nach oben

Journal of Business Ethics

Erschienen in:

16.03.2020 | Original Paper

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

verfasst von: Gregory D. Saxton, Charlotte Ren, Chao Guo

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 2/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

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.

Vorheriger Artikel On the Ethics of Psychometric Instruments Used in Leadership Development Programmes

Nächster Artikel Do Corporate Social Responsibility Reports Convey Value Relevant Information? Evidence from Report Readability and Tone

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

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.

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.

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.

The urgency of a stakeholder’s claim becomes more noticeable and measurable in the context of social media.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

Bhargava, V. R. (2018). Firm responses to mass outrage: Technology, blame, and employment. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4043-7CrossRef

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

Saxton, G. D., & Guo, C. (2020). Social media capital: Conceptualizing the nature, acquisition, and expenditure of social media-based organizational resources. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2019.100443.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

University of Bath. (2020). #thinklist: A list of social media’s most influential faculty thinkers on issues of responsible business. Retrieved January 2, 2020, from www.bath.ac.uk/case-studies/thinklist/.

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

Titel: Responding to Diffused Stakeholders on Social Media: Connective Power and Firm Reactions to CSR-Related Twitter Messages
verfasst von: Gregory D. Saxton
Charlotte Ren
Chao Guo
Publikationsdatum: 16.03.2020
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04472-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2021

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

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

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

On the Ethics of Psychometric Instruments Used in Leadership Development Programmes

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

Do Corporate Social Responsibility Reports Convey Value Relevant Information? Evidence from Report Readability and Tone

Premium Partner