IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v162y2020i1d10.1007_s10551-018-4013-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intergroup Conflict is Our Business: CEOs’ Ethical Intergroup Leadership Fuels Stakeholder Support for Corporate Intergroup Responsibility

Author

Listed:
  • Nir Halevy

    (Stanford University)

  • Sora Jun

    (University of Texas at Dallas)

  • Eileen Y. Chou

    (University of Virginia)

Abstract

Is reducing large-scale intergroup conflict the business of corporations? Although large corporations can use their power and prominence to reduce intergroup conflict in society, it is unclear to what extent stakeholders support corporate Intergroup Responsibility (CIR). Study 1 showed that support for CIR correlates in theoretically meaningful ways with relevant economic, social, and moral attitudes, including fair market ideology, consumer support for corporate social responsibility (CSR), social dominance orientation, symbolic racism, and moral foundations. Studies 2 and 3 employed experimental designs to test the hypothesis that business leaders who advocate for intergroup tolerance boost perceptions of corporations and their leaders as moral, just, and fair, which in turn, increases stakeholders’ support for CIR. We found support for this hypothesis across two highly publicized and contentious events related to racial conflict in the U.S.: The White supremacy rally in Charlottesville and the federal government’s announcement about the planned rescinding of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration policy. Specifically, exposing participants to real-world tweets by CEOs who advocated intergroup tolerance following these events increased participants’ support for CIR. This effect was mediated by heightened perceptions of corporations and their leaders as moral, just, and fair. Taken together, these findings enhance our understanding of the factors that shape stakeholders’ reactions to CIR; highlight intergroup conflict as an emerging arena for CSR; and illustrate the power of ethical intergroup leadership.

Suggested Citation

  • Nir Halevy & Sora Jun & Eileen Y. Chou, 2020. "Intergroup Conflict is Our Business: CEOs’ Ethical Intergroup Leadership Fuels Stakeholder Support for Corporate Intergroup Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 229-246, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:162:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-018-4013-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-018-4013-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-018-4013-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-018-4013-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carroll, Archie B., 1991. "The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 39-48.
    2. Brown, Michael E. & Trevino, Linda K. & Harrison, David A., 2005. "Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 117-134, July.
    3. Cameron Sabadoz, 2011. "Between Profit-Seeking and Prosociality: Corporate Social Responsibility as Derridean Supplement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 104(1), pages 77-91, November.
    4. Jost, John T. & Blount, Sally & Pfeffer, Jeffrey & Hunyady, Gyorgy, 2003. "Fair Market Ideology: Its Cognitive-Motivational Underpinnings," Research Papers 1816, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    5. Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 409-421, October.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Edward Freeman, R. & Evan, William M., 1990. "Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 337-359.
    8. R. Edward Freeman & Andrew C. Wicks & Bidhan Parmar, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 364-369, June.
    9. Schwartz, Mark S. & Carroll, Archie B., 2003. "Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three-Domain Approach," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 503-530, October.
    10. Gordon Wang & Rick D. Hackett, 2016. "Conceptualization and Measurement of Virtuous Leadership: Doing Well by Doing Good," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 137(2), pages 321-345, August.
    11. Bala Ramasamy & Matthew Yeung & Alan Au, 2010. "Consumer Support for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of Religion and Values," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 61-72, February.
    12. Melin, Molly M., 2016. "Business, peace, and world politics: The role of third parties in conflict resolution," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 59(5), pages 493-501.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Böhm, Robert & Halevy, Nir & Kugler, Tamar, 2022. "The power of defaults in intergroup conflict," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ulf Richter, 2010. "Liberal Thought in Reasoning on CSR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(4), pages 625-649, December.
    2. Franck Aggeri & Aurélien Acquier, 2005. "La théorie des stakeholders permet-elle de rendre compte des pratiques d'entreprise en matière de RSE ?," Post-Print halshs-00645708, HAL.
    3. Francesco Gangi & Jérôme Méric & Rémi Jardat & Lucia Michela Daniele, 2019. "Business for society," Post-Print hal-02382307, HAL.
    4. Bodo B. Schlegelmilch & Ilona Szőcs, 2015. "Corporate philanthropy and ethicality: two opposing notions?," Chapters, in: Handbook on Ethics and Marketing, chapter 16, pages 317-353, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Yves Fassin, 2012. "Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 83-96, August.
    6. Y. Fassin, 2008. "The Stakeholder Model Refined," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 08/529, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    7. Sybille Sachs & Marc Maurer, 2009. "Toward Dynamic Corporate Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 535-544, April.
    8. Aminu Ahmadu Hamidu & Md. Harashid Haron & Azlan Amran, 2017. "Incorporating Stakeholder Engagement, Financial Implications and Values in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Proposed Model from an African Context," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 7(3), pages 247-253.
    9. Manoj Anand & Jagandeep Singh, 2021. "Business students’ perception of corporate social responsibility: an exploratory study," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 48(3), pages 261-284, September.
    10. Kelsy Hejjas & Graham Miller & Caroline Scarles, 2019. "“It’s Like Hating Puppies!” Employee Disengagement and Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(2), pages 319-337, June.
    11. Jongmoo Jay Choi & Hoje Jo & Jimi Kim & Moo Sung Kim, 2018. "Business Groups and Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 931-954, December.
    12. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1059 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Meyer, Margit & Waßmann, Jan, 2011. "Strategische Corporate Social Responsibility. Konzeptionelle Entwicklung und Implementierung in der Praxis am Beispiel 'dm-drogerie markt'," Research Papers on Marketing Strategy 3/2011, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Lehrstuhl für BWL und Marketing.
    14. Jared Peifer, 2014. "Fund Loyalty Among Socially Responsible Investors: The Importance of the Economic and Ethical Domains," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 121(4), pages 635-649, June.
    15. WANG Jifu & GUPTA Vipin & LYBOLT Liza & WANG Xiuli, 2022. "Corrected Game Model In Csr: Mnc Strategies And Chinese Practice," Studies in Business and Economics, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 17(3), pages 269-287, December.
    16. Lamin B. Ceesay, 2020. "Exploring the Influence of NGOs in Corporate Sustainability Adoption: Institutional-Legitimacy Perspective," Jindal Journal of Business Research, , vol. 9(2), pages 135-147, December.
    17. Müllner, Jakob & Puck, Jonas, 2018. "Towards a holistic framework of MNE–state bargaining: A formal model and case-based analysis," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 15-26.
    18. Maria Järlström & Essi Saru & Sinikka Vanhala, 2018. "Sustainable Human Resource Management with Salience of Stakeholders: A Top Management Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 703-724, October.
    19. Monica Thiel, 2010. "Innovations in Corporate Social Responsibility from Global Business Leaders at Panasonic, Thomson Reuters and Nanyang Business School," American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, Science Publications, vol. 2(2), pages 194-200, September.
    20. Ruth Alas & Külliki Tafel, 2008. "Conceptualizing the Dynamics of Social Responsibility: Evidence from a Case Study of Estonia," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 371-385, August.
    21. Vincenzo Formisano & Bernardino Quattrociocchi & Maria Fedele & Mario Calabrese, 2018. "From Viability to Sustainability: The Contribution of the Viable Systems Approach (VSA)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:162:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-018-4013-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.