Purpose – This paper aims to explore the power of one of the primary organizational stakeholders (shareholders) in the development of a corporate social performance (CSP) score. Few research works in the CSP empirical literature have studied the relationship between stakeholder power and CSP. Design/methodology/approach – Stakeholder theory is used as a theoretical framework to explain how shareholder voting power can influence the CSP level of French publicly listed companies. Stakeholder theory is tested through the operationalization of Ullmann’s (1985) three-dimensional model. Hypotheses related to shareholder voting power, strategic posture and financial performance are formulated through a literature review. A Data Envelopment Analysis approach was presented as a strong tool to measure CSP level. Multiple linear regressions were undertaken to test the hypotheses in a sample of 129 French companies between 2006 and 2007. Findings – The results indicate that companies with dispersed ownership and high proportion of institutional shareholders record a high score of CSP. Strategic posture measured by the implementation of environmental certification standard was positively and significantly related to CSP. Financial performance does not affect significantly the level of CSP. Originality/value – This paper is the first to empirically analyse the relationship between Ullmann’s three-dimensional model and CSP level in the French context. It offers to managers a better understanding of the power that certain stakeholders can use to acquire satisfaction.

International audiencePurpose Two complementary objectives are addressed in this article. First, several studies are introduced based on the assumption that organizational change is now excessive. We propose an operational definition to change excessiveness, and we assess whether it is a generalized phenomenon at a societal level. Second, these studies are habitually mobilizing coping theories to address their purpose. However, an integrated model of coping, including appraisals and coping reactions toward change is still to be tested. Thus, our assessment is anchored in an application of the Stimulus-Response Theory of Coping. Design/methodology/approach A quantitative study is conducted by administering questionnaires to a nation-wide representative sample (n = 1002). Anderson and Gerbing (1991) two-step approach is used to validate the study and tests its hypothesized model. Change excessiveness is measured in order to observe if it’s a generalized phenomenon in the working population. Its effects on coping are modelled through the fully mediated Stimulus-Response Theory of Coping (SRTC). Therefore, our hypothetical model predicted that the relationships between the perception of excessive change contexts and negative coping reactions is fully mediated by negative appraisals toward change contexts. Findings Perceptions of excessive change is a normally distributed and a statistically centralized phenomenon. As hypothesized, an SEM test of the SRTC shows a full mediation effect of negative appraisal between change intensity and negative coping to change. Originality/value This article empirically tests a nation-wide sample where organizational change may be too excessive for individuals' positive coping. It is the first to generalize the observation of change excessiveness as perceived by employees to a nation-wide level. Moreover, it addresses the gap between change excessiveness and coping theories in modelling the Stimulus-Response Theory of Coping through its three components: event, appraisals, and coping reactions. Finally, it presents managerial discussions toward the strategic necessity for organizational change and its potential "too-much-of-a-good-thing" effect

No abstract