Search results

This study aims to test Mattingly and Berman’s (2006) taxonomy of social actions and develops divergent expectations for corporate social responsibility (CSR) dimensions directed toward institutional and technical stakeholders, with an aim to determine when CSR directed to different stakeholders is most likely to improve corporate reputation.

A longitudinal sample of 285 major US corporations was used to quantitatively test the hypotheses. Data was sourced from KLD, Osiris and Fortune MAC.

Strengths in CSR and actions directed toward technical stakeholders influence corporate reputation in a more profound way, when compared to those directed toward institutional stakeholders. Contrary to the authors’ prediction, institutional concerns do not demonstrate a significant growth or reduction over the five-year period.

This study provides a longitudinal test of Mattingly and Berman’s (2006) taxonomy of CSR actions and makes an important methodological contribution by operationalizing CSR not as a continuum from strengths to concerns, rather as two distinct constructs.

Management practice can benefit from a more fine-grained approach to stakeholder expectations and reputation outcomes. The results of this study leverage relevant stakeholder impact while allowing firms to appreciate the change in CSR actions and to measure it accordingly, such that the undesirable status quo that leads to potential loss in reputation growth can be avoided.

As organizations explore ways to effectively engage stakeholders for mutual benefit, this research shows how firms can have a positive impact.

This study tests and extends theory through an integrated lens, built on the stakeholder and resource dependence theories, while directing management attention to the broader reputational outcomes of targeted CSR initiatives. It provides justification for CSR investments over time.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how the risk management objectives of the firm's owners influence the organization's sustainability strategies with a particular focus on new sustainability related initiatives. Given shareholder objectives direct firm attention to refine organizational focus, the paper's main premise is that ultimately it is the ownership structure of the firm that sets the agenda in terms of sustainability initiatives. Considering the broad distinctions between family/founder ownership, corporate ownership and institutional ownership, the overall ownership structure of the firm will strongly influence the motivations and temporal considerations of the firm vis-à-vis sustainability related initiatives.

Within a resource-based view, the authors link first-mover advantages and sustainability strategies as a reflection of owners' perceptions of risk management and underlying motivations.

The authors postulate that firms with predominant family/founder ownership undertake sustainability-related initiatives as patient investors based on their ideological motivations, while corporate owners undertake initiatives with capabilities building orientation, with institutional owners adopting sustainability-related initiatives as a risk mitigation strategy.

Managers charged with developing sustainability strategies may add a further consideration, namely taking into account the risk management objectives of the owners of the firm, in choosing and justifying the type of sustainability innovation.

This conceptual paper provides a novel link between the first-mover advantage of sustainability initiatives and the ownership and governance of the organization. It contributes to the limited strategy research on ownership impact on sustainability initiatives and provides guidance to managers in developing appropriate strategies.