecting stock market performance are numerous and complex, and it is difficult to extract the negative effect of the epidemic on the

stock market alone. For this reason, a shorter time horizon is chosen for the analysis to minimize stock market noise. Specifically, the fiscal year 2020 is chosen as the sample time

interval for this paper, and the time window is set at 90 days after 31 December 2019, taking into account the persistence of the epidemic and the continuity of the material impact in the

postepidemic period. This period is the initial phase of the epidemic in China (Chen, 2020), which is relatively short, and there are no other significant external shocks during the sample

period; thus, market noise can be excluded to a certain extent to assess the resilience of firms. The study screened the study sample layer by layer in four areas: publicly released

directory of listed Chinese tourism companies, changes in the main business, whether they are in financial distress and the number of years they have been listed. The steps are as follows:

first, the sample enterprises were initially identified. Based on the 2016 China Tourism Listed Enterprises Development Report published by the former National Tourism Administration, the

leisure services and air transportation enterprise directories obtained from the WIND database on 13 April 2021, and relevant authoritative literature (Wang et al., 2020), 32 tourism and 8

airline listed companies were identified. Second, the annual sample of companies with nontourism-based main businesses among the listed tourism companies during 2020 was excluded. Based on

the provisions of the Industry Classification Guidelines for Listed Companies promulgated by the CSRC in 2001 and the definition of listed tourism companies in the study by Liu et al.

(2007), this study uses the proportion of operating revenue as the classification criterion. Specifically, businesses involving food and beverage services, scenic spot operations, hotel

operations, travel agency operations and exhibition services are classified as the main business scope of tourism enterprises. If the revenue of any of these main business categories

accounts for the largest proportion of all businesses, it is considered a listed tourism company; it is more common for tourism enterprises to diversify their operations, and even if the

company’s operations involve the tourism industry but the proportion of revenue is not the largest, it is not considered a typical listed tourism company (Xu, 2007). Third, the sample of

companies that are in the stage of being specially treated during 2020 is excluded because listed companies in the ST, PT and *ST stages are financially distressed companies, and their

abnormal behaviours may impact the result (Chen et al., 2022). Furthermore, to more effectively use the panel data for the period 2010–2020 for regression validation, we excluded the sample

of companies listed after 2018 based on the above screening results, and finally selected 29 listed companies in tourism and 6 listed companies in aviation. A total of 35 listed enterprises

were finally selected as the study cases, among which the listed enterprises’ financial data and corporate governance data were obtained from the Wind Information and CSMAR industry

database. The CSR data of the listed tourism enterprises were obtained from Hexun.com. The data related to the epidemic in a company’s location were obtained from Dingxiang Garden, and the

data were checked on a sample basis to be consistent with the information published on the official website of the government in the company’s location. The data analysis software used was

fsQCA 3.0 and Stata16. ENDOGENEITY PROBLEMS Omitted variable bias, sample selection bias, and associativity bias (also known as reverse causality) are all major sources of endogeneity

problems. fsQCA does not directly address potential endogeneity issues (Misangyi and Acharya, 2014), such as reverse causality. To mitigate this issue, we use lagged data, following previous

studies (Lewellyn and Fainshmidt, 2017) and lagging corporate governance variables by two periods and CSR variables by one period. The lagged data are used later in the fsQCA configuration

analysis process and the robustness testing process using panel data regressions. MAIN VARIABLES ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE (OR) Given the persistence of the epidemic and the continuity of

the material impact in the postepidemic period, we set a time window of 90 days after 31 December 2019. This period is the initial phase of the domestic epidemic (Chen, 2020), a relatively

short period, and there are no other significant external shocks during the sample period, so market noise can be excluded to a certain extent. With specific reference to Torres and

Augusto’s (2021) approach, the historical volatility of the stock price within 90 days after the outbreak is used as a measure of organizational resilience, where a smaller indicator

indicates that the firm is less exposed to the shock of the epidemic and therefore has better resilience. Historical volatility is calculated in two steps. In the first step, the logarithmic

return of the daily closing price is calculated as Eq. (1), where _P__t_, _P__t−_1 denotes the closing price of the firm on Day _t_ and Day _t_−1. In the second step, the standard deviation

of the log returns is calculated and annualized, as in Eq. (2), where _R_avg denotes the average of the log-returns of the firm over _n_ days. $${{{R}}}_{{{t}}} = {{{\rm{ln}}}}\left(

{{{{P}}}_{{{t}}}} \right)-{{{{\rm {ln}}}}}\left( {{{{P}}}_{{{{t}}} - 1}} \right)$$ (1) $${{{\rm{vol}}}}_{{{i}}} = \sqrt {\frac{{\mathop {\sum}\nolimits_{{{{i}}} = 1}^{{{n}}} {\left(

{{{{R}}}_{{{i}}} - {{{R}}}_{{{{\rm{avg}}}}}} \right)^2} }}{{{{{n}}} - 1}}} \ast \sqrt {250}$$ (2) EPIDEMIC PRESSURE (CC) With the increase in the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19,

tourism enterprises face greater pressure. Therefore, in this paper, the number of confirmed cases of the epidemic at the location of the enterprise (if the enterprise is located in a

municipality, the data on confirmed cases of COVID-19 are specific to the district level; otherwise, it is at the municipal level) is used as an indicator to measure the pressure of the

epidemic. TOURISM BUSINESS STATUS (SAL IND; US AS PS) Based on the above theoretical analysis and literature review, at the corporate governance level, we select the total compensation of

the top three executives (Sal) and the proportion of independent directors (Ind) in the CSMAR database as the measures of corporate governance status. At the level of redundant resources,

Bourgeois (1981) classifies redundant resources into three categories: unabsorbed redundancy, absorbed redundancy and potential redundancy. Unabsorbed redundancy (Us) refers to resources

that are not utilized by the firm, have some liquidity, and can be put into use quickly. Absorbed redundancy (As) refers to resources that have been put into use and can eventually be used

after effective deployment. Potential redundancy (Ps) is related to the firm’s ability to acquire financial resources in the future. In this paper, we refer to previous practice and use a

quick ratio to measure the unabsorbed redundancy (Li and Liu, 2011), the ratio of overhead to sales revenue as absorbed redundancy (Wang and Cheng, 2014), and the gearing ratio as potential

redundancy (Jiang and Zhao, 2004). For the potentially redundant resources of tourism enterprises, due to the different financing capacities of the industry sectors involved in the

enterprises and the large differences in the debt structure, we refer to Xie Weimin et al.’s (2016) approach: the gearing ratios of listed enterprises in different industries are adjusted

according to the CSMAR industry classification, and the gearing ratio minus the median value of the industry in which it is located is used as a measure of potential redundancy to eliminate

the differences between different industries. TOURISM BUSINESS RESPONSE (CSR) The epidemic response of listed tourism companies after the outbreak is defined as the assumption of

responsibility to stakeholders, the establishment of close relationships with them, and the formation of a community of destiny in response to the epidemic. We use the total score of the CSR

report assessment system of listed enterprises published by Hexun.com as the response index to measure the CSR of listed tourism enterprises. The assessment examines five items, including

shareholders’ responsibility; employees’ responsibility; suppliers’, customers’ and consumers’ rights and interests’ responsibility; environmental responsibility and social responsibility.

Each item sets up secondary and tertiary indicators, in line with the international authoritative CSR standard ISO26000 system. The definition of each variable under the PSRO framework is

shown in Table 1. METHODOLOGY Most existing studies have used traditional regression methods to derive the net effect of independent variables on dependent variables, demonstrating a

correlation (Zhang and Du, 2019), while the pooled relationship between multiple factors cannot be explained. fsQCA is a case-study-oriented pooling approach that considers that the

influence of a variable on the outcome is not independent, but its meaning and effect depend on its combination with other variables. Based on the principles of set theory and Boolean

algebra, the approach views the studied cases as groups of conditions or attributes (Ragin, 2008, 2000), and the analysis of such groups is achieved through ensemble analysis, i.e., using

set theory to conceptualize the causal conditions and outcomes of the study assets and to analyse the relationships among subsets (Ragin, 2008, 2000; Misangyi et al., 2016). Specifically, a

set study is one in which the object of study is calibrated to certain theoretical and/or practical knowledge to select calibration criteria, and the study conditions and outcome variables

are calibrated to the set membership of the case. Calibration takes into account both kind and degree differences between cases so that measurements can be interpreted and made meaningful

(Ragin, 2008). Complex causal relationships are then revealed by analysing the adequacy and/or necessity of conditions or combinations of conditions for outcomes and by counterfactual

analysis (Ragin, 2008). fsQCA was used in the social sciences in the early days but has been increasingly applied in the management field in recent years. fsQCA has the advantage that the

number of listed tourism enterprises in China does not meet the requirements of large samples in traditional quantitative research, while fsQCA is applicable in large, medium, and small

sample sizes. fsQCA has stronger practical significance because it studies the antecedent condition configurations that cause outcomes to occur from a holistic and systematic perspective,

avoiding the covariance problems of traditional quantitative research (Ragin, 1989). In addition, considering that organizational resilience configurations in noncrisis contexts are equally

valuable to study, we analyse the composition of resilience configurations in the absence of epidemic occurrences in 2018 and 2019 and compare them to the resilience configurations in the

2020 epidemic crisis. In the robustness testing section, we combine the traditional regression method with the fsQCA method for further supplementation and validation. The robustness of the

fsQCA method is further confirmed by conducting multiple regression analysis using panel data on listed tourism enterprises from 2010 to 2020. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS DATA CALIBRATION Data

calibration is one of the most important steps in the fsQCA method. It comprises the process of transforming variables into sets by selecting appropriate anchor points and determining

membership. Previous studies usually set “full membership”, “crossover” and “not full membership” based on existing theoretical criteria. In this paper, we refer to the literature on

organizational resilience in tourism (Torres and Augusto, 2021). The 95% quantile (full membership point), 50% quantile (crossover point) and 5% quantile (not full membership point) of the

sample data are selected to identify the three thresholds. In particular, when using the above quantile to calibrate the indicator of “proportion of independent directors”, 0.333 is used as

the crossover point, the 95% quantile of the sample data is used as the full membership point, and 0 is used as the not full membership point since the SEC in China stipulates that the

proportion of independent directors on the board of directors of listed companies should not be less than one-third. In the calibration, the fuzzy set affiliation score of 0.5 should be

avoided, or else the case cannot be categorized, resulting in a loss of cases and affecting the integrity of the analysis results. Therefore, we refer to Fiss (2011) and add 0.001 to the

membership scores of all cases with membership degrees below 1 to avoid the occurrence of 0.5 membership scores and to keep the relative size of the membership scores between cases constant.

We calibrate the variables for 2018–2020 according to the above method, and due to space limitations, the calibration anchors and descriptive analysis of the variables are provided only for

2020, as shown in Table 2. UNIVARIATE NECESSARY CONDITION ANALYSIS Necessity tests for individual variables are required to determine whether a single antecedent variable is necessary for

the outcome variable prior to performing a configuration analysis. If a necessary condition is present, that antecedent variable must be included in the construct. The QCA method measures

the necessary relationship between variables through consistency and coverage, and this study explored the necessity of conditional variables for high and low organizational resilience

separately for three consecutive years from 2018 to 2020. The results are shown in Table 3. According to the QCA method, the condition is considered necessary for the outcome to occur when

the level of consistency exceeds 0.9. Table 3 shows that the consistency level of all the antecedent conditions did not exceed 0.9 during the 3 years from 2018 to 2020, indicating that

individual antecedent conditions have limited explanatory power for the level of organizational resilience and that the effect of multiple antecedent condition combinations on the outcome

variable must be considered. SUFFICIENT CONDITION ANALYSIS AND CONFORMATIONAL RESULTS We use fsQCA 3.0 software to analyse 35 cases of listed tourism companies to study the antecedent

condition constructs of high and nonhigh organizational resilience for 3 years from 2018 to 2020. Drawing on mainstream QCA research (Zhang et al., 2020), consistency thresholds and

frequency thresholds need to be determined before conducting an adequacy analysis. In this paper, the following three practice criteria are considered: (1) sample size, where the frequency

threshold can be set to 1 for small and medium samples, while the frequency threshold should be greater than 1 for large samples; (2) distribution of the truth table, where the distribution

of cases with a result of 0 and 1 should both be covered and roughly balanced in the truth table; and (3) number of observed cases, where the number of observed cases should be no less than

75% of the total number of cases. As there is no uniform conclusion from existing research on the relationship between each of the seven conditions and organizational resilience, a

definitive counterfactual analysis cannot be made in this paper. Therefore, the status of each of the seven conditions was set to ‘present or absent’ in the analysis. In this paper, the

original consistency is set to 0.8, with a case frequency of 1, and the PRI consistency is set to 0.75 with reference to Ragin (2008). The qualitative comparative analysis of fuzzy sets

produces complex solutions (which do not contain “logical residuals”, are not simplified, and have more configurations, which is not conducive to analysis); intermediate solutions (which

include only “logical residuals” that are consistent with theory and practice); parsimonious solutions (which contain “logical residuals”) and simplistic solutions (which include “logical

residuals” but do not evaluate their rationality). Therefore, in this paper, we choose the conditional configuration of the intermediate solution when analysing organizational resilience and

further determine the core and edge conditions of the configuration in combination with the parsimonious solution. If a variable appears in both the simple solution and the intermediate

solution, it is judged as the core condition; if the variable appears only in the intermediate solution, it is judged as the edge condition. Combining the above judgement principles, the

final conformation results of the organizational resilience of the listed tourism enterprises in 2018–2020 are obtained, as shown in Tables 4 and 5. PRODUCE HIGH ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE

CONFIGURATIONS Eight high-organizational resilience configurations were obtained from a case study of 35 A-share travel listings for 2018–2020 (Table 4). Overall, the level of consistency

between the single and overall solutions for all eight configurations presented in the table exceeds the minimum criterion of 0.75 proposed by Schneider and Wagemann (2012), and the coverage

of the overall solution exceeds 40% for all years. This further indicates that the antecedent conditions of the corresponding case composition are also sufficient conditions for the

occurrence of high organizational resilience. From the perspective of individual variables, the epidemic stress variable has two performance states for the three constructs in FY2020. The

first is a marginal condition in the presence state, a configuration that represents some of the firms that are resilient in the presence of epidemic stress. The second is as a core

condition in the absence state, a result that suggests a negative role for the COVID-19 epidemic in the formation of organizational resilience, with firms in less epidemic-stressed

environments tending to be more resilient. In terms of corporate governance status, the proportion of independent directors appears mostly as a marginal condition of presence status in the

2018–2020 configurations, a result that suggests that although independent directors do not act as a core condition for the formation of high organizational resilience, they still play a

role in the resilience formation process, and their monitoring and disciplinary role is effective. This finding demonstrates to some extent the superiority of the system established by the

CSRC with more than 1/3 of independent directors and, on the other hand, the importance of independent directors with different knowledge structures and sources of information for proper

decision-making (Chen and Xie, 2011). The top three executive compensation variables appear mainly in presence and as core variables under the 2020 epidemic crisis and do not appear as core

variables in 2018 and 2019, and the variable states are not consistent, a result that suggests that executive compensation incentives may play a more pronounced role in crisis situations

than in noncrisis situations. This suggests that the effective exercise of individual managerial competencies becomes key to a firm’s resilience from a crisis, further confirming the

judgements made in previous studies regarding the importance of managers in crisis situations (Williams et al., 2017). The three redundancies in a firm’s redundant resources state differ

significantly in the high organizational resilience construct. Notably, potentially redundant resources appear in a deficient state and as a core variable in all eight constructs for the

three years from 2018 to 2020. We use gearing to measure the potentially redundant resources of a company. A high gearing ratio for a listed company indicates that the company has a strong

ability to raise funds and can also pose a high financial risk to the company. This result shows that the redundant resources acquired by the company through debt bring more risk to the

company than its cushioning effect, which is not conducive to high organizational resilience. Unabsorbed redundant resources were mostly found in the present state in 2018–2020 but did not

constitute a core condition, suggesting that unabsorbed redundant resources act as a buffer in the formation of high organizational resilience, a finding consistent with Wieczorek-Kosmala

(2022). In contrast, the status and importance of absorbed redundancy are not fully consistent across the groups of states in 2018–2020 and are influenced by other variables with

uncertainty, a finding consistent with Li and Liu’s (2010) study, where the magnitude of the utility of redundant resources is influenced by the ability of firms to allocate and utilize

resources. In terms of epidemic response, the presence and core condition of CSR response is reflected in all annual configurations, indicating that CSR practices play an important role in

the formation of organizational resilience and are one of the key variables in the cultivation of organizational resilience. This finding confirms Williams et al. (2017) and Shan Yu et al.’s

(2021) suggestions that it is the interaction of the organization with other stakeholders that are important for the organization to achieve recovery and rebound. Based on Table 4, the core

conditions of each configuration are summarized in the following four high organizational resilience patterns for the three years from 2018 to 2020. * 1. Lack of redundant resources under

epidemic pressure and high pay incentive compensation type. The core conditions of configurations _a_1 and _a_2 are the same, both being Sal ~ As ~ Ps, and therefore constitute a

second-order equivalent configuration (Fiss, 2011). Configurations _a_1 and _a_2 indicate that a configuration with higher executive compensation incentives, nonhigh absorbed redundant

resources, and nonhigh potentially redundant resources as core conditions can generate high organizational resilience. This configuration suggests that higher executive compensation

incentives have a compensating effect in the case of low absorbed redundancy resources and low potentially redundant resources with respect to the state of the listed firm. The proportion of

independent directors and nonabsorption of redundancy as marginal conditions for the presence state in configuration _a_1 indicate that independent directors play a role in this situation,

while the CSR response of tourism firms does not affect the formation of high organizational resilience. The proportion of independent directors and CSR are marginal conditions for the

presence of configuration _a_2, where independent directors and a certain level of CSR fulfilment contribute to organizational resilience. While few previous studies have explored the impact

of corporate governance capabilities on organizational resilience from a corporate governance perspective, this study finds that the proportion of independent directors as a marginal

condition and executive compensation incentives as a key condition driving organizational resilience in a higher epidemic stress can make tourism firms resilient even when redundancy

resources are scarcer and CSR is less responsive. This demonstrates the superior role that corporate governance capabilities play in fostering organizational resilience in crisis contexts,

compensating for organizational deficits in resources and relationships. This finding enriches the theoretical exploration of corporate governance capabilities in organizational resilience

research, providing valid arguments for the role of corporate governance in enhancing organizational resilience in crisis management contexts and validating the judgements of previous

research on the importance of managers for organizational resilience in crisis contexts (Wang and Cai, 2021). * 2. Low financial risk under low epidemic pressure with CSR. Configuration _b_1

indicates that some tourism firms in less stressed areas of the epidemic, which themselves have few potentially redundant resources following an outbreak, can also have high organizational

resilience by virtue of an active CSR response. The epidemic stress variable appears as the core variable in the missing state in this configuration, the corporate governance capability

dimension exists only as a marginal condition, and in the absence of executive compensation incentives, firms should have some unabsorbed financial redundancy and absorbed redundancy as a

buffer. Their own potential redundancy is low, yet they have lower financial risk and are better able to take advantage of the low financial risk when the whole environment is facing an

epidemic crisis. Low epidemic pressure and low financial leverage, together with an active socially responsible response, will result in a higher level of organizational resilience. * 3.

Resource deployment with CSR under low financial risk. The core conditions of configurations _c_1 and _c_2, also as second-order equivalence configurations, are high absorbed redundancy,

potential redundancy resource deficit, and high CSR response, indicating that tourism firms that invest more resources in operational deployment develop higher organizational resilience

through a positive CSR response in the face of lower financial risk themselves. Comparing the differences between the two configurations reveals that executive compensation incentives and

unabsorbed redundancy perform differently in the two configurations, suggesting that these two variables are vulnerable to other factors and are unstable in noncrisis contexts. * 4. CSR

under low financial risk. The high organizational resilience configuration in 2018 is highly consistent and comprises all second-order equivalent configurations with a lack of potentially

redundant resources and a high socially responsible response as core variables. This result indicates that organizational resilience can be developed through a positive CSR response even in

the case of low potentially redundant resources in listed companies. Further comparing the results of the 2018 configuration with the “low financial risk resource allocation with CSR” in

2019, it is concluded that the importance of absorbed redundant resources in the formation of organizational resilience varies depending on the state of corporate governance and other

variables at the level of redundant resources in different years. The commonality lies in the fact that low potentially redundant resources and a positive CSR response are the core variables

that play a dominant role in the formation of organizational resilience and that listed companies are more able to perform CSR “without distractions” when they face low financial risks,

which is also more conducive to the formation of organizational resilience. Taken together, the four constructs above show that the core condition of CSR at the response level is present in

the high organizational resilience configuration for three consecutive years, regardless of the presence of epidemic pressure, which demonstrates the importance of CSR for the cultivation of

organizational resilience and validates previous literature on social capital as a key to organizational resilience (Brown et al., 2017; Choi et al., 2021; Chowdhury et al., 2018;

Cirer-Costa, 2020; Espiner and Becken, 2014; Powell and Holladay, 2013; Kimbu et al., 2018). Under the PSR model, the 2020 high-level organizational resilience configuration can be divided

into two models based on the magnitude of epidemic pressure: higher epidemic pressure (_a_1, _a_2) and low epidemic pressure (_b_1). In the high epidemic stress model, executive compensation

incentives are the core variable with a positive impact on the corporate governance structure variables, distinguishing it from the low epidemic stress model and the year without an

epidemic, indicating that executive compensation presents a stronger incentive effect in the face of a severe epidemic crisis. In contrast, in 2018 and 2019, when the epidemic did not occur,

the executive compensation variable did not show a significant positive effect. This finding suggests that executive compensation in a crisis is more likely to have a motivational effect

than the norm, inspiring executives to develop a stronger sense of responsibility to actively take measures to smoothly steer the company through the crisis. Comparing the low epidemic

configuration in 2020 with the no epidemic configuration in 2018 and 2019, where the low epidemic stress configuration _b_1 has a high similarity to the no epidemic stress configuration in

2018, both are high organizational resilience configurations with low potential redundant resources and high CSR response as core conditions. The 2019 configuration with high absorbed

redundant resources as the core condition was added to the low potential redundant resources and high CSR, suggesting that the three together can also produce a high level of organizational

resilience. From a “resource–capacity-relationship” perspective, the low epidemic pressure in 2020 shows a strong interactive consistency in terms of resources and relationships compared to

the no epidemic pressure in 2018 and 2019, with the status of redundant resources and CSR remaining relatively unchanged. On the one hand, these configurations reflect the interaction

between the efficiency mechanism represented by redundant resources and the legitimacy mechanism represented by CSR, rather than an either/or relationship (Meyer and Rowan, 1977), and

further corroborate institutional theory: firms need to follow the rules and order required by the institutional environment and meet social expectations to gain legitimacy and thus increase

their chances of survival. However, the acquisition of legitimacy is not inefficient and ultimately has a positive impact on the firm’s access to resources, social recognition, survival and

growth (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). On the other hand, according to redundant resource theory, CSR performance depends on the availability of generous resources. Schuler and Gording (2006)

argue that CSR behaviour is expensive and only those companies with good financial performance (redundant resources) can afford to undertake socially responsible behaviour. In contrast, the

interactive consistency of CSR with absorbed redundancy or unabsorbed redundancy in configurations _b_1–_e_3 is a comprehensive reflection and validation of Schuler and Gording’s (2006)

theory, which further deepens and extends the interaction between redundant resources theory and stakeholder theory. POTENTIAL SUBSTITUTION RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONDITIONS It is important

to add none of the three, resources, capabilities or relationships, play a fixed role in the organizational resilience formation mechanism but are alternative and complementary, influenced

by other factors that work together in resilience formation. Therefore, by comparing the similarities and differences of configurations _a_1–_e_3 (longitudinal–horizontal bidirectional

view), the potential alternative relationships of resources, capability and relationship conditions can be further identified, as shown in Figs. 2–5. The potential substitution relationships

for resources, capabilities, and relational conditions suggest that unabsorbed redundant resources and absorbed redundant resources have a more important role to play and can substitute to

some extent for the lack of capabilities and relationships. This is because, under specific objective endowment conditions, unabsorbed redundant resources can substitute for CSR (Fig. 2),

executive compensation (Fig. 3) and absorbed redundant resources (Fig. 4). Absorbed redundant resources are able to substitute for independent directors (Fig. 5) and unabsorbed redundancies

(Fig. 4). PRODUCE LOW ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE CONFIGURATIONS In this paper, we also examined the composition of the configurations that produced low organizational resilience (Table 5).

Unlike high organizational resilience configurations, the six low organizational resilience configurations differ significantly, reflecting a nonlinear relationship with causal asymmetry. In

the context of the 2020 epidemic, configuration _a_1 shows that organizations lacking executive compensation incentives, high absorbed redundancy resources and CSR response are unlikely to

have high levels of resilience even with high potential redundancy resources (implying higher financial risk) and a high proportion of independent directors. Configuration _b_1 shows that

organizations with a lack of executive compensation incentives, a lack of unabsorbed redundancy resources and a lack of absorbed redundancy resources are also not resilient in the presence

of epidemic pressure, and it is difficult for organizations to be resilient in the absence of both resources and capabilities. Configuration _c_1 shows that tourism companies do not have

higher levels of organizational resilience even when they face lower levels of epidemic pressure and there is a higher level of high potential redundant resources (implying higher financial

risk), even with higher levels of unabsorbed redundant resources. In the absence of an epidemic context, configuration _d_1 shows that tourism firms with higher potentially redundant

resources (implying higher financial risk) and the absence of both absorbed redundant resources and executive compensation incentives do not have higher levels of organizational resilience.

Configuration _e_1 shows that the level of organizational resilience will not be high even with higher absorbed redundancy resources and executive compensation incentives in the presence of

a socially responsible response, unabsorbed redundancy resources that are all missing and higher potential redundancy resources. Configuration _f_1 shows that the level of organizational

resilience will not be high even in the presence of a positive CSR response when both absorbed redundant resources and unabsorbed redundant resources are missing. We find that low

organizational resilience configurations with higher potential redundancy resources as a core condition are present in 2018–2020, while high organizational resilience configurations are all

present with a core variable of missing status, a result that suggests that higher potential redundancy resources imply higher debt service pressure and financial risk and may be one of the

key variables contributing to low organizational resilience. Combined with _c_1 and _e_1, it is difficult for an organization to be resilient when potential redundancy resources are high,

even if absorbed redundancy, unabsorbed redundancy and executive compensation are high. Furthermore, the paper finds that a positive CSR response does not always result in high

organizational resilience but is influenced by redundant resources when the role of corporate governance capacity is limited. For example, in _c_1, the negative impact of high financial risk

due to high potential redundancy is greater than the buffering effect of high unabsorbed redundancy, and in _f_1, there is a significant lack of unabsorbed and absorbed redundancy, in which

case corporate governance capacity plays a limited role as a marginal condition of the state of being and does not lead to high organizational resilience even when socially responsive

behaviour is present. ROBUSTNESS TEST AND SUPPLEMENTARY VALIDATION OF THE FIXED EFFECTS MODEL The robustness tests in this section include the QCA method test and the supplementary

validation of the fixed effects model. In this paper, we use the method of adjusting the consistency threshold level proposed by Ragin (2008) to test for high-level organizational resilience

configurations. The consistency threshold was adjusted from 0.8 to 0.89, and the results showed that the increase in the consistency level did not lead to changes in configuration type and

composition, and the consistency level and coverage did not change, confirming the robustness of the QCA results. Furthermore, we collect panel data for 35 listed tourism firms for the years

2010–2020, and the results of the Hausman test suggest that a fixed effects model should be used. Therefore, a time-fixed effects model (fixed year) is used to control for the joint shocks

of unobservable time factors on listed firms and to add the net effect of each antecedent variable on the outcome variable. To reduce endogeneity, corporate governance variables are lagged

for two periods, CSR variables are lagged for one period, and the regression results obtained are shown in Table 6. Based on Table 6, which presents the estimation results controlling for

time effects, it can be concluded that the coefficient of the proportion of independent directors (Indlag2) among the corporate governance structure variables is significantly negative at

the 10% level, which echoes the presence state of the proportion of independent directors uniformly in each configuration state of QCA high organizational resilience in the previous section,

indicating that there is a more significant positive relationship between the ability of corporate independent directors to monitor organizational resilience and that more independent

directors can help firms make better decisions and be more stable when facing external shocks. While the executive compensation (Sallag2) indicator is also positively related to

organizational resilience, the correlation is not significant. A possible explanation is that executive compensation plays more of a protective role in noncrisis situations, while when a

crisis occurs, compensation incentives give managers a higher sense of mission and responsibility to guide the way in a crisis and promote organizational crisis learning. The regression

results likewise echo the different states presented by the executive compensation indicators in each high organizational resilience configuration in the previous section. Among the

redundant resource structural variables, Us and organizational resilience have a nonsignificant positive relationship, which may be explained by the fact that unabsorbed redundancy can play

a buffering role in the short term when facing a crisis. However, holding unabsorbed redundancy resources in the long term will be contrary to the interests of shareholders, managers will

not hold a high level of unabsorbed redundancy in the long term under such circumstances, the buffering effect will be limited, and organizational resilience will also be affected. The

results of the previous fsQCA also show that unabsorbed redundancy is not a core variable in the high organizational resilience configurations, and it appears to be an insignificant variable

in some of the configurations. As were significantly and positively associated with organizational resilience at the 1% level, indicating that more redundant resources invested in business

operations are more conducive to organizational resilience. Ps are positively correlated with organizational resilience at the 5% level, indicating that redundant resources acquired by a

firm through debt may instead create greater financial risk for the firm and are detrimental to organizational resilience formation. Combining the QCA high organizational resilience

configurations also show that potentially redundant resources appear as a core variable in each configuration in the missing state, indicating that potentially redundant resources play a

highly consistent negative role in the formation of organizational resilience. The CSR indicator (CSRlag) is significantly and positively correlated with organizational resilience at the 1%

level, indicating that companies that actively fulfil CSR have higher levels of organizational resilience. Combining the QCA high organizational resilience configuration also shows that a

CSR response appears to be expressed as a core variable of presence status in all yearly configurations, validating the regression model. The goodness-of-fit of the time-fixed effects Model

_R_2 is 0.4728, indicating the strong explanatory power of the model, and the VIF value of the model is 1.09–1.64 < 10 within an acceptable range, indicating that there is no serious

problem of multicollinearity between the respective variables. To further check the robustness of the fixed effects model, we refer to Chen, Fenggong’s (2020) study. The epidemic event

window was tested by shortening the window period from 12.31 to 3.31 of the previous year (90-day historical volatility) to 1.11 (official notification by the Health and Welfare

Commission)−3. 24 (unsealing of Wuhan City). The significance and sign of the coefficients of the regression model obtained after adjusting the window period did not change significantly

(Table 6), confirming that the regression results are robust. CONCLUSION How to improve organizational resilience in the context of an epidemic crisis is the focus of corporate crisis

management research. We identified the key factors affecting organizational resilience based on the theoretical framework of the “resource–capacity-relationship”, incorporated the number of

confirmed COVID-19 cases as an external factor into the organizational resilience analysis framework, established the PSRO model, combined fsQCA and the fixed effects model, and explored the

organizational resilience of listed tourism enterprises from a configurational perspective. The main findings are as follows: (1) The analysis of necessary conditions found that the

individual variables of corporate governance, redundant resources and CSR indicators did not constitute necessary conditions for generating high organizational resilience. (2) The analysis

of sufficient conditions identified four configurations for high organizational resilience: redundancy under epidemic pressure with high compensation incentives, low financial risk and CSR

driven under low epidemic pressure, resource deployment and CSR driven under low financial risk, and CSR driven under low financial risk. The presence of epidemic pressure grouping, with the

proportion of independent directors as a marginal condition and executive compensation incentives as a key condition for driving organizational resilience, can make tourism firms resilient

even in the presence of a greater lack of redundant resources and a weak CSR response, demonstrating the superior role that corporate governance capabilities in crisis situations play in

fostering organizational resilience and can compensate for organizational deficiencies in resources and relationships. The core condition of CSR at the response level was present in the

no-epidemic pressure configuration for three consecutive years, which proves that CSR is a key variable in nurturing organizational resilience. (3) Potential substitution relationships

between resource, capability, and relationship conditions suggest a more important role for unabsorbed redundant resources and absorbed redundant resources. Under specific objective

endowment conditions, it is able to substitute for capabilities and relationships to a certain extent. (4) The low organizational resilience configuration suggests that higher potential

redundant resources imply higher debt servicing pressure and financial risk, that potential redundant resources may be a key variable contributing to low organizational resilience and that

redundant resources acquired by a firm through debt raising pose more risk to the firm than their cushioning effect. CSR is also present in the grouping of ground-level organizational

resilience, suggesting that socially responsible responsiveness is not the ‘golden key’ to organizational resilience but is influenced by redundant resources and that corporate governance

plays a limited role. MARGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS There are three contributions to this paper. First, the process of adjusting to external shocks and restoring order after a crisis is a complete

process, and few studies have included external shocks in their research, lacking a process perspective on organizational resilience. This paper expands the perspective of organizational

resilience from the organization itself to the environmental system in which the organization is located and from within the organization to outside the organization and identifies the key

conditions for the formation of organizational resilience based on the theoretical framework of the “resource–capacity-relationship”. The PSRO model was developed to explain the mechanisms

underlying the development of organizational resilience in crisis situations. The multiple configurations of organizational resilience suggest that no single theoretical perspective can

adequately explain the mechanisms of organizational resilience, whether it is the resource-based view, enterprise capability theory or stakeholder perspective. This is also in response to

the call of Williams et al. (2017) and Shan Yu et al. (2021) to advocate for the expansion of research perspectives on organizational resilience in crisis contexts, which can provide some

theoretical support for subsequent studies on organizational resilience. Second, through a configuration perspective, this paper reveals that the mechanism influencing organizational

resilience in Chinese listed tourism firms is a concurrent mechanism of multiple condition combinations. None of the seven antecedent conditions under the PSRO model constitutes a necessary

condition for organizational resilience, and an effective combination of conditions is required to enhance organizational resilience. Compared with previous studies of the linear

relationship between each antecedent condition and organizational resilience, we explain the pathway through which each antecedent condition drives organizational resilience in combination

with detail and draw richer and more profound findings, deepening the study of the antecedent drivers of organizational resilience in management. In previous resilience studies based on a

capability perspective, few studies have explored the impact of corporate governance capabilities on organizational resilience. We incorporate corporate governance capabilities into

resilience research based on core competency theory and find that corporate governance capabilities playing a central role under epidemic pressures can compensate for organizational

deficiencies in resources and relationships. CSR is also found to be a key variable influencing high organizational resilience, and potentially redundant resources (debt service pressure)

are a key variable influencing low organizational resilience. Alternative relationship analysis identified a more important role for unabsorbed redundant resources and absorbed redundant

resources. Under specific objective endowment conditions, absorbed and unabsorbed redundant resources are able to substitute for capabilities and relationships to a certain extent. These

theoretical findings enrich the study of the antecedent drivers of organizational resilience in management. Third, this paper introduces the QCA approach to the study of organizational

resilience, which not only provides a new research approach to the field but also revolutionizes the epistemological basis of the phenomenon of organizational resilience; the histological

thinking behind the QCA approach complements the net effect thinking in mainstream quantitative research and provides a holistic perspective for understanding and explaining the causal

complexity of the phenomenon of organizational resilience. Fourth, resilience is derived from adversity (van der Vegt et al., 2015), and this paper uses the impact of the global COVID-19

epidemic on tourism enterprises as an entry point for research, which is a new exploration of the context of organizational resilience research and further respond to recent calls from

management academics at home and abroad to advocate for phenomenon-driven research (Ployhart and Bartunek, 2019). These research findings provide a reference for a more refined understanding

of the phenomenon of high organizational resilience and provide theoretical guidance on how to build organizational resilience in enterprises in the postepidemic era. MANAGEMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS This study proposes the following management recommendations in three areas: stress, status and response. * 1. Establish a sound emergency management system to improve the

overall stress resistance of the organization. After this epidemic, enterprises should summarize their experience, strengthen their weaknesses in epidemic prevention and control, further

standardize and institutionalize emergency management, and integrate emergency management capabilities into enterprise development. Specifically, they should strengthen the training of

tourism employees in responding to public health emergencies and provide corporate culture training to fully prepare for possible future outbreaks, as noted in Ctrip’s “Anti-Epidemic Cloud

Class”. Tourism companies should summarize the lessons learned from this outbreak response and incorporate experiences of effective responses into their emergency plans. The finding that

executive compensation incentives are compensatory highlights the central role of corporate executives in emergency governance. In the face of a crisis, leadership is better than management,

and companies must build strong environmental awareness capabilities and mechanisms. Leaders should be sensitive to and knowledgeable of local epidemic and prevention and control measures

and directions related to the crisis, set up an emergency leadership team to correctly grasp the current situation, intervene in the crisis in a timely manner, deploy resources and divide

responsibilities, and motivate and inspire employees from all departments and levels of the organization to participate and fight the epidemic together. * 2. Shift from short-term incentives

to medium- and long-term incentives and optimize the independent director system. The importance of executive compensation incentives is highlighted by the high pay incentive compensation

type configuration under epidemic pressure. In an uncertain environment, it is more important to enhance the correlation between executive compensation and medium- and long-term performance

to promote performance improvement while maximizing payroll efficiency (Liu and Zhang, 2010). UBS, for example, uses a “clawback” compensation mechanism whereby a portion of an individual’s

bonus is held in a special account for the duration of the review period, during which the bonus is deducted if there is a problem with the individual’s long-term performance review. This

“clawback” mechanism incentivizes executives to avoid short-term and aggressive behaviour when making crisis decisions, take the risk of future uncertainty into account and make more prudent

decisions. Most of the independent director ratios in each configuration of high organizational resilience appear as marginal conditions of existence status. This finding goes some way to

demonstrating the superiority of the system established by the CSRC of having more than 1/3 of independent directors and the importance of independent directors with different knowledge

structures and sources of information for proper decision-making. To further play the supervisory role of independent directors in the process of resilience cultivation, tourism enterprises

must set higher and differentiated independent director ratio requirements according to different business types and corporate strategies. In the selection and recruitment process,

independent directors with different resumes (overseas experience, government service, financial crisis) and part-time positions in multiple enterprises can be selected to promote a diverse

team of independent directors, which can provide more heterogeneous information for scientific decision-making. Enterprises should further establish an accountability mechanism for

independent directors, objectively evaluate independent directors by establishing an intermediary evaluation system for independent directors, and regularly publish the evaluation results to

promote the independent director system from existence to excellence. Compared with the supervisory system, the independent director system has obvious advantages of ex-ante and ex-post

supervision. To give full play to this advantage, enterprises should also open communication channels between independent directors and internal and external stakeholders (e.g., investors

and intermediaries), communicate information quickly when a crisis occurs, collect opinions from various parties, and provide references for decision-making. * 3. Flexible management of

funds and dynamic adjustment of business operations. COVID-19 has led to the emergence of tourism enterprises operating under cash flow pressure, debt service pressure and financing

difficulties, and attention must be paid to the management of funds to achieve a dynamic balance between rigid cost expenditure and flexible financing management. These findings indicate

that the redundant resources obtained through borrowing will increase enterprises’ financial risk, which is not conducive to resilience cultivation, so it is necessary to develop new

financing channels. In terms of “open source” funds, the production and operation facilities of catering and hotel enterprises are usually leased, and fixed expenses such as leasing fees

must be paid on schedule. Once it is difficult for the operating cash flow to support such rigid expenditures, to the extent that there is a need for debt financing through financial

institutions, the enterprise will be subject to high-risk conditions. Under such circumstances, it can seek to use the social resources of the controlling shareholders of the enterprise to

obtain financial support. Ordinary shareholders should be encouraged to inject new capital into the enterprise or to guarantee the enterprise’s new debt. In the case of employees, in

addition to encouraging them to hold onto their jobs, management should convince them to provide financial support to help cover the enterprise’s debt with certain agreements. Some travel

companies can also alleviate their cash flow difficulties by preselling products and locking in users’ travel options in advance. In terms of “cutting costs”, for the larger scale, longer

industry chain, travel-related enterprises with more complex accounting periods should be more cautious in their expectations and curtail their product line. To retain their core quality

business, they should eliminate financial pressures and low-cost performance business and reduce noncore expenses. In addition, tourism enterprises must balance the relationship between

short-term response and long-term investment, and short-term response measures must not affect their long-term sustainable development. With regard to the hotel industry, it can open some

floors according to market demand, reduce equipment loss, reduce energy costs, seek to provide contactless services and establish an intelligent management system that is conducive to

epidemic prevention and control and reduces labour costs. In the catering industry, enterprises should conduct market research, control procurement volume and optimize procurement channels.

Airlines must adjust their capacity according to the progress of the epidemic and the demand situation, eliminate negative side routes, and optimize aircraft and crew scheduling. * 4. Embed

resilience cultivation into organizational culture from the height of CSR. Today, the environment for companies is nonlinear and discontinuous, and companies will need to improve

organizational resilience to cope with more uncertainties in the future. The configuration indicates that a CSR response as a key variable for resilience cultivation should be given

sufficient attention. Response and resilience cultivation in all dimensions of CSR cannot be achieved overnight. Therefore, it is necessary to transform emergency management thinking into

normalized thinking, integrate CSR awareness into daily operations, and implement resilience cultivation in organizational culture construction. By strengthening symbiotic relationships with

stakeholders through the fulfilment of each dimension of CSR in the course of daily operations and establishing a broader network of mutual assistance in knowledge and resources,

enterprises can have stronger impact resistance and recovery capabilities when crises occur. Examples of such efforts include strengthening the connection and bundling with upstream and

downstream partners; repeatedly interacting with shareholders, employees and other stakeholders in terms of information, resources and values; actively fulfilling environmental

responsibilities; carrying out social philanthropy; and establishing a good social image of the company. In the long run, resilience cultivation should be embedded in organizational culture

construction so that the enterprise can repeatedly resist a crisis to achieve long-term development. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Scientific assessment of the epidemic situation to guide tourism

recovery in an orderly manner. The resilience of the tourism industry depends on technology beyond policy adjustments, especially medical response capabilities and the degree of adjustment

of social perceptions and judgements. We will work with the mainstream media to build a coordinated system to control online public opinion on COVID-19 virus infection, deliver positive and

accurate information on the prevention and control of the epidemic based on the principles of “openness, transparency, authority and truthfulness”, and adjust the interprovincial meltdown

mechanism in a timely manner to encourage tourists to travel. We will increase the number of international and domestic flights in an orderly manner, formulate measures to facilitate the

movement of foreign enterprises, and give full play to China’s mega-market advantages and domestic demand potential. Cooperation between government and enterprises should be encouraged, and

tourism enterprises should be supported to undertake business such as convention and exhibition activities, business activities and study activities organized by party and government organs,

enterprises and institutions to help expand their business and development space. Policies should be implemented to assist enterprises in relieving their hardships and solving the problem

of insufficient supply of financial resources. New measures should be developed to support relief on the basis of the continuation of policies such as temporary refunds of warranties and VAT

reduction. Local governments at all levels should be supported to make scientific adjustments in accordance with the mandate of the regulations and local realities and to simplify the

subsidy application process and strengthen policy support for risk mitigation for large, small, medium and microenterprises and individual entrepreneurs in tourism. A sound pool of financing

needs to be established for key tourism enterprise projects and encouraging financial institutions to reasonably increase the effective supply of credit for the tourism industry, the

efforts in inclusive finance should continue to increase, and banking financial institutions should be encouraged to support small loans for tourism start-ups, small, medium and micro

enterprises and individual business operators such as themed B&Bs by category. For example, in addition to payments, Japanese government financial institutions have introduced a number

of loan financing measures to address the liquidity problems faced by businesses during the epidemic (Jiang, 2022). These include the COVID-19 Special Loan (Japan Policy and Finance

Corporation), which provides unsecured and essentially interest-free loans for three years to companies whose sales have fallen by more than 5%, the Crisis Correspondence Facility (Central

Bank of Commerce and Industry), the COVID-19 Maru Facility (for small-scale businesses, Japan Policy and Finance Corporation) and the COVID-19 Special Loan for Sanitation (for businesses

related to sanitation or hygiene, such as tourism, food and beauty care, Japan Policy and Finance Corporation). In addition, the government’s policy of granting companies a portion of the

funds they receive when they pay workers a stoppage allowance and further increasing the rate and maximum amount of funding for companies in difficult times has helped companies to stabilize

their employees’ employment even if their operations are scaled down due to the epidemic. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Despite these contributions, our study is subject

to several limitations. (1) Although the use of lagged data can mitigate potential endogeneity issues, fsQCA is not equipped to address them, so we call for further research on this issue.

(2) Our findings may be influenced by the unique institutional and cultural environment in China, as the data for this study were obtained in one country. Due to the limited number of cases

of listed Chinese tourism companies, we were unable to obtain a sufficient amount of data to support the study. (3) The measurement of organizational resilience may limit the

generalizability of our findings. We chose an observation window of 90 days from the outbreak, which is quite short. The best way to address this issue would be to extend the observation

window; however, this would make the study less time-sensitive. Future studies could consider repeating this study for a longer period of time after the end of the crisis. In addition,

although critics of the efficient market hypothesis accept the idea that stock prices reflect all relevant information about a firm, the measure of resilience is entirely dependent on the

stock price, which may reflect a certain bias. Future research could examine different means of implementing organizational resilience, such as long-term sales or different types of stock

prices. (4) Although this paper compares and analyses the high organizational resilience configurations for three consecutive years from 2018 to 2020, the impact of dynamic changes in each

antecedent variable on organizational resilience is not known. The QCA method applied to dynamic time changes still needs to be improved, and the dynamic formation process of organizational

resilience can be further studied in the future with the development of the time-series QCA method. DATA AVAILABILITY The data used in the current study are available on request from the

corresponding author on reasonable request. REFERENCES * Arrowsmith C, Inbakaran R (2002) Estimating environmental resiliency for the Grampians National Park, Victoria, Australia: a

quantitative approach. Tour Manag 23:295–309 Article  Google Scholar  * Barasa E, Mbau R, Gilson L (2018) What is resilience and how can it be nurtured? A systematic review of empirical

literature on organizational resilience. Int J Health Policy Manag 7:491–503 Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Barton M, Kahn W (2018) Group resilience: the place and

meaning of relational pauses. Organ Stud 40:1318025259 Google Scholar  * Becker E (2020) How hard will the coronavirus hit the travel industry?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/how-coronavirus-is-impacting-the-travel-industry * Biggs D, Hicks CC, Cinner JE et al. (2015) Marine tourism in the face of global change:

the resilience of enterprises to crises in Thailand and Australia. Ocean Coast Manag 105:65–74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569114004037 Article  Google Scholar  *

Borghesi R, Chang K, Li Y (2019) Firm value in commonly uncertain times: the divergent effects of corporate governance and CSR. Appl Econ 51:4726–4741.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2019.1597255 Article  Google Scholar  * Bourgeois LJI (1981) On measurement of organizational slack. Acad Manag Rev 6:29–39 Article  Google Scholar  *

Breitsohl J, Garrod B (2016) Assessing tourists’ cognitive, emotional and behavioural reactions to an unethical destination incident. Tour Manag 54:209–220 Article  Google Scholar  * Brown

N, Rovins J, Feldmann-Jensen S et al. (2017) Exploring disaster resilience within the hotel sector: a systematic review of literature. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 22:362–370 Article  PubMed 

PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Bustinza O, Vendrell-Herrero F, Parry G et al. (2016) Technological capabilities, resilience capabilities and organisational effectiveness. Int J Hum Resour

Manag 30(8):1370–1392 Article  Google Scholar  * Butler R (2020) Tourism—resilient but vulnerable as “the times they are a changing” in the “new normality”. Worldw Hosp Tour Themes

12:663–670. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-07-2020-0063 Article  Google Scholar  * Calgaro E, Lloyd K (2008) Sun, sea, sand and tsunami: examining disaster vulnerability in the tourism

community of Khao Lak, Thailand. Singap J Trop Geogr 29:288–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.2008.00335.x Article  Google Scholar  * Cheer J, Lew A (2017) Tourism, resilience and

sustainability: adapting to social, political and economic change. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315464053 * Chen F (2020) The heterogeneous impact of COVID-19 on Chinese

enterprises—Empirical research based on the perspective of stock price fluctuations. J Ind Technol Econ 39:3–14 Google Scholar  * Chen J, Shun X, Liu L et al. (2022) The influence of

corporate social responsibility on the violation behavior of listed tourism companies in China: heterogeneous effects of different stages of economic development. Nankai Bus Rev 1–25.

https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/12.1288.F.20221027.1141.006.html * Chen Y, Xie D (2011) Network position, independent director governance and investment efficiency. Manag World 7:113–127.

https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=GLSJ201107012&DbName=CJFQ2011 * Choi YE, Oh C, Chon J (2021) Applying the resilience principles for sustainable ecotourism

development: a case study of the Nakdong Estuary, South Korea. Tour Manag 83:104237 Article  Google Scholar  * Chowdhury M, Prayag G, Orchiston C et al. (2018) Postdisaster social capital,

adaptive resilience and business performance of tourism organizations in Christchurch, New Zealand. J Travel Res 58:1209–1226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518794319 Article  Google

Scholar  * Cirer-Costa JC (2020) Economic and social resilience accounts for the recovery of Ibiza’ s tourism sector. Tour Geogr 23:1–22 Google Scholar  * DesJardine M, Bansal P, Yang Y

(2019) Bouncing back: building resilience through social and environmental practices in the context of the 2008 global financial crisis. J Manag 45:1434–1460.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317708854 Article  Google Scholar  * Du Y, Jia L (2017) A group perspective and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): a new path for management research.

Manag World 6:155–167 Google Scholar  * Duro JA, Perez-Laborda A, Turrion-Prats J et al. (2021) Covid-19 and tourism vulnerability. Tour Manag Perspect 38:100819 PubMed  PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  * Espiner S, Becken S (2014) Tourist towns on the edge: conceptualising vulnerability and resilience in a protected area tourism system. J Sustain Tour 22:646–665 Article 

Google Scholar  * Faccio M (2006) Politically connected firms. Am Econ Rev 96:369–386 Article  Google Scholar  * Filimonau V, De Coteau D (2020) Tourism resilience in the context of

integrated destination and disaster management (DM2). Int J Tour Res 22:202–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2329 Article  Google Scholar  * Fiss PC (2011) Building better causal theories: a

fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad Manag J 54:393–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120 Article  Google Scholar  * Flammer C (2015) Does corporate

social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. SSRN Electron J 11(61):2549–2568 Google Scholar  * Glowka G, Zehrer A (2019) Tourism

family-business owners’ risk perception: its impact on destination development. Sustainability 11(24):6992. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/6992 * Hall MC, Prayag G, Fieger P et al.

(2021) Beyond panic buying: consumption displacement and COVID-19. J Serv Manag 32:113–128. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0151 Article  Google Scholar  * He J, Mao Y, Liang B et al.

(2020) The effect of corporate social responsibility on employee resilience in the background of COVID-19. Hum Resour Dev China 37:35–47 Google Scholar  * Hu D, Hu Y, Liang L (2019)

Organizational slack, financial pressure and corporate social responsibility performance. East China Econ Manag 33:147–154 Google Scholar  * Hu H, Xu K (2022) Visualizing the development of

research on tourism resilience with mixed methods. Sage Open 12:1925459996. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221126684 Article  Google Scholar  * Jiang C, Zhao S (2004) The relationship

between organizational redundancy and performance: an empirical time-series study of Chinese listed companies. Manag World 5:108–115.

https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=GLSJ200405013&DbName=CJFQ2004 * Jiang M (2022) The Japanese government’s support policy for enterprises and individuals under the

COVID-19 and its enlightenment. Contemp Econ Jpn 41:66–77 Google Scholar  * Jiang Q, Tang Z (2018) The impact of network capability under the framework of “resource–capability-relationship”

on service innovation performance of science and technology business incubator-mediating function of knowledge accumulation and moderating function of knowledge base. Sci Technol Prog Policy

35:126–133 Google Scholar  * Jiang Y, Ritchie BW, Verreynne ML (2019) Building tourism organizational resilience to crises and disasters: a dynamic capabilities view. Int J Tour Res

21:882–900. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2312 Article  Google Scholar  * Jin H, Wang S (2020) Ecological security assessment and situational analysis of Wuhan Metropolitan Area via PSR model.

J Saf Environ 20:352–363 Google Scholar  * Jin S, Zhang J, Jin L et al. (2021) Research on the influence of organizational redundancy on stock return against the background of the impact of

the COVID-19. Finance Forum 26:50–57 Google Scholar  * Kimbu A, Ngoasong M, Adeola O et al. (2018) Collaborative networks for sustainable human capital management in women’s tourism

entrepreneurship: the role of tourism policy. Tour Plan Dev 16:1–18 Google Scholar  * Kuščer K, Schönherr S, Peters M (2021) Tourism organizations’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: an

investigation of the lockdown period. Curr Issues Tour 25:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1928010 Article  Google Scholar  * Lai C, Chiu C, Yang C et al. (2010) The effects of

corporate social responsibility on brand performance: the mediating effect of industrial brand equity and corporate reputation. J Bus Eth 95:457–469.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0433-1 Article  Google Scholar  * Lew A (2014) Scale, change and resilience in community tourism planning. Tour Geogr 1(16):14–22.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2013.864325 Article  Google Scholar  * Lewellyn K, Fainshmidt S (2017) Effectiveness of CEO power bundles and discretion context: unpacking the ‘fuzziness’

of the CEO duality puzzle. Organ Stud 38:1318234952 Article  Google Scholar  * Li B, Zhang T, Hua N et al. (2021) A dynamic model of crisis management from a stakeholder perspective: the

case of COVID-19 in China. Tour Rev 76(4):764–787 Article  Google Scholar  * Li M, Wang C, Xue M et al. (2021) Research on the evaluation and influencing factors of the coupling and

coordination of island tourism development and ecological environment in China. World Reg Stud 30:1048–1060 Google Scholar  * Li X, Liu C (2010) Is slack good for emergency response? —An

empirical study of firms affected by earthquake or snow havoc. Bus Manag J 32:79–86 CAS  Google Scholar  * Li X, Liu C (2011) A contextual analysis on the relationship between slack and

firms’ performance: also on quantitative change of slack. Nankai Bus Rev 14:4–14 CAS  Google Scholar  * Liu G, Yuan X, Jing H et al. (2018) Evaluation of urban resilience to flood based on

PSR framework—a case of area in Suzhou–Wuxi–Changzhou. J Saf Environ 34:593–598 Google Scholar  * Liu L, Zhao L, Duan E (2007) On the assessment of economic benefits of china’s listed

travelling companies. Tour Trib 4:79–83 CAS  Google Scholar  * Liu S, Zhang Y (2010) Research on the executives’ salary motivation and restrictive system of insurance corporation in China in

the context of post-crisis period. Tax Econ 5:32–38 Google Scholar  * Lu J, Xiang P (2021) Crisis process management: how to improve organizational resilience? Foreign Econ Manag 43:3–24

Google Scholar  * Luo XR, Wang D, Zhang J (2017) Whose call to answer: institutional complexity and firms’ CSR reporting. Soc Environ Account J 37:1 CAS  Google Scholar  * Luo Y, Zhang Y,

Tang Z (2016) Research on high-tech business incubator development path from the “resource–capability-relationships” perspective: multi-case study. Nanjing J Soc Sci 6:149–156 Google Scholar

  * Mafabi S, Munene J, Ntayi J (2012) Knowledge management and organisational resilience: organisational innovation as a mediator in Uganda parastatals. J Strategy Manag 5:57–80 Article 

Google Scholar  * Mcwilliams A, Wright P (2006) Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. J Manage Stud 43:1–18 Article  Google Scholar  * Meyer AD (1982) Adapting to

environmental jolts. Adm Sci Q 27:515 Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Meyer J, Rowan B (1977) Institutional organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. AJS 83:440–463

Google Scholar  * Misangyi V, Acharya A (2014) Substitutes or complements? A configurational examination of corporate governance mechanisms. Acad Manag J 57:1681–1705 Article  Google Scholar

  * Misangyi V, Greckhamer T, Furnari S et al. (2016) Embracing causal complexity: the emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. J Manage 43(1):255–282.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316679252 Article  Google Scholar  * Nooripoor M, Khosrowjerdi M, Rastegari H et al. (2021) The role of tourism in rural development: evidence from Iran.

Geojournal 86:1705–1719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10153-z Article  Google Scholar  * Ortiz-de-Mandojana N, Bansal T (2015) The long-term benefits of organizational resilience

through sustainable business practices. Strateg Manag J 37:1615–1631. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2410 Article  Google Scholar  * Paraskevas A, Altinay L, McLean J et al. (2013) Crisis

knowledge in tourism: Types, flows and governance. Ann Tour Res 41:130–152. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160738312001727 Article  Google Scholar  * Paraskevas A, Quek

M (2019) When Castro seized the Hilton: risk and crisis management lessons from the past. Tour Manag 70:419–429. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517718302152 Article 

Google Scholar  * Ployhart R, Bartunek J (2019) Editors’ comments: there is nothing so theoretical as good practice—a call for phenomenal theory. Acad Manage Rev 44:493–497 Article  Google

Scholar  * Powell R, Holladay P (2013) Resident perceptions of social-ecological resilience and the sustainability of community-based tourism development in the Commonwealth of Dominica. J

Sustain Tour 21:1188–1211 Article  Google Scholar  * Prayag G (2018) Symbiotic relationship or not? Understanding resilience and crisis management in tourism. Tour Manag Perspect 25:133–135

Google Scholar  * Ragin C (1989) The comparative method: moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press * Ragin C (2000)

Fuzzy-set social science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago * Ragin C (2008) Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press, Chicago * Sajko M, Boone C,

Buyl T (2021) CEO greed, corporate social responsibility, and organizational resilience to systemic shocks. J Manag 47:957–992. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320902528 Article  Google

Scholar  * Salemi M, Jozi S, Malmasi S et al. (2019) Conceptual framework for evaluation of ecotourism carrying capacity for sustainable development of Karkheh protected area, Iran. Int J

Sustain Dev World Ecol 26:1–13 Article  Google Scholar  * Schneider C, Wagemann C (2012) Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: a guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge * Schuler D, Cording M (2006) A corporate social performance-corporate financial performance behavioral model for consumers. Acad Manag Rev 31:540–558 Article 

Google Scholar  * Shan Y, Xu H, Zhou L et al. (2021) Digital and intelligent empowerment: How to form organizational resilience in crisis? An exploratory case study based on forest cabin’s

turning crisis into opportunity. Manag World 37:84–104 CAS  Google Scholar  * Shen J, Dumont J, Deng X (2018) Employees’ perceptions of green HRM and non-green employee work outcomes: the

social identity and stakeholder perspectives. Group Organ Manag 43:594–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116664610 Article  Google Scholar  * Škare M, Soriano DR, Porada-Rochoń M (2021)

Impact of COVID-19 on the travel and tourism industry. Technol Forecast Soc Change 163:120469 Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Singal M (2015) How is the hospitality and tourism industry

different? An empirical test of some structural characteristics. Int J Hosp Manag 47:116–119 Article  Google Scholar  * Smith Travel Research (2020) STR: mainland China hotel industry shows

early signs of performance recovery. https://str.com/zh-hans/press-release/str-mainland-china-hotel-industry-shows-early-signs-performance-recovery * Strickland-Munro JK, Allison HE, Moore

SA (2010) Using resilience concepts to investigate the impacts of protected area tourism on communities. Ann Tour Res 37:499–519 Article  Google Scholar  * Sui J, Zhang Y (2020) Distinguish

the dynamic path evolution of China’s regional tourism business cycles. Tour Tribune 35:63–77 Google Scholar  * Sun M, Zhu F, Guo J et al. (2021) Influence of transformational leadership on

team resilience: a perspective of sensemaking. J Manag Sci 34:27–41 Google Scholar  * Tan Y (2009) A study of corporate governance based on a corporate capability perspective. Econ Rev J

2:102–104 Google Scholar  * Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18:509–533 Article  Google Scholar  * Tognazzo A, Gubitta P,

Favaron S (2016) Does slack always affect resilience? A study of quasi-medium-sized Italian firms Entrep Reg Dev 28:768–790 Article  Google Scholar  * Torres P, Augusto M (2021) Attention to

social issues and CEO duality as enablers of resilience to exogenous shocks in the tourism industry. Tour Manag 87:104400 Article  Google Scholar  * Torres R, Chiappone M, Geraldes F et al.

(2001) Sedimentation as an important environmental influence on Dominican Republic reefs. Bull Mar Sci 69:805–818 Google Scholar  * Toubes RD, Araújo-Vila N, Fraiz-Brea JA (2020) Be water

my friend: building a liquid destination through collaborative networks. Tour Manag Perspect 33:100619 Google Scholar  * Tsiapa M, Batsiolas I (2019) Firm resilience in regions of Eastern

Europe during the period 2007–2011. Post Communist Econ 31:19–35 Article  Google Scholar  * UNISDR (2002) International strategy for disaster reduction.

https://www.undrr.org/terminology/resilience * Utkarsh SM (2021) A bibliometric review of research on COVID-19 and tourism: reflections for moving forward. Tour Manag Perspect 40:100912 CAS

  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * van der Vegt G, Essens P, Wahlstr OM et al. (2015) Managing risk and resilience. Acad Manag J 58:971–980 Article  Google Scholar  * Wang C, Pu H,

Dai S (2020) Will female top managers enhance the performance of tourism enterprises?—An empirical study of Chinese tourism-listed companies. Tour Tribune 35:26–37 CAS  Google Scholar  *

Wang H, Qian C (2011) Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: the roles of stakeholder response and political access. Acad Manage J 54:1159–1181.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0548 Article  Google Scholar  * Wang Y, Cai J (2021) Influence mechanism of positive leadership on organizational resilience. J Cap Univ Econ Bus 23:92–102

CAS  Google Scholar  * Wang Y, Cheng X (2014) Environmental uncertainty, absorbed slack and enterprise innovation: evidence from Chinese listed enterprises in manufacture industry. Stud Sci

Sci 32:1242–1250 Google Scholar  * Wieczorek-Kosmala M (2022) A study of the tourism industry’s cash-driven resilience capabilities for responding to the COVID-19 shock. Tour Manag 88:104396

Article  Google Scholar  * Williams T, Gruber D, Sutcliffe K et al. (2017) Organizational response to adversity: fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Acad Manag Ann

11(2):733–769 Article  Google Scholar  * Wu S, Gu J (2021) The impact of entrepreneurs’ spiritual capital on organizational resilience-based on organizational learning perspective. Finance

Account Mon 107–114. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=CKYK202121014&DbName=CJFQ2021 * Xiao H, Xue Q (2014) Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility and

corporate performance. Res Financ Econ Issues 12:91–98. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=CJWT201412015&DbName=CJFQ2014 * Xiao T, Sun R, Yuan C (2020) The preventive

value of corporate cash holdings under the impact of the outbreak of the new crown pneumonia. Bus Manag J 42:175–191 Google Scholar  * Xie W, Wei H (2016) Market competition, organizational

slack and corporate R&D Investment: evidence from China. China Soft Sci Mag 8:102–111. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=ZGRK201608009&DbName=CJFQ2016 * Xinhua

Net (2020) Xinhua Headlines: Chinese “novel remedies” for economy evolve as virus outbreak bites. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/14/c_138783907.htm * Xu C (2007) Ownership

structure and technical efficiency of listed tourism companies in China. Tour Tribune 10:34–39 CAS  Google Scholar  * Xu G, Li G, Tao Y et al. (2020) Female executives, organizational

turnaround and managerial cognition. Foreign Econ Manag 42:42–59 Google Scholar  * Yan W, Wang S (2020) Impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on tourism development and response strategies. J

Commer Econ 11:190–192. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=SYJJ202011051&DbName=CJFQ2020 * Yang Y, Zhang CX, Rickly JM (2021) A review of early COVID-19 research in

tourism: launching the Annals of Tourism Research’s Curated Collection on coronavirus and tourism1. Ann Tour Res 91:103313 Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Yeh S (2020)

Tourism recovery strategy against COVID-19 pandemic. Tour Recreat Res 46:1–7 Google Scholar  * Zhang C, Zhou B, Cheng S (2020) Research on landscape carrying capacity evaluation of Chinese

ecotourism area based on PSR model. Ecol Econ 36:128–132 Google Scholar  * Zhang G, Zhang C, Liu W (2020) Turning danger into safety: a literature review and prospect of organizational

resilience. Econ Manag 42:192–208 Google Scholar  * Zhang J, Long J, Ling Y et al. (2021) Against the odds: a review of corporate resilience research and prospects. Moderni Manag 41:121–125.

https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.1403.C.20210517.0849.024.html * Zhang M, Du Y (2019) Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) in management and organization research: position, tactics,

and directions. Chin J Manag 16:1312–1323 Google Scholar  * Zhang M, Lan H, Chen W et al. (2020) Research on the antecedent configuration and performance of strategic change. Manag World

36:168–186 CAS  Google Scholar  * Zhao C, Zhou B, Su X (2014) Evaluation of urban eco-security—a case study of Mianyang City, China. Sustainability 6:2281–2299 Article  Google Scholar 

Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study is supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41761117). We would like to thank the editors and two peer

reviewers for their insightful comments. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * School of Tourism, Xinjiang University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China Ruiyi Zhao & Ling Li Authors *

Ruiyi Zhao View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Ling Li View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

CONTRIBUTIONS Study design, methodology, data curation, writing—original draft and revision, Ruiyi Zhao; Conceptualization, study design, writing—review & editing, supervision and

funding acquisition, Ling Li. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Ling Li. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. ETHICAL APPROVAL This

article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. INFORMED CONSENT This article does not contain any studies involving human participants

performed by any of the authors. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional

affiliations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SUPPORTING DATA RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which

permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to

the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless

indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or

exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints

and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Zhao, R., Li, L. Pressure, state and response: configurational analysis of organizational resilience in tourism businesses following the

COVID-19 pandemic crisis. _Humanit Soc Sci Commun_ 10, 370 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01788-7 Download citation * Received: 23 November 2022 * Accepted: 23 May 2023 *

Published: 01 July 2023 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01788-7 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative