Justified by ideology: Why conservatives care less about corporate social irresponsibility

Jasinenko, Anna; Christandl, Fabian; Meynhardt, Timo

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.006

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It may thus not be surprising that we are currently witnessing a significant increase in experimental research, particularly in institutional theory (Bitektine et al, 2018). Following up on Zucker’s (1977) early experimental work studying the effects of institutionalization on cultural persistence, more recent experimental investigations have demonstrated the rapid institutionalization of price bubbles (Levine et al, 2014), experimentally manipulated institutional complexity (Raaijmakers et al, 2015), institutionalized belief systems (Hafenbrädl and Waeger, 2017), political ideologies (Jasinenko et al, 2020), and various types of institutional logics (Glaser et al, 2016). Recent investigations have also tested the effects of organizational identity on resistance to institutional pressures (Schilke, 2018).…”

Section: Advancing Legitimacy Research With Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimacy Revisited: Disentangling Propriety, Validity, and Consensus

Haack

Schilke

Zucker

2020

J Management Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has conceptualized legitimacy as a multi-level phenomenon comprising propriety and validity. Propriety refers to an individual evaluator's belief that a legitimacy object is appropriate for its social context, whereas validity denotes an institutionalized, collective-level perception of appropriateness. In this article, we refine this multi-level understanding of legitimacy by adding a third, meso-level construct of 'consensus', which we define as the agreement between evaluators' propriety beliefs. Importantly, validity and consensus are distinct and can be incongruent, given that an institutionalized perception can hide underlying disagreement. Disentangling validity from consensus is a crucial extension of the multi-level theory of legitimacy, because it enables an improved understanding of the legitimacy processes that precede sudden and unanticipated institutional change. In particular, while previous works considered revised propriety beliefs as the starting point for institutional change, our account emphasizes that the disclosure of the actual (vs. merely assumed) belief distribution within a social context may instigate institutional change. To study the interplay of propriety, validity, and consensus empirically, we propose a set of experimental designs specifically geared towards improving knowledge of the role of legitimacy and its components in institutional change.

show abstract

Section: Advancing Legitimacy Research With Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimacy Revisited: Disentangling Propriety, Validity, and Consensus

Haack

Schilke

Zucker

2020

J Management Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our project can also offer some practical implications. For example, the effects we observed might be used to better understand why and under what conditions consumers with conservative views are less concerned with corporate social responsibility (CSR) and react less critically to its violations (Chin et al, 2013;Gupta & Wowak, 2017;Jasinenko et al, 2020;Jung et al, 2017). Our results seem to contribute to a twofold understanding of such an effect.…”

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 64%

Market mindset reduces endorsement of individualizing moral foundations, but not in liberals

Zaleśkiewicz

Gąsiorowska

Kuźmińska

2022

J. Soc. Polit. Psych.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People with a market mindset attend to ratios and rates, and allocate rewards adequately to costs but are less sensitive to feelings. In this project, we demonstrate that activating a market mindset also affects people’s acceptance of free-market principles and their endorsement of individualizing moral dimensions—care/harm and fairness/cheating. Experiment 1 documented that a market mindset positively impacted people’s endorsement of fair market ideology. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that the salience of such a market mindset hampered the importance of individualizing moral dimensions. Importantly, we found that political orientation moderated the negative effect of a market mindset on the endorsement of individualizing moral foundations—this effect held for participants who declared moderate and conservative political orientations, but not for liberals.

show abstract

“…Moreover, when the CSI behavior is from a firm located in a highly warm country (Shea & Hawn, 2019), when there is a close relationship between the consumer and the brand (Antonetti & Anesa, 2017), or when the consumer shares the same ethnic identity as the indicated victim of the CSI (Antonetti & Maklan, 2018), consumers’ reactions to such behavior are more negative. However, when consumer ideology is conservative (Jasinenko, Christandl, & Meynhardt, 2020), when consumers have had a good customer experience prior to the CSI event (Peasley, Woodroof, & Coleman, 2021), or when consumers directly benefit from the corporate CSI behavior (Scheidler & Edinger-Schons, 2020), the negativity of consumer reactions is mitigated.…”

Section: Research Framework and Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate Social Irresponsibility in Business: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Agenda

Tan,

Wu,

Zhong

2024

Manag. Organ. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite increased interest in corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) among business scholars, the current research is still fragmented, its findings lacking a nuanced understanding. We conduct a systematic literature review of 173 journal articles on CSI published in the field of business and synthesize insights regarding the antecedents, consequences, and mechanisms of CSI. We begin by providing a clear definition, distinct types, and the measurement methods of CSI. Then, we provide a comprehensive research framework that demonstrates the three key components of CSI research: antecedent, consequence, and moderating. Building on this, we identify additional specific research methods for each component and apply them to assess and analyze the existing research findings and research gaps concerning CSI. We suggest that scholars pay more attention to (a) the impact of stakeholders on CSI behavior, (b) the different impacts of CSI on firm performance, (c) the relationship among CSI, corporate social responsibility, and firm performance, (d) CSI in the context of emerging economies, and (e) measuring CSI.

show abstract

Justified by ideology: Why conservatives care less about corporate social irresponsibility

Cited by 13 publications

References 49 publications

Legitimacy Revisited: Disentangling Propriety, Validity, and Consensus

Legitimacy Revisited: Disentangling Propriety, Validity, and Consensus

Market mindset reduces endorsement of individualizing moral foundations, but not in liberals

Corporate Social Irresponsibility in Business: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Agenda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About