ABSTRACT:In this article, we describe evolutionary psychology and its potential contribution to business ethics research. After summarizing evolutionary theory and natural selection, we specifically address the use of evolutionary concepts in psychology in order to offer alternative explanations of behavior relevant to business ethics, such as social exchange, cooperation, altruism, and reciprocity. Our position is that individuals, groups, and organizations all are affected by similar natural, evolutionary processes, such that evolutionary psychology is applicable at multiple levels of analysis (e.g., individual (...) and group). We introduce a variety of experiments and instruments employed by evolutionary psychologists to illustrate how ethics-relevant cultural norms and practices evolve and are regulated, and to raise the prospect that these experiments and instruments can be useful in future business ethics research. (shrink)

This study integrates the resource dependence perspective and the stakeholder perspective to analyze local Chinese suppliers’ environment strategies in response to environmental requirements of different types of customers. With a sample of 1,215 local Chinese manufacturing suppliers, we examine the impact of export intensity and environmental requirements of multinational enterprises on local Chinese suppliers’ environment strategies. The results show that local Chinese suppliers with high levels of export intensity are more likely to adopt positive environment strategies to reduce environmental risks. (...) In addition, local Chinese suppliers respond actively to environmental requirements of MNE customers but not to those of local customers. The linkage between MNE customers’ environmental requirements and local Chinese suppliers’ environment strategies remains significant, even after we control for the impact of export intensity. Implications of the findings conclude the article. (shrink)

Organizational ambidexterity (OA)—the simultaneous pursuit of explorative and exploitative innovations—engenders nested (paradoxes manifesting across organizational levels) and knotted paradoxes (intertwined co-occurring paradoxes at the same or across organizational levels). Both nested and knotted paradoxes are managed by internal stakeholders using approaches that are socially constructed by influences emanating from within and beyond an organization. External stakeholders also help shape organizational innovations but their influence on the management of paradoxes has largely been overlooked. In this study, we collected and analyzed data (...) from internal ( n = 19) and external stakeholders ( n = 18) in organizations pursuing explorative and exploitative clean energy transitions at nine Canadian energy utilities. We find that the external stakeholders engage with knotted inclusivity–efficiency and existing–emerging needs paradoxes. Our findings add to OA and business and society literature by revealing how the approaches that internal and external stakeholders adopt for paradox management have implications for each other, and thus OA. We also provide practical insight into how external stakeholder paradoxes can be managed through stakeholder inclusivity and enhanced transparency of innovation plans, with positive implications for OA. (shrink)

Fairness and justice are core issues in stakeholder theory. Although such considerations receive more attention in the ‘normative’ branch of the stakeholder literature, they have critical implications for ‘instrumental’ stakeholder theory as well. In research in the instrumental vein, although the position has seldom been articulated in significant detail, a stakeholder’s inclination to take action against the firm or, conversely, to cooperate with it, is often taken to be a function of its perceptions concerning the fairness or unfairness of the (...) treatment it receives in its relationship with the firm. Thus, from various works in this domain can be distilled what might be termed a ‘fairness-based perspective on stakeholder behaviour’. This perspective, as it currently stands, assumes a high degree of homogeneity in stakeholders’ responses to fair, unfair, or munificent treatment by the firm. This supposition is itself typically based on a presumption that stakeholders consistently and uniformly adhere to norms of equity and reciprocity in their relationships with firms. However, research developments in equity theory and social exchange theory suggest that such assumptions are likely untenable. Accordingly, in this work, after outlining the fairness-based perspective on stakeholder behaviour, I undertake to augment it by presenting propositions concerning the possible influences of stakeholders’ equity preferences and exchange ideologies on their propensities to sanction or support the firm. Incorporating these stakeholder traits into the fairness-based perspective should enhance the predictive validity of its propositions concerning stakeholder behaviour in response to fairness or unfairness in the firm–stakeholder relationship. (shrink)

The say-on-pay regulation in the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly-traded U.S. firms to hold a nonbinding, advisory shareholder vote on executive compensation. Advocates claim that SOP voting gives shareholders a mechanism to hold managers and boards more accountable. Critics contend that SOP votes may simplistically reflect shareholders’ reactions to the overall value of CEO compensation or the firm’s net income. However, based on prior research, we contend that market participants’ SOP votes are likely to consider current income attributes. For example, the (...) market punishes firms that do not meet or beat benchmarks such as analyst earnings expectations, and that shareholders scrutinize the quality of the income sources of firms that consistently meet/beat analyst expectations. We thus expect that more shareholders will provide ‘agree’ SOP votes for a firm that consistently meets/beats analyst forecasts and does so when net income does not include nonrecurring gains. Further, we consider whether perceptions about the fairness of CEO compensation play a mediating role in the relationship between the interaction of these two current income attributes and SOP votes. Results from an experiment using evening MBA students as participants indicates that the two current income attributes significantly interact with respect to the percentage of agree SOP votes, and that compensation fairness perceptions fully mediate this relationship. Further, the mediating effect of compensation fairness perceptions is robust to including CEO-level and other determinants found in prior research. We conclude with a discussion of our findings and their implications for public policy and research. (shrink)

Although a tainted outside director’s social status may serve as a buffer against devaluation owing to an affiliate firm’s corporate financial misconduct, the extent of this buffer effect is unclear. We propose a threshold approach by introducing the expectancy violation perspective, which generates a theoretical tension from the network-embeddedness perspective, to clarify the following question: From which perspective does the buffer effect of social status become more salient? Specifically, we propose an inverted U–shaped relationship between the directors’ social status and (...) the departure of tainted outside directors from host firms. We theorize that when directors’ social status exceeds a certain threshold, the network-embeddedness perspective is more dominant than the expectancy violation perspective. Moreover, a host firm’s external stakeholder attention and board social status moderate the inverted-U effect such that its turning point shifts to the right because such contingencies increase the threshold for the buffer. Using a sample of tainted outside directors penalized for associated firms’ financial misconduct, we find evidence that supports our predictions. Our study helps clarify the boundary between the competing theoretical perspectives of expectancy violation and network embeddedness to explain the phenomenon of tainted director departure. (shrink)

Scholars of stakeholder management have long grappled with the question of how to communicate with stakeholders to enhance cooperation and reduce conflict. We build on insights from the literature on stakeholder dialog to highlight the importance of four elements of firm–stakeholder dialog processes: timing, valence, richness, and topicality of firms’ responses to stakeholder engagements. We demonstrate a link between these elements of the firm–stakeholder dialog process and changes in stakeholder cooperation or conflict with the firm, as well as contingent tradeoffs (...) among them. Specifically, we show that the relative importance of these elements is contingent upon stakeholder type and status. Government actors prioritize richness and topicality over timeliness and valence. Economic actors, by contrast, prioritize timeliness and valence. Civil society stakeholders prioritize timeliness, valence, and topicality over richness. Low-status actors across sectors deprioritize topicality and richness while high-status actors demand attentiveness to all four elements. (shrink)

Although the possibility that a firm’s stakeholders may take damaging measures against it in response to its activities has been an underlying assumption of stakeholder theory from inception, the conditions that predispose stakeholders to act against firms remain largely unexplored in the literature. Based on work in equity theory, expectancy theory, and resource dependence theory, we present and test hypotheses concerning stakeholders’ propensities to impose sanctions upon—or to support—firms. Using a vignette-based experiment, we found strong confirmation of the criticality of (...) fairness in the firm–stakeholder relationship: stakeholder equity perceptions were unequivocally associated with the proclivity to sanction the firm, or to engage in prosocial behaviours of benefit to it. Stakeholder expectancy perceptions and resource dependence were related to only certain forms of stakeholder action, indicating that researchers should take care to differentiate between types of stakeholder response when investigating questions surrounding stakeholder mobilization. Our results also suggest specific avenues for stakeholder dialogue that could help firms mitigate the likelihood of stakeholders taking damaging action against them. (shrink)