Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explain people's divergent perceptions of companies' corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities in order to help organizations strategically manage their global responsibilities.Design/methodology/approachCombining institutional theory and role‐theory, the authors examine how people's expectations for the role of business (RoB) in society define the standard by which corporate activities are judged. Where conformity to institutional models confers "legitimacy" and compliance to social scripts constitutes "appropriate" behavior, the authors contend that congruence with RoB expectations is what defines corporate responsibility. This research utilized a quasi‐experimental method to explore the effects of stakeholder status and individuals' RoB expectations on their assessments of CSR activities.FindingsSignificant differences were found between stakeholder groups on all but one of the CSR activities scales. Of substantially more impact, subjects' RoB expectations were found to significantly shape their assessment on all CSR activities scales. A factor analysis of the RoB items identified five dimensions to the role business plays in society, which together define a holistic model for global responsibility.Research limitations/implicationsSubjects were recruited by convenience and randomly assigned to the four experimental conditions, so they are not representative of the general population. Future research would benefit from cross‐cultural, longitudinal and qualitative explorations into people's RoB expectations.Practical implicationsThe five RoB components provide managers with a tool to strategically manage a multi‐dimensional portfolio of corporate CSR activities.Originality/valueThis research applies role‐theory concepts to the study of CSR, thereby introducing some emergent, situational, negotiated and idiosyncratic dynamics to our understanding of global responsibility.