PurposeThe purpose of this exploratory study is to investigate the relationship between location (hometown or elsewhere), evaluation of corporations, expectations for corporations in their communities and likelihood to engage in pro-corporate behaviors in corporate social responsibility (CSR) scenarios or anti-corporate behaviors in corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) scenarios. The purpose of our exploratory study is to examine if the location of CSR or CSI activities influence pro and anti-corporation behavioral intentions.Design/methodology/approachA quantitative survey method is utilized (N = 1,450). Participants were Minnesota residents who volunteered to take the survey. Surveys were administered at the 2018 Minnesota State Fair.FindingsParticipants described corporations in their community more favorably than corporations located elsewhere and indicated a desire to have more corporations headquartered in their community. In instances of CSR, participants were more likely to engage in pro-corporate behaviors than if the corporation was located elsewhere. However, participants indicated a stronger likelihood of engaging in anti-corporate behaviors when CSI was enacted in their community than if the company was located elsewhere.Originality/valueThis study examines CSR and CSI concurrently, surveys community stakeholders rather than relying on existing databases (e.g. KLD Stats) that measure a limited set of CSR metrics, moves beyond descriptive accounts of CSR behaviors and financial outcomes associated with geography and extends stakeholder-organization relationship theorizing into the CSR/CSI context to interrogate the mutual interdependence between stakeholders and organizations.

The most central issue in improving productivity may just well be the most neglected: management capacity. Current management philosphies, under the label of “transactional leadership” style, can acutely reduce the overall effectiveness of boss-subordinate relationships. A more effective philosophy emphasizes “transformational leadership” in which the psychological commitment of boss and subordinate is advanced, rather than plasticized. Whatever management approach is employed, the consequences will be found in the degree of productivity of organizational work teams.