Social responsibility skepticism: shareholder and stakeholder perspectives

Karen Paul, B. Elango and Sumit Kundu

Social Responsibility Journal, 2019, vol. 16, issue 4, 521-535

Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce the notion of social responsibility skepticism (SRS) and demonstrate its importance to the existing social responsibility literature. Stakeholder-emphasizing perspective (STEP) and shareholder-emphasizing perspective (SHEP) are tested as independent constructs that both serve to reduce skepticism. SHEP, STEP and SRS are shown to be interrelated but independent ideas. Design/methodology/approach - The study is based on a primary questionnaire survey of managers. Multivariate regression analysis is used for analysis, level of management is a moderating variable and age and gender are control variables. Findings - Managers who accept either the shareholder emphasis or the stakeholder emphasis have lower social responsibility skepticism. STEP and SHEP appear to be two independent constructs that both serve to reduce skepticism, although STEP is slightly more effective. The relationship is stronger for STEP managers and for higher level managers. Research limitations/implications - Findings may be influenced by the existing political or business milieu. Findings on the moderating effect of level of management and age may reflect generational differences. Changes in gender roles may also affect findings. Practical implications - Acceptance of management theories oriented either toward a stakeholder perspective or a shareholder perspective is associated with less skepticism. The legitimacy and value of each perspective should be acknowledged. Social implications - Managers require support for decisions taking social responsibility into account. This study demonstrates that grounding in stakeholder theory or shareholder theory can reduce SRS. Originality/value - This study introduces the new concept of SRS and provides a scale to measure this new variable. New scales are also provided for SHEP and STEP. Both perspectives negate tendencies toward SRS.

Keywords: Social responsibility; Stakeholder theory; Skepticism; Shareholder theory; Social responsibility skepticism (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (text/html)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eme:srjpps:srj-08-2018-0194

DOI: 10.1108/SRJ-08-2018-0194

Access Statistics for this article

Social Responsibility Journal is currently edited by Prof David Crowther

More articles in Social Responsibility Journal from Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Emerald Support ().