Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-vbn2q Total loading time: 0.299 Render date: 2021-08-05T13:33:15.063Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Stakeholder Influences and Organization Responses: A Case Study of Corporate Social Responsibility Suspension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2015

Yuhuan Liu
Affiliation:
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, China
Tianli Feng
Affiliation:
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, China
Suichuan Li
Affiliation:
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, China
Corresponding

Abstract

In this study, we use the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR) suspension and provide a case study from China to show how conditions allowed shareholders to seize power and alter a firm's mission. We show that managers reacted to a change in shareholder power by changing their priorities to correlate with shareholder influences. Our dynamic model first highlights the importance of precipitating events that allowed shareholders to seize power. In response, managers rebalanced their priorities, paid more attention to the shareholders who demanded higher profits, and suspended ethical and discretionary responsibilities as a result. We further present evidence that CSR suspension subsequently harms relationships between stakeholders and threatens firm survival. We contribute to stakeholder theory by providing a dynamic model for interpreting stakeholder influences and managers’ subsequent responses. We add to corporate social responsibility studies by providing a more nuanced understanding of CSR suspension.

Type
Special Issue Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, A. 1997. On the concept of turning point. Comparative Social Research, 16: 85105.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. 2012. What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38 (4): 932968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, M. L. 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32 (3): 794816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, A. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4 (4): 497505.Google Scholar
Chin, M. K., Hambrick, D., & Treviño, L. 2013. Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58 (2): 197232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
China, CSR. 2010. CSR in China 2010 Review [in Chinese]. Shenzhen: Corporate Social Responsibility Alliance.Google Scholar
Child, J., Lua, Y., & Tsai, T. 2007. Institutional entrepreneurship in building an environmental protection system for the People's Republic of China. Organization Studies, 28 (7): 10131034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child, J., & Tsai, T. 2005. The dynamic between firms’ environmental strategies and institutional constraints in emerging economies: Evidence from China and Taiwan. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (1): 95125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, M. B. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1): 92117.Google Scholar
Corlett, J. A. 1989. The “modified vendetta sanction” as a method of corporate collective punishment. Journal of Business Ethics, 8 (12): 937942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cui, Z. Y., Liang, X. Y., & Lu, X. W. 2015. Prize or price? Corporate social responsibility commitment and sales performance in the Chinese private sector. Management and Organization Review , 11 (1): 2544.Google Scholar
Davis, G. F., & Thompson, T. A. 1994. A social movement perspective on corporate control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (1): 141173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eesley, C., & Lenox, M. J. 2006. Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (8): 765781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4): 532550.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. 1990. The Transformation of Corporate Control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Frederick, W. C., Post, J. E., & Davis, K. 1992. Business and society: Corporate strategy, public policy, ethics (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24 (2): 191205.Google Scholar
Garud, R., & Rappa, M. 1994. A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear implants. Organizational Science, 5 (3): 344362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. 2002. Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1), 5880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirchman, A. O. 1970. Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A. 1999. Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Review, 42 (4): 351371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, A., & Ocasio, W. 2001. Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science, 12 (4): 414434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, P. 1995. The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (3): 398422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, B. 2008. A social movement perspective of stakeholder collective action and influence. Business & Society, 47 (1): 2149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. 2007. Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protests on stock price returns. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 413442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kojima, K., Choe, Y. J., Ohtomo, T., & Tsujinaka, Y. 2012. The corporatist system and social organizations in China. Management and Organization Review, 8 (3): 609628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y., Guo, J. Z., & Chi, N. 2015. The antecedents and performance consequences of proactive environment strategy: A meta-analytic review of national contingency. Management and Organization Review, 11 (3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorange, P., Scott, M. S., & Ghoshal, S. 1986. Strategic Control Systems. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Lu, X. 2009. A Chinese perspective: Business ethics in China now and in the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 86 (4): 451461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22 (4): 853886.Google Scholar
Ma, Q. 2006. Non-governmental organizations in contemporary China: Paving the way to civil society? New York. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Magness, V. 2008. Who are the stakeholders now? An empirical examination of the Mitchell, Agle, and Wood theory of stakeholder salience. Journal of Business Ethics, 83 (2): 177192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, C., & Qian, C. 2014. Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance? Organizational Science, 25 (1): 127148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, A. 1982. Adapting to environmental jolts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (4): 515537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26: 117127.Google Scholar
Neville, B. A., Bell, S. J., & Whitwell, G. J. 2011. Stakeholders salience revisited: Refining, redefining, and refueling an underdeveloped conceptual tool. Journal of Business Ethics, 102 (3): 357378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, K., & Lydenberg, S. D. 1992. Applications of corporate social monitoring systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 11 (1): 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & De Colle, S. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. The Academy of Management Annals, 4 (1): 403445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfarrer, M. D., Decelles, K. A., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. 2008. After the fall: Reintegrating the corrupt organization. Academy of Management Review, 33 (3): 730749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. 1978. The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Reimer, J. W. 1977. Varieties of opportunistic research. Urban Life, 5: 467477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. 2005. Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (2): 159180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siggelkow, P. M. 2007. Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1): 2024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. C, & Cooper-Martin, E. 1997. Ethics and target marketing: The role of product harm and consumer vulnerability. Journal of Marketing, 61: 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Sun, J. X., Wang, F., Wang, F. H., & Yin, H. T. 2015. Community institutions and initial diffusion of corporate social responsibility practices in China's banking industry. Management and Organization Review , 11 (3).Google Scholar
Surroca, J., Tribo, J. A., & Waddock, S. 2010. Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (5): 463490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, J. 2009. Institutional structure and firm social performance in transitional economies: Evidence of multinational corporations in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 86 (2): 171189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilcsik, A., & Marquis, C. 2013. Punctuated generosity: How mega-events and natural disasters affect corporate philanthropy in U. S. communities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58 (1): 111148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. 2011. Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22 (1): 6080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H., & Jing, R. 2012. Indigenous management research in China from an engaged scholarship perspective. Management and Organization Review, 8 (1): 123–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate Social Performance Revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16 (4): 691718.Google Scholar
Wood, D. 1994. Business and Society. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. Sage: London, UK.Google Scholar
Zu, L. R., & Song, L. 2008. Determinants of managerial values on corporate social responsibility: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 88 (1): 105117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Liu supplementary material

Translated abstracts

Download Liu supplementary material(File)
File 15 KB
11
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Stakeholder Influences and Organization Responses: A Case Study of Corporate Social Responsibility Suspension
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Stakeholder Influences and Organization Responses: A Case Study of Corporate Social Responsibility Suspension
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Stakeholder Influences and Organization Responses: A Case Study of Corporate Social Responsibility Suspension
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *