Online research in philosophy

This article leverages insights from the body of Adam Smith’s work, including two lesser-known manuscripts—the Theory of Moral Sentiments and Lectures in Jurisprudence —to help answer the question as to how companies should morally prioritize corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and stakeholder claims. Smith makes philosophical distinctions between justice and beneficence and perfect and imperfect rights, and we leverage those distinctions to speak to contemporary CSR and stakeholder management theories. We address the often-neglected question as to how far a company (...) should be expected to go in pursuit of CSR initiatives and we offer a fresh perspective as to the role of business in relation to stakeholders and to society as a whole. Smith’s moral insights help us to propose a practical framework of legitimacy in stakeholder claims that can help managers select appropriate and responsible CSR activities. (shrink)

This paper examines the controversial governance mechanism of classified boards. Classified board advocates believe that multiple year terms give directors a longer-term horizon. Shareholder activists push for declassifications of boards because they argue that agency problems are likely to arise. In a longitudinal study of six years of KLD, RiskMetrics and Compustat data, we test the influence of classified boards on social performance dimensions. We find that classified boards are negatively associated with social performance strengths in the areas of community (...) and diversity, indicating that they are not proactive in these areas. However, classified boards are negatively associated with social performance concerns on five out of six dimensions, providing evidence that while these boards are not proactive in stakeholder management, neither are they harmful nor neglectful towards stakeholders. The overall findings suggest that classified boards may be associated with a stakeholder management philosophy of “do no harm.”. (shrink)

This paper provides a model on repairing re-establishing stakeholder relationships after a firm engages in a moral indiscretion. Depending upon their nature, indiscretions can be classified as mistakes, misconduct, or improprieties. After committing an indiscretion, firms can attempt to reestablish positive stakeholder relationships by strengthening their technical competency (for mistakes), improving their reputation (for misconduct), and enhancing their goodwill with relevant stakeholders (for improprieties). However, a firm’s cultural orientation may result in the misapplication of the stakeholder repair mechanism (competency, reputation, (...) and goodwill) with the applicable indiscretion (mistakes, misconduct, and improprieties). (shrink)

This paper develops and tests a model of fingerpointing behaviors that board members experience because of regulatory reforms. We present the partial results of a large study of 138 board members on 54 publicly traded boards in the United States. We found that recent governance reforms that mandate increased accountability of board members are associated with less board cohesion and thatlower board cohesion is associated with fingerpointing behaviors. These findings suggest that the stages of institutionalization following regulatory shock falter when (...) negative group behaviors develop under scrutiny. (shrink)

This case study reviews a train crash that occurred in January 2005 when a Norfolk Southern freight train struck a parked train on the tracks near Graniteville, South Carolina. At issue is the safe transportation of hazardous materials, the assignment of responsibility, the stakeholder management of participants and the outcome to Avondale Mills, a local textile company that ended up closing its doors after the spill.

Individual studies have contributed to our knowledge of corporate philanthropy, but to date they remain fragmented. We proposed to extricate the conceptual and empirical work in corporate social responsibility from the conceptual and empirical work on corporate philanthropy, limiting our review to works that specifically refer to corporate philanthropy, as well as works that are labeled as corporate social responsibility but actually operationalize it as philanthropy. We will present an integrative model of corporate philanthropy research that draws on research from (...) a variety of perspectives and shows how the antecedents, processes, and outcomes of philanthropic process have been studied. We will recommend an agenda for future research that highlights research foci that are understudied, argues for greater theoretical and disciplinary diversity in the study of philanthropy, and points out new opportunities for better understanding the philanthropic process. (shrink)