Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a comprehensive concept that aims at the promotion of responsible business practices closely linked to the strategy of enterprises. Although there is no single accepted definition of CSR, it remains an inspiring, challenging and strategic development that is becoming an increasingly important priority for companies of all sizes and types, particularly in Europe. Promotion of well-being at work is an essential component of CSR; however, the link between CSR, working conditions and work organisation is still (...) found to be unfamiliar to stakeholders. As CSR is strategic and is regarded by many companies and corporate leaders as an important development, it offers opportunities for psychosocial risk management, an area that is currently among the top priorities in working environment and well-being at work debates. However, the link between CSR and psychosocial risk management has not been addressed clearly before. This paper aims to explore the potential role of CSR in promoting well-being at work through the development of a framework for the management of psychosocial risks. As part of the research, key stakeholders [including the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), the European Commission (EC), employers’ associations, trade unions and other policy experts] across Europe participated in a survey, interviews and focus groups to assess and clarify the link between CSR and psychosocial risk management. On the basis of the findings, a CSR-inspired approach to the management of psychosocial issues at work is proposed. Such an approach can be a useful tool in contexts where, up until now, expertise and tradition in dealing with psychosocial issues have been lacking. (shrink)

Integrating stakeholder agency theory with the instrumental corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature, this study explores how award-winning CEOs consider personal interests and balance competing stakeholder demands when they decide between external and internal CSR, or CSR focus. Using a difference-in-differences research design, we find that after winning a prestigious media award, CEOs engage in more external CSR, which is more visible to the public, and less internal CSR, which is less likely to attract public attention. We find that such an (...) influence on CSR focus is more salient for award-winning CEOs with lower stock ownership (i.e. a stronger self-serving motivation) than for CEOs with higher stock ownership. Furthermore, we explore the role of stakeholder salience in modifying award-winning CEOs’ decisions about CSR focus. When external stakeholder salience is higher (e.g. higher media coverage), award-winning CEOs' manipulation of CSR focus by increasing external CSR and decreasing internal CSR is more salient. However, such effects can be dampened when internal stakeholder salience is higher (e.g. higher human capital intensity). Our study contributes to the instrumental CSR literature by demonstrating the underlying processes and boundary conditions of how awards affect CEOs' balance of stakeholder salience. (shrink)

Based on the literature on stakeholder management and family firm dynamics, this research analyses the relationship between three constructs: the identification of business families with their family firms, FFs’ orientation toward key non-family stakeholders, and the achievement of better economic performance. Data analyses from 374 family and non-family members of 173 Spanish FFs show that a high level of family identification with their firms affects the orientation of FFs toward key non-family stakeholders in setting corporate goals and that this orientation (...) will lead to higher economic performance only when it is built on family identification with the firm. Our results also show that the significance of both relationships changes with the degree of family involvement in the management of the FF. (shrink)

Management scholars have paid close attention to the construct of organizational or corporate reputation, particularly in the applied business ethics and corporate social responsibility fields. Extant research demonstrates that CR is one of the key mediators between CSR and important organizational outcomes, which ultimately improve organizational performance. Yet, hitherto the research focused on CR construct has been plagued by multiple definitions, conflicting conceptualizations, and unclear operationalizations. The purpose of this article is to provide theoretical ground for positioning of CR as (...) an assessment construct that is modeled as a second-order factor affecting individual first-order dimensions, and to provide methodological and empirical support toward such conceptualization. We assert that intangible, socially complex, and causally ambiguous CR can be accurately estimated through its individual measurable dimensions. Using survey data from Peru, we empirically test the hypothesized second-order reflective model within a hierarchy of nested and non-nested models, and compare its model fit and predictive power with alternative conceptualizations. Modeling CR as a second-order reflective construct relies on a set of theoretical propositions and yields several methodological advantages, including strong conceptual interpretability and parsimony when tested within a nomological context. We explicitly demonstrate positive organizational outcomes of CR: customer trust, corporate identification, in-role behavior, and extra-role behavior. Then, we demonstrate that the shorter scales of CR can be used as a good proxy for the full construct measure. The paper concludes by highlighting theoretical insights, and methodological and managerial implications of the findings. (shrink)

We examine three assumptions commonly held in the corporate reputation literature: (1) reputation ratings of owners and investors are generally representative of all stakeholders; (2) stakeholders will generally provide a higher reputation rating to firms that emphasize corporate social responsibility versus firms that do not; and (3) profitability is the primary criterion of importance to all stakeholders when rating a firm's reputation. Using an exploratory in‐class exercise, our findings suggest that: (1) there are significant differences among stakeholder groups in their (...) reputation ratings; (2) firms that emphasize corporate social responsibility are not rated more highly across all stakeholder groups; and (3) for all stakeholder groups, the ethicality criterion explained more of the variance in firms' reputation ratings than the profitability criterion. (shrink)

This paper analyses empirical evidence of efforts to enable Spanish micro and small manufacturing companies to boost their labour productivity rates through the development of the main pillars of their corporate social responsibility policies. This study aims to develop new approaches and sensibilities towards work from an ethical, values and CSR perspective, showing how internal dimensions of CSR, such those related to relationships with employees and responsibility in processes and product quality, can improve labour performance and labour efficiency, thereby contributing (...) to a better society. The results of a sample of 929 small businesses indicate that the social responsibility policies that most contributed to a short-term increase in labour productivity are those related to internal aspects of the company, in particular its involvement in the quality of processes and products, promotion of innovation and employee care. However, the impact on labour productivity of CSR policies related to external factors, such as relationship with stakeholders and environmental concern, could not be empirically proven in this paper. (shrink)

We examine three assumptions commonly held in the corporate reputation literature: (1) reputation ratings of owners and investors are generally representative of all stakeholders; (2) stakeholders will generally provide a higher reputation rating to firms that emphasize corporate social responsibility versus firms that do not; and (3) profitability is the primary criterion of importance to all stakeholders when rating a firm's reputation. Using an exploratory in‐class exercise, our findings suggest that: (1) there are significant differences among stakeholder groups in their (...) reputation ratings; (2) firms that emphasize corporate social responsibility are not rated more highly across all stakeholder groups; and (3) for all stakeholder groups, the ethicality criterion explained more of the variance in firms' reputation ratings than the profitability criterion. (shrink)