Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Business Ethics
Published in: Journal of Business Ethics 2/2021

16-03-2020 | Original Paper

Responding to Diffused Stakeholders on Social Media: Connective Power and Firm Reactions to CSR-Related Twitter Messages

Authors: Gregory D. Saxton, Charlotte Ren, Chao Guo

Published in: Journal of Business Ethics | Issue 2/2021

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Social media offers a platform for diffused stakeholders to interact with firms—alternatively praising, questioning, and chastising businesses for their CSR performance and seeking to engage in two-way dialogue. In 2014, 163,402 public messages were sent to Fortune 200 firms’ CSR-focused Twitter accounts, each of which was either shared, replied to, “liked,” or ignored by the targeted firm. This paper examines firm reactions to these messages, building a model of firm response to stakeholders that combines the notions of CSR communication and stakeholder salience. Our findings show that firm response to a stakeholder on social media is positively and most significantly associated with what we refer to as the stakeholder’s connective power but negatively associated with the firm’s own connective power. To a lesser extent, firm response is positively associated with the stakeholder’s normative power but negatively associated with the firm’s own normative power. Firm response is also shown to be positively associated with stakeholder urgency in terms of both the originality of a stakeholder message and the expression of positive sentiment.
previous article On the Ethics of Psychometric Instruments Used in Leadership Development Programmes
next article Do Corporate Social Responsibility Reports Convey Value Relevant Information? Evidence from Report Readability and Tone

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
The direct responsiveness to stakeholders in firms’ responses helps reinforce the idea that ethics exists between actors (Fukukawa 2019); that there is, in other words, a strong interactive, or relational, role to ethical behavior.
 
2
Coercive power is “based on the physical resources of force, violence, or restraint” (Etzioni 1964, p. 59). Such physical manifestations are either not possible or not effective in an online environment.
 
3
In offline settings, utilitarian power is present when the firm and its stakeholders are involved in resource exchanges or financial transactions; by contrast, no resource exchange or financial transaction takes place on social media. Moreover, for a stakeholder’s utilitarian power (e.g., financial resources) to affect firm action, such power needs to be observable; however, on social media a stakeholder’s financial information is typically not visible.
 
4
The urgency of a stakeholder’s claim becomes more noticeable and measurable in the context of social media.
 
5
This understanding of normative power is consistent with Bourdieu’s (1990) notion of symbolic capital, which is revealed in an individual’s prestige and reputation.
 
6
Newsweek Green is a ranking of the 500 largest publicly traded US firms’ sustainability and environmental performance. Covering environmental initiatives, footprints, reporting practices, policies, and controversies, it includes a range of different practices. We believe the Newsweek Green ranking serves as a reasonable proxy for CSR performance, because the environment is not only generally considered a main area of CSR performance, but is often perceived by stakeholders as the most important area of concern in a firm’s CSR work (Welford et al. 2008).
 
7
To facilitate further comparison of variable coefficients in Models 1–5, the Appendix shows the percent change in the odds for unit/SD increases in the independent variables.
 
8
An interesting example of the “influencer” phenomenon in academia is the University of Bath’s Thinklist, a “list of social media’s most influential faculty thinkers on issues of responsible business” (University of Bath 2020).
 
Literature
Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 507–525.
Agostino, D., & Sidorova, Y. (2017). How social media reshapes action on distant customers: Some empirical evidence. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30, 777–794.CrossRef
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 932–968.CrossRef
Ahrens, T. (1996). Styles of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21, 139–173.CrossRef
Arya, B., & Zhang, G. (2009). Institutional reforms and investor reactions to CSR announcements: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 1089–1112.CrossRef
Bakshy, E., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011). Everyone’s an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (pp. 65–74). New York, NY.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). Social space and symbolic power. In P. Bourdieu (Ed.), In other words (pp. 123–140). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Castelló, I., Etter, M., & Årup Nielsen, F. (2016). Strategies of legitimacy through social media: The networked strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 402–432.CrossRef
Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., & Gummadi, P. K. (2010). Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. ICWSM, 10, 30.
Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). How firms respond to being rated. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 917–945.
Cho, C. H., Guidry, R. P., Hageman, A. M., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Do actions speak louder than words? An empirical investigation of corporate environmental reputation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37, 14–25.CrossRef
Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2015). Big Data, causal inference, and formal theory: Contradictory trends in political science? PS: Political Science & Politics, 48, 65–70.
Colleoni, E. (2013). CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18, 228–248.CrossRef
Coleman, R., & Wu, H. D. (2010). Proposing emotion as a dimension of affective agenda setting: Separating affect into two components and comparing their second-level effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87, 315–327.CrossRef
David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. (2007). Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 91–100.CrossRef
Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The Accounting Review, 86, 59–100.CrossRef
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implication. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.CrossRef
Dougherty, D. (1992). Crisis communications. New York: Walker and Company.
Drake, M. S., Rees, L., & Swanson, E. P. (2011). Should investors follow the prophets or the bears? Evidence on the use of public information by analysts and short sellers. The Accounting Review, 86, 101–130.CrossRef
Du, S., & Vieira, E. (2012). Striving for legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: Insights from oil companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 413–427.CrossRef
Eesley, C., & Lenox, M. J. (2006). Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 765–781.CrossRef
Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ferrara, E., & Yang, Z. (2015). Quantifying the effect of sentiment on information diffusion in social media. PeerJ Computer Science, 1, e26.CrossRef
Fieseler, C., & Fleck, M. (2013). The pursuit of empowerment through social media: Structural social capital dynamics in CSR-blogging. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 759–775.CrossRef
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Harper Collins.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24, 191–205.CrossRef
Fukukawa, K. (2019). Response-ability: Practicing integrity through intimacy in the marketplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 160, 251–262.CrossRef
Go, A., Bhayani, R., & Huang, L. (2009). Twitter sentiment classification using distant supervision. CS224N Project Report, Stanford, pp. 1–12.
Gómez-Vásquez, L. (2013). Me gusta o te sigo: Análisis de la comunicación de prácticas de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa a través de los medios sociales. Correspondencias & Análisis, 3, 89–109.CrossRef
Hill, C. W., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 131–154.CrossRef
Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 471–501.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2016). From Homo Economicus to Homo Dialogicus: Rethinking social media use in CSR communication. Public Relations Review, 42, 60–67.CrossRef
Kim, E., & Youm, Y. N. (2017). How do social media affect analyst stock recommendations? Evidence from S&P 500 electric power companies’ Twitter accounts. Strategic Management Journal, 38, 2599–2622.CrossRef
Knox, S., & Gruar, C. (2007). The application of stakeholder theory to relationship marketing strategy development in a non-profit organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 115–135.CrossRef
Lee, K., Oh, W.-Y., & Kim, N. (2013). Social media for socially responsible firms: Analysis of Fortune 500’s Twitter profiles and their CSR/CSIR ratings. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 791–806.CrossRef
Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2013). Tweetjacked: The impact of social media on corporate greenwash. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 747–757.CrossRef
Magness, V. (2008). Who are the stakeholders now? An empirical examination of the Mitchell, Agle, and Wood theory of stakeholder salience. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 177–192.CrossRef
Mallin, C., Michelon, G., & Raggi, D. (2013). Monitoring intensity and stakeholders’ orientation: How does governance affect social and environmental disclosure? Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 29–43.CrossRef
Michelon, G. (2011). Sustainability disclosure and reputation: A comparative study. Corporate Reputation Review, 14, 79–96.CrossRef
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886.CrossRef
Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15, 323–338.CrossRef
Neu, D., Saxton, G. D., Everett, J., & Shiraz, A. R. (2020). Speaking truth to power: Twitter reactions to the Panama Papers. Journal of Business Ethics, 162, 473–485.CrossRef
Neville, B. A., Bell, S. J., & Whitwell, G. J. (2011). Stakeholder salience revisited: Refining, redefining, and refueling an underdeveloped conceptual tool. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 357–378.CrossRef
O’Brien, P. C., & Tan, H. (2015). Geographic proximity and analyst coverage decisions: Evidence from IPOs. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 59, 41–59.CrossRef
Parent, M. M., & Deephouse, D. L. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 1–23.CrossRef
Parks, M. R. (2014). Big Data in communication research: Its contents and discontents. Journal of Communication, 64, 355–360.CrossRef
Patten, D. M. (2002). The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27, 763–773.CrossRef
Peattie, K., & Samuel, A. (2018). Fairtrade towns as unconventional networks of ethical activism. Journal of Business Ethics, 153, 265–282.CrossRef
Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 25–41.CrossRef
Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 595–612.CrossRef
Rodrigue, M., Magnan, M., & Boulianne, E. (2013). Stakeholders’ influence on environmental strategy and performance indicators: A managerial perspective. Management Accounting Research, 24, 301–316.CrossRef
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 887–910.CrossRef
Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534–559.
Saxton, G. D., Gomez, L. M., Ngoh, Z., Lin, C., & Dietrich, S. (2019). Do CSR messages resonate? Examining public reactions to firms’ CSR efforts on social media. Journal of Business Ethics, 155, 359–377.CrossRef
Schultz, F., Castelló, I., & Morsing, M. (2013). The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 681–692.CrossRef
Skågeby, J. (2009). Exploring qualitative sharing practices of social metadata: Expanding the attention economy. The Information Society, 25, 60–72.CrossRef
Stohl, C., Etter, M., Banghart, S., & Woo, D. (2017). Social media policies: Implications for contemporary notions of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 142, 413–436.CrossRef
Tang, Z., & Tang, J. (2012). Stakeholder–firm power difference, stakeholders’ CSR orientation, and SMEs’ environmental performance in China. Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 436–455.CrossRef
Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10, 540–557.
Unerman, J., & Bennett, M. (2004). Increased stakeholder dialogue and the Internet: Towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 685–707.CrossRef
Vo, T. T., Xiao, X., & Ho, S. Y. (2019). How does corporate social responsibility engagement influence word of mouth on Twitter? Evidence from the airline industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 157, 525–542.CrossRef
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303–319.CrossRef
Wallace, E., Buil, I., & de Chernatony, L. (2020). ‘Consuming good’ on social media: What can conspicuous virtue signalling on Facebook tell us about prosocial and unethical intentions? Journal of Business Ethics, 162, 577–592. CrossRef
Welford, R., Chan, C., & Man, M. (2008). Priorities for corporate social responsibility: A survey of businesses and their stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 52–62.CrossRef
Whelan, G., Moon, J., & Grant, B. (2013). Corporations and citizenship arenas in the age of social media. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 777–790.CrossRef
Worrell, J., Wasko, M., & Johnston, A. (2013). Social network analysis in accounting information systems research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 14, 127–137.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Responding to Diffused Stakeholders on Social Media: Connective Power and Firm Reactions to CSR-Related Twitter Messages
Authors
Gregory D. Saxton
Charlotte Ren
Chao Guo
Publication date
16-03-2020
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Journal of Business Ethics / Issue 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04472-x

Other articles of this Issue 2/2021

Journal of Business Ethics 2/2021 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Two Wrongs Make a ‘Right’? Exploring the Ethical Calculus of Earnings Management Before Large Labor Dismissals

Original Paper

Do National Cultures Matter for External Audits? Evidence from Eastern Europe and the Middle East

Original Paper

Ethical Consumption Communities Across Physical and Digital Spaces: An Exploration of Their Complementary and Synergistic Affordances

Original Paper

On the Ethics of Psychometric Instruments Used in Leadership Development Programmes

Original Paper

Responsible Firm Behaviour in Political Markets: Judging the Ethicality of Corporate Political Activity in Weak Institutional Environments

Original Paper

Analogical Encoding Fosters Ethical Decision Making Because Improved Knowledge of Ethical Principles Increases Moral Awareness