Hometown advantage? Exploring the relationship between location, CSR/CSI and stakeholders’ behavioral intentions

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this exploratory study is to investigate the relationship between location (hometown or elsewhere), evaluation of corporations, expectations for corporations in their communities and likelihood to engage in pro-corporate behaviors in corporate social responsibility (CSR) scenarios or anti-corporate behaviors in corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) scenarios. The purpose of our exploratory study is to examine if the location of CSR or CSI activities influence pro and anti-corporation behavioral intentions.Design/methodology/approachA quantitative survey method is utilized (N = 1,450). Participants were Minnesota residents who volunteered to take the survey. Surveys were administered at the 2018 Minnesota State Fair.FindingsParticipants described corporations in their community more favorably than corporations located elsewhere and indicated a desire to have more corporations headquartered in their community. In instances of CSR, participants were more likely to engage in pro-corporate behaviors than if the corporation was located elsewhere. However, participants indicated a stronger likelihood of engaging in anti-corporate behaviors when CSI was enacted in their community than if the company was located elsewhere.Originality/valueThis study examines CSR and CSI concurrently, surveys community stakeholders rather than relying on existing databases (e.g. KLD Stats) that measure a limited set of CSR metrics, moves beyond descriptive accounts of CSR behaviors and financial outcomes associated with geography and extends stakeholder-organization relationship theorizing into the CSR/CSI context to interrogate the mutual interdependence between stakeholders and organizations.

Can corporate–nonprofit partnerships buffer socially irresponsible corporations from stakeholder backlash?

“…Corporate-nonprofit partnerships, as a form of CSR, can amplify a corporation's reputation, create competitive advantage and brand differentiation opportunities, reduce skepticism and increase credibility (O'Connor et al, 2021;Schmeltz, 2017). In addition, CSR can positively influence purchase decisions (Du et al, 2010) and investor response (Aaron et al, 2012).…”

“…However, CSR can increase stakeholders' skepticism and criticism toward the corporation. Specifically, CSR may create a "social license trap" (Graafland, 2018, p. 10) that attracts activists (King and McDonnell, 2012) and elevates stakeholder expectations (Rhee and Haunschild, 2006;O'Connor et al, 2021). King and McDonnell's (2012) research found that corporations with strong CSR reputations were more likely to be boycotted by activists than corporations with weak CSR reputations.…”

“…Corporate–nonprofit partnerships, as a form of CSR, can amplify a corporation's reputation, create competitive advantage and brand differentiation opportunities, reduce skepticism and increase credibility (O'Connor et al. , 2021; Schmeltz, 2017).…”

“…However, CSR can increase stakeholders' skepticism and criticism toward the corporation. Specifically, CSR may create a “social license trap” (Graafland, 2018, p. 10) that attracts activists (King and McDonnell, 2012) and elevates stakeholder expectations (Rhee and Haunschild, 2006; O'Connor et al. , 2021).…”

“…These findings indicate that the negative effects of CSI endure longer than the positive outcomes associated with CSR (Price and Sun, 2017; Shiu and Yang, 2016). Relatedly, O'Connor et al. (2021) found that stakeholders are more likely to engage in anti-corporate behavior (e.g.…”