Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTIn response to pressures to be more "socially responsible," corporations are becoming more active in global communities through direct involvement in social initiatives. Critics, however, question the sincerity of these activities and argue that firms are simply attempting to stave off stakeholder pressures without providing a corresponding benefit to society. By drawing on institutional theory and resource dependence theory, we consider what factors influence the adoption of a "meaningful" social initiative—an initiative that is sustainable and has the potential for a significant positive impact on society—as opposed to a symbolic initiative. In addition, we raise the question of how social initiatives—both meaningful and symbolic—participate in the "institutional war" over the meaning of corporate social responsibility.

AbstractAt a time when firms signal their commitment to CSR through online communication, news sources may convey conflicting information, causing stakeholders to perceive firm hypocrisy. Here, we test the effects of conflicting CSR information that conveys inconsistent outcomes (results-based hypocrisy) and ulterior motives (motive-based hypocrisy) on hypocrisy perceptions expressed in social media posts, which we conceptualize as countersignals that reach a broad audience of stakeholders. Across six studies, we find that (1) conflicting CSR information from internal (firm) and external (news) sources elicits hypocrisy perceptions regardless of whether the CSR information reflects inconsistencies in results or motives, (2) individuals respond to conflicting CSR information with countersignals accusing firms of hypocrisy expressed in social media posts, (3) hypocrisy perceptions are linked to other damaging stakeholder consequences, including behavior (divestment, boycotting, lower employment interest), affect (moral outrage), and cognition (moral condemnation), and (4) firms with higher credibility are more likely to experience adverse effects of conflicting CSR information. These findings advance theory regarding the effects of conflicting CSR information as it relates to the role of credibility and different forms of hypocrisy. Importantly, damaging social media posts and stakeholder backlash can arise from hypocrisy perceptions associated with inconsistent CSR results as well as inconsistent motives, and strong firm credibility only makes a firm more vulnerable to this backlash.

We draw from research on emotions and moral reasoning to develop a process model of collective corruption that centers on the role of moral emotions in the spread of corruption within organizations. Our focus on a well-intentioned and deliberative path to corruption is a departure from previous theory, which has focused on mindless and ill-intentioned paths. In our model, moral emotions play a critical role in both the initial recruitment of a target individual (the direct process), as well as the spread of corruption to a broader group of nontargeted individuals through emotional contagion (the vicarious process). For both processes we explain how self-directed moral emotions (guilt, shame, embarrassment, and pride) facilitate the spread of corruption and how other-directed moral emotions (anger and contempt) do not. We conclude by discussing the implications of our theory and directions for future research.

AbstractWhile corporate social responsibility (CSR) is expected to benefit the firm and attract employees, few have examined the effects of CSR on employees outside of work. Extending the organizational citizenship literature, we conceptualize employee engagement in CSR at work and outside of work as a form of "societal citizenship behavior." Across two studies of working adults, we examine the relationship between identification with an employer that engages in CSR and different forms of employee societal citizenship behaviors (e.g., donations, volunteering) outside of work. In Study 1 (N = 430 employees), we focus upon CSR donation programs and find that identification with an employer that engages in CSR and participating in employer CSR donation programs affect employee citizenship behavior (donations) outside of work. In Study 2 (N = 285 employees), we examine a broader set of citizenship behaviors inside and outside of work and find the relationships hold. Identification with an employer that engages in CSR relates positively to citizenship behavior at work and outside of work. In total, our study results suggest that employer CSR affects employee citizenship behaviors outside of work. We end with directions for future research.