Social irresponsibility in management

Armstrong, J. Scott

doi:10.1016/0148-2963(77)90011-x

Cited by 187 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Under the stakeholder accounting treatment, the percentage of highly irresponsible decisions was reduced to 23 percent when the participants were told that the Board agreed with the stakeholder role for directors, and to 22 percent when the Board was composed of stakeholder representatives. The socially responsible decisions went from none under the control condition to 12 percent when the board adopted the stakeholder view to 29 percent when the board was composed of stakeholder representatives (Armstrong, 1977).…”

Section: Evidence On Methods To Reduce Csimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Armstrong (1977) conducted an extension of the Milgram experiment by using an actual case faced by Upjohn, a pharmaceutical company. The company was facing the potential ban of one of its drugs, Panalba, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).…”

Section: Evidence On Methods To Reduce Csimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This paper uses a definition that Armstrong (1977) proposes: "A decision can be considered as irresponsible if it is (1) inferior to other options when all effects upon all parties are considered, or (2) a decision that the decision maker would consider unethical in a personal capacity. "…”

Section: Evidence On Methods To Reduce Csimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility policies

Armstrong

Green

2013

Journal of Business Research

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews experimental evidence on the effects of policies intended to promote behavior by firms that is more socially responsible and less socially irresponsible. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) can provide firms with opportunities for profit, but changes are likely to increase total welfare only if firms adopt them freely and without taxpayer subsidies. Mandated CSR circumvents people's own plans and preferences, distorts the allocation of resources, and increases the likelihood of irresponsible decisions. Evidence that government policies will increase welfare and a compelling argument that proven benefits justify reductions in freedom are necessary in order to justify CSR mandates. To date, this has apparently not been achieved. Corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) is concerned with whether firms undertake harmful actions that managers would be unwilling to undertake acting for themselves, or that a reasonable person would expect to cause substantive net harm when all parties are considered. Markets in which stakeholders are free to make decisions in their own interests provide some protection against CSI. Tort and contract law provide additional protection. Nevertheless, managers sometimes act irresponsibly. Codes of ethics that require fair treatment of stakeholders while pursuing long-term profit reduce the risk of irresponsible decisions. Management support and stakeholder accounting are important for successful implementation. Firms may wish to consider these measures; many already have.

show abstract

Section: Evidence On Methods To Reduce Csimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evidence On Methods To Reduce Csimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility policies

Armstrong

Green

2013

Journal of Business Research

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Academic interest began with the first study by Armstrong (1977), who posited that CSIR was the immoral decision made by the directors of a company with the aim of creating shareholder value at the expense of others, where groups of impartial observers played a fundamental role because they were responsible for assessing the irresponsibility of such behaviour. Thirty years would have to pass before there was decisive return to academic interest in this concept.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate social irresponsibility: review and conceptual boundaries

Riera

Iborra

2017

EJMBE

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to carry out a review of the academic literature about corporate social irresponsibility (CSIR) highlighting aspects that help us to define socially irresponsible behaviour and its relationship with socially responsible behaviour. Design/methodology/approach Through a Boolean search of studies related to terms of irresponsibility undertaken from 1956 to October 2016, the authors develop a review of the literature focussing on the main perspectives used for defining the term of CSIR. Findings The paper provides a framework of three main dimensions for understanding the differences in the literature that defines CSIR: who defines irresponsible behaviour, an impartial observer or a specific group of stakeholders, whether it is a firm strategy or a punctual action and which is the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and CSIR, continuity vs orthogonal relationship. Originality/value The paper provides and extensive and original review of a key construct, CSIR, and develops some insights about its antecedents and consequences. The authors try to provide light to the contradictory situation where a growing interest in CSR and the increase in voluntary commitments adopted by company leaders incorporating CSR into their strategies are, paradoxically, increasingly associated with CSIR.

show abstract

“…Armstrong (1977) tested for social irresponsibility in management but introduced the case as a 'teaching vehicle' rather than an experiment and participants were told that it was a decision-making exercise in a crisis situation.…”

Section: Methods Used In Business Ethics Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Good People Do Bad Things in Business

Ping¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much research has been undertaken since the 1960s to determine how people make ethical decisions. Business schools around the world have also dedicated increased efforts to ethics education since the late 1980s. However, the research fails to support the effectiveness of this effort in preventing or reducing unethical outcomes in business. The majority of existing business ethics research makes two fundamental assumptions: firstly, that 'bad' people do 'bad' things owing to: a lack of character; bad values; or greed; and, secondly, that ethical decision making is a rational, cognitive process that can be taught.In this thesis emerging research in the fields of criminology, social psychology and neuro-cognitive science is built on, questioning these two assumptions. It is shown that ethical decision making is most often a subconscious process with higher order reasoning not engaged until after the event. It is also shown that in trying to understand our own and others' behaviour, we overestimate the importance of dispositional qualities and under estimate the importance of situational and systemic factors.Research indicates the key factors in unethical behaviour to be: self-delusion; perceptual biases; and ethical blindness linked to learned justifications that neutralise moral intent. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to understand why people of good character and without ill intent create unethical outcomes in business and how moral intention, perceptual blindness and moral neutralisations interact and impact upon this social psychology and neuro-cognitive science. The aim is to develop a model that shows how, in theory, ethical outcomes are created. Drawing on a social constructivist paradigm a multiple case study research design utilising qualitative data is determined to be the most appropriate method to test this theoretical model. Participants in the research were drawn from people at Board or senior executive levels who had either been charged with corporate crimes or who had been a whistle-blower in such crimes.Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the aim of encouraging participants to reflect on and describe the phenomenon they had experienced. The theoretical model was used as a starting point for these interviews to explore the events from the subjects' perspective. These interviews were then supplemented and triangulated by an analysis of corporate documents, media reports and, where possible, court reports.The data gathered from the research was then coded and analysed for patterns to enable

show abstract

Social irresponsibility in management

Cited by 187 publications

References 47 publications

Effects of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility policies

Effects of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility policies

Corporate social irresponsibility: review and conceptual boundaries

Why Good People Do Bad Things in Business

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About