Corporate Activism as a Courageous Role Model or Threatening Villain in Citizen Political Engagement � A Parallel Mediation Model
Author(s): 1Elias Dimitriou, 2 Andreas Konstantinou
Affiliation: 1,2Department of Master of Business Administration,1,2ALBA Graduate Business School, Athens-Greece
Page No: 10-19-
Volume issue & Publishing Year: Volume 1 Issue 6 ,OCT- 2024
Journal: International Journal of Modern Engineering and Management | IJMEM
ISSN NO: 3048-8230
DOI:
Abstract:
Corporate activism has become an increasingly prominent phenomenon in recent years, with corporations using their platforms to advocate for social, political, and environmental causes. While some view corporate activism as a positive force that demonstrates social responsibility, others perceive it as a threat, seeing corporations as overstepping their role in society. This research investigates the dual perceptions of corporate activism as either a courageous role model or a threatening villain and its effects on citizen political engagement. Utilizing a parallel mediation model, this study explores how corporate activism influences political behavior, focusing on mediators such as perceived corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate image. Findings suggest that corporate activism, when perceived positively, can enhance political engagement, while negative perceptions reduce engagement. The study emphasizes the nuanced nature of corporate activism's impact on society and offers recommendations for companies seeking to align their activism with the values of their audiences.
Keywords:
Corporate Activism, Political Engagement, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Image, Parallel Mediation Model, Social Influence, Public Perception
Reference:
1. Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.
2. Amaeshi, K. M., & Adi, B. (2007). Reconstructing the corporate social responsibility construct in Uganda: Lessons from a developing country. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 24, 37–48.
3. Andriof, J., & Waddock, S. (2002). Unfolding stakeholder engagement. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, & S. Sutherland Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking (pp. 19–42). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
4. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.
5. Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.
6. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
7. Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research, and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.
8. Chatterji, A. K., Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1), 125–169.
9. Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016). Researching corporate social responsibility communication: Themes, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1223–1252.
10. Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2(3), 70–76.
11. De Roeck, K., & Maon, F. (2018). Building the theoretical puzzle of employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: An integrative conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(3), 609–625.
12. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
13. Elms, H., Brammer, S., Harris, J. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). New directions in strategic management and business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(3), 401–425.
14. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
15. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
16. Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777–798.
17. Gond, J. P., & Matten, D. (2007). Rethinking the business-society interface: Beyond the functionalist trap. ICFAI Journal of Corporate Governance, 6(3), 26–43.
18. Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327.
19. Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.
20. Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2007). Corporate social strategy in multinational enterprises: Antecedents and value creation. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 345–361.
21. Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.
22. Kolk, A., & van Tulder, R. (2010). International business, corporate social responsibility and sustainable development. International Business Review, 19(2), 119–125.
23. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. New York: Wiley.
24. Lev, B., Petrovits, C., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2010). Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 182–200.
25. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.
26. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). "Implicit" and "explicit" CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.
27. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.
28. Moon, J. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 15(5), 296–306.
29. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.
30. Peloza, J. (2009). The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1518–1541.
31. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.
32. Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. L. (2002). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy+Business, 26, 54–67.
33. Reich, R. B. (2007). Supercapitalism: The transformation of business, democracy, and everyday life. New York: Knopf.
34. Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1077–1093.
35. Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.
36. Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166.
37. Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review, 45(4), 52–76.
38. Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
39. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.
40. Zadek, S. (2004). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(12), 125–132.