The Ambivalent Executive

PurposeThis paper aims to examine how increases in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social irresponsibility (CSiR) relate to firm performance. Further, this paper investigates how increases in CSR (CSiR) while CSiR (CSR) is present relate to three measures of firm performance: profitability, management efficiency and market valuation.Design/methodology/approachUsing over 10,000 observations from 2009-2013 and combined data from Sustainalytics and Compustat, this paper examines how increases in either CSR or CSiR relate to firm performance.FindingsThe paper finds that increased CSR significantly relates to increased firm performance in all three measures, and that increased CSiR significantly relates to decreased profitability only. Furthermore, increased CSR when CSiR is present relates to increased efficiency and market valuation. Finally, increased CSiR when CSR is present relates to increased profitability and efficiency. The results suggest that CSR dominates the relationship to firm performance, as it was positively related to all three measures of firm performance, and when CSR and CSiR exist simultaneously, CSR has a dominant positive effect.Research limitations/implicationsThe study sample consists of US firms only from 2009-2013, thus the generalizability of the results to other countries and periods is unknown.Practical implicationsThe results demonstrating differing effects based on the measure of firm performance suggest that managers should be specific with which measures are used to gauge the impact of CSR and CSiR. In addition, managers would be wise to invest in CSR, as the results suggest that they can improve profitability, efficiency and market value. Even further, the empirically identified angel-halo effect suggests that investments in CSR may counter any potential negative effects from CSiR. Finally, the latter results suggest that firms can “get away” with some degree of CSiR when CSR is present.Originality/valueBy examining changing levels of CSR and CSiR independently and conjunctly across various measures of firm performance, this paper found a dominating role for CSR, which is labeled as the angel-halo effect.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of political orientation on corporate social (ir)responsibility. In specific, it investigates CEO political liberalism, and its moderation with government political liberalism on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social irresponsibility (CSIR).Design/methodology/approachPanel regression analysis was conducted using 3,136 firm-year observations of 751 CEOs in the USA.FindingsResults show that the effects of CEO liberalism are positive on CSR and negative on CSIR. During the reign of a democrat president, however, CEO political liberalism shows different impacts on CSR and CSIR. Interactions between the same political orientations are negatively associated with CSR, but not significantly associated with CSIR.Originality/valueThe primary contribution of this paper is in presenting the interactive effects of external environment and CEO attributions on CSIR.

By distinguishing the differences between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social irresponsibility (CSiR), we propose double U-shaped relationships between CSR and corporate firm...

Natela Tsiklashvili E-mail: natia.tsiklashvili@bsu.edu.ge Professor, Batumi Shota Rustaveli State University Batumi, Georgia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0638-7376 Tamta Kartsivadze E-mail:tamta.kartsivadze@bsu.edu.ge PHD Student, Batumi Shota Rustaveli State University Batumi, Georgia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8579-5348 Abstract. Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSI) is a business practice that may have a harmful impact on society and the environment. It is contrary to the principles of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and includes harmful activities such as environmental damage (pollution and resource depletion), labor exploitation (unsafe working conditions, unfair wages and violation of workers' rights), unethical business practices (fraud, corruption and misleading advertising) and others. Socially irresponsible companies often prioritize short-term profits over long-term social welfare, leading to negative consequences such as reputational damage, legal penalties, and loss of consumer trust. Corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) is a critical issue for managers and researchers. In fact, the number of studies on this topic is rapidly growing from year to year, although the Georgian literature regarding this issue has not been published yet. This article examines the concept of corporate social irresponsibility (CSI), distinguishes it from corporate social responsibility (CSR), and analyzes the actions or behaviors of corporations that show disregard for ethical, social, or environmental problems based on the given examples. The paper also examines literature on this topic and based on the evaluation of previous studies, highlights existing gaps, identifies challenges and develops recommendations to address these challenges. The opinions expressed in the article can be useful and interesting for both, academic circles and managers, as the conclusions and proposals are aimed at strengthening corporate social responsibility and reducing corporate social irresponsibility. Keywords: Corporate social irresponsibility, Corporate social responsibility, Corporate behavior JEL classification: M14

The joint effect of corporate social irresponsibility and social responsibility on consumer outcomes

Often, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is solely associated with “doing good”, although firms also have the responsibility to prevent corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) (i.e., “avoiding bad”). Many firms engage in CSR in the hopes that a reputation for CSR mitigates negative stakeholder reactions in case the firm suddenly gets involved in a CSI incident. However, research on the effects of CSR reputation on stakeholder reactions to CSI is equivocal and has mainly focused on consumers and investors. Some studies theorize insurance-like effects of ex ante CSR in case of misconduct mitigating subsequent stakeholder reactions, whereas other studies suggest that a reputation for CSR may also aggravate negative reactions to CSI. Moreover, some firms might engage in shallowly symbolic CSR while stakeholders often demand substantive actions. The present study is innovative in that it focusses on the business-tobusiness (B2B) context from a purchasing perspective and proposes a model which explains the conditions under which CSR acts like an insurance or like a liability subsequent to CSI. The predictions are tested by means of a vignette experiment with supply chain managers. The empirical insights add to the understanding of how CSR activities affect negative stakeholder reactions to CSI and provide important theoretical and practical implications.

ABSTRACTResearch Question/IssueAre specific characteristics of CEOs—a key corporate governance actor—related to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and/or Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSI) of the firms they lead?Research FindingsBased on 420 primary studies (425 independent samples), this meta‐analysis found that a majority of CEO characteristics examined were significantly associated with firm‐level CSR and less consistently related to CSI. Only three characteristics (gender, political connections, and liberalism) demonstrated symmetric relationships, such that the sign/valence was positive for CSR (CSI) and negative for CSI (CSR). Education was positively associated with CSR (but not CSI), whereas tenure showed negative, and narcissism positive, associations with both. Institutional context altered some relationships. Rather than being inversely related, the relationship between CSR and CSI was moderate and positive, further demonstrating that CSR and CSI are not simply two ends of a “corporate social performance” continuum.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsThis work advances corporate governance and strategic leadership research by providing across‐study estimates of relationships between a host of CEO characteristics and two seemingly opposite forms of corporate social performance.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsThese findings suggest a framework for succession planning and executive selection that considers both CSR and CSI tendencies, while accounting for context and CEO characteristics that may act as a double‐edged sword.

What influences firms to engage in socially responsible (irresponsible) activities? Corporate social responsibility (CSR), the efforts of firms to create a positive and desirable impact on society, and corporate social irresponsibility (CSI), contrary actions of unethical behavior that negatively influence society, have become an important focus of discussion for both corporations and scholars. Despite this interest, our understanding of organizations’ socially responsible (irresponsible) actions and their antecedents is still developing. A dearth of knowledge about the multi-level nature of the drivers of CSR and CSI continues to exist. Utilizing a longitudinal sample composed of 899 firms in 66 industries, we follow a prominent model to empirically examine industry-, firm-, and individual-level effects on CSR and CSI. Employing variance decomposition analysis, our results confirm that all three levels of investigation do indeed influence CSR and CSI. More substantively, our analysis estimates the magnitude of the effects attributable to each of the three levels for both CSR and CSI. We also compare multi-level influences on two separate CSR strategies, those targeting primary stakeholders (strategic CSR) and those targeting secondary stakeholders (social CSR). We find greater industry- and firmlevel effects on social CSR, and higher individual-level effects on strategic CSR. Our results build on the conceptual work of previous authors by providing empirical analyses to confirm multilevel influences on CSR and extending prior multi-level theory to the concept of CSI. Further, we add to the emerging literature regarding stakeholder demands by examining the various influences on CSR strategies targeting different stakeholder groups.

PurposeThe supposedly radical development of artificial intelligence (AI) has raised questions regarding the moral responsibility of it. In the sphere of business, they are translated into questions about AI and business ethics (BE) and corporate social responsibility (CSR). The purpos of this study is to conceptually reformulate these questions from the point of view of two possible aspect-changes, namely, starting from corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) and starting not from AIs incapability for responsibility but from its ability to imitate human CSR without performing typical human CSI.Design/methodology/approachThe author draws upon the literature and his previous works on the relationship between AI and human CSI. This comparison aims to remodel the understanding of human CSI and AIs inability to be CSI. The conceptual remodelling is offered by taking a negative view on the relation. If AI can be made not to perform human-like CSI, then AI is at least less CSI than humans. For this task, it is necessary to remodel human and AI CSR, but AI does not have to be CSR. It is sufficient that it can be less CSI than humans to be more CSR.FindingsThe previously suggested remodelling of basic concepts in question leads to the conclusion that it is not impossible for AI to act or operate more CSI then humans simply by not making typical human CSIs. Strictly speaking, AI is not CSR because it cannot be responsible as humans can. If it can perform actions with a significantly lesser amount of CSI in comparison to humans, it is certainly less CSI.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper is only a conceptual remodelling and a suggestion of a research hypothesis. As such, it implies particular morality, ethics and the concepts of CSI and AI.Practical implicationsHow this remodelling could be done in practice is an issue of future research.Originality/valueThe author delivers the paper on comparison between human and AI CSI which is not much discussed in literature.

Purpose – By exploring what Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is not, its opposite termed Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSI), we raise understanding and focus awareness on the material differences and associated arguments for and against. Approach – Background, context, and theory introduce the concept of a continuum between CSI and CSR, which is illustrated in a progression of graphic figures. Findings – Focus on the affirmation of CSR has distracted attention and resources from a more addressable concern: identification and denunciation of antisocial business behavior. Focusing instead on the opposite, defined here as CSI, avoids much of the ambiguity of CSR and presents a clarifying continuum between the two. Originality – Using engaging logic, uncommon connections are made between such erstwhile polar-opposites as Friedman and Carroll to reveal broad agreement that CSI is destructive and can be universally opposed. Implications – While promotion of CSR remains contentious, a broader range of business and thought leaders can find common ground by focusing on the CSI side of the continuum and uniting against it. Practitioners, academicians, and activists alike can agree that social benefits are greater from focusing on reduction of CSI rather than on promotion of CSR.

The authors address the questions of whether and how corporate social responsibility (CSR) relates to firm performance and, in so doing, identify four mechanisms pertaining to this relationship: (1) slack resources lead to CSR (i.e., slack resources mechanism) (2) CSR improves performance (i.e., good management mechanism), (3) CSR makes amends for past corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) (i.e., penance mechanism), and (4) CSR insures against subsequent CSI (i.e., insurance mechanism). Using an integrative approach, the authors incorporate the four mechanisms in their empirical model specification. Specifically, to model the interplay among CSR, CSI, and firm performance and to test the four mechanisms simultaneously, they propose a structural panel vector autoregression specification. In support of the good management mechanism, results from an unbalanced panel data set of more than 4,500 firms and up to 19 years suggest that firms that engage in CSR are likely to benefit financially from their CSR investments. Moreover, the authors do not find support for the slack resources or the insurance mechanism. In contrast, and in support of the penance mechanism, often firms' CSR seems to trail their CSI. However, the results also suggest that the penance mechanism is ineffective in offsetting negative performance effects due to CSI.

This chapter provides a conceptual framework for defining corporate social responsibility (CSR) avoidance and engagement in contrast to corporate social irresponsibility (CSIR). The framework is a more precise formulation than the general distinction between CSR and CSIR found in the extant literature. In general terms, CSIR concerns harms imposed on stakeholders and society. Defining CSR is more complicated because the idea suggests doing good for stakeholders and society in addition to compliance with ethics, laws, and public policies. Avoidance of such social contribution lies between CSIR and CSR engagement. The proposed framework identifies a set of four general strategies for business executives in addressing the responsibilities of the profit-seeking business sector toward society. These four strategies are located along a simple continuum from socially “bad” (CSIR) to socially “good” (CSR engagement) as defined externally to the firm. CSR engagement is good corporate citizenship. Bad and good define motives, actions, and outcomes as interlinked dimensions of corporate social performance (CSP), which is the impact of business activities on society. CSR, CSIR, and CSP form the key constructs for business responsibility reasoning.

Service providers and retailers reselling branded have the discretion to set and adapt prices according to customers’ willingness to pay (WTP). Research often notes markup effects, such that WTP increases in response to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and markdown effects, lowering their WTP for corporate social irresponsibility (CSI). Theory suggests attitude changes to (negative) CSI are stronger than to (positive) CSR, but the extent and whether this difference holds for WTP and across various product types are unknown. Using experimental data, an incentive-compatible measure, and an actual purchase, this article reports on three studies that show that consumers mark up WTP for CSR and mark down WTP for CSI. The differential effects arise across brands; compared with WTP for a competitor brand, the acceptable price of a focal CSR/CSI brand is marked down more than it is marked up. Comparing the WTP for a focal brand relative to the average CSR performance of that brand does not produce any within-brand differential effects The evidence also indicates a product type effect: Consumer WTP adaptation for CSR or CSI is stronger for utilitarian than for hedonic products. These findings have implications for service providers, retailers and manufacturing firms, as well as for further research.

While corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) have, respectively, positive and negative effects on consumers’ brand responses, their price-related consequences are often overlooked in extant literature. Drawing on attribution theory and negativity bias, we examine the impact of brands’ (ir)responsible behavior on consumers’ multiple price perceptions by applying Van Westendorp’s ‘pricing footprint’. In four experimental studies we show that consumers’ lower price perceptions following CSI are robust and the magnitude of CSI’s impact is greater than that of CSR in the higher price categories (expensive, too expensive). The positive effects of CSR are contingent on the specific CSR domain and the public/private consumption status of the product. Social (versus environmental) CSR generates higher price perceptions, and the magnitude of its impact outperforms that of CSI in the lower price categories (too cheap, cheap). The positive effects of environmental CSR are limited, particularly for privately consumed products.

ABSTRACTThis article examines how a firm’s prior record on corporate social responsibility (CSR) influences individual stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate hypocrisy in the wake of a corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) event. Our research extends extant corporate hypocrisy literature by highlighting the role of individual stakeholders’ inferences about a genuine CSR motive in their judgments of corporate hypocrisy. This can serve to differentiate perceived corporate hypocrisy from inconsistency that arises because of a lack of ability and/or resources. Our research further identifies a source for such perceptions: individual stakeholders’ perceptions of firm warmth generated by a firm’s prior record of CSR. In addition, we find that when CSR and CSI are in the same (vs. different) domains, it can strengthen perceptions of hypocrisy. This provides direct evidence to explain why markets react differently when CSR and CSI events occur in the same domain (vs. different ones).