The Role Concept in Corporate Branding and Stakeholder Management Reconsidered: Are Stakeholder Groups Really Different?

Fiedler, Lars; Kirchgeorg, Manfred

doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550050

Cited by 36 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although they acknowledge that a relationship between CSR and shareholder evaluations may represent a judgment that managers are dealing effectively with stakeholders, ' such an overall relationship cannot be asserted until the strands that make it up -the links among stakeholder expectations, effects, evaluations, and behaviors with respect to a fi rm -have been delineated ' ( Wood and Jones, 1995: 242 ). Different stakeholder groups will view the fi rm and its activities from different perspectives based on their own interests and expectations ( Fiedler and Kirchgeorg, 2007 ;Hillenbrand and Money, 2007 ). This potential for confl icting expectations, effects, evaluations and behaviors has led researchers to call for a contingent approach to the study of CSR (eg, Rowley and Berman, 2000 ); to ' recast the question to investigate the con ditions under which stakeholders will take action to infl uence the focal organization and when those actions will infl uence the CSP-[C]FP link ' ( Rowley and Berman, 2000: 397 ).…”

Section: Stakeholder Evaluations Of Csrmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Missing Link between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Stakeholder Salience and Identification

Peloza

Papania

2008

Corp Reputation Rev

177

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we present a framework for examining the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm financial performance. Ambiguity in empirical studies examining this relationship can be expected given both the ability and motivation of managers to focus their social responsibility initiatives on stakeholders with power, urgency and legitimacy. By considering the ability of stakeholders to reward or punish the firm based on their evaluations of the firm ' s activities, our model reconciles previously disparate findings in the relationship between CSR and corporate financial performance.In considering the actions of a fi rm, different stakeholders can have differing opinions on what it means to be ' socially responsible. ' In her review of the social performance of fi rms, Griffi n (2000) argues that universal measures are inadequate because they fail to take into account the variety of preferences of a range of stakeholders of the fi rm. This is important because stakeholders ' evaluations of the fi rm and its activities impact (among other things) the fi rm ' s share price, its consumer support, the loyalty of its employees and the amount of attention directed at (or against) it by the media. In the ongoing debate about the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate fi nancial performance (CFP) the potential for stakeholder demands to compete with one another for fi rm attention and prioritization and the consequences of confl icting demands being (or not being) met are rarely considered ( Barnett, 2007 ). Clarifying the link between CSR and CFP is important as managers balance stakeholders ' expectations of the fi rm to be socially responsible against demands for fi rm fi nancial performance ( Bertels and Peloza, 2008 ).We extend the theoretical development of the CSR -CFP relationship by considering the CSR -CFP link across a broad range of stakeholders. Our framework integrates managerial motives with instrumental stakeholder theory ( Jones, 1995 ) to argue that many managers develop social responsibility strategies based on perceived stakeholder priorities. Our model explicitly considers divergent groups of stakeholders and their potentially divergent reactions to the acts of the fi rm, along with the opposing effects of these reactions on fi nancial performance. In the development of a model of CSR that is

show abstract

Section: Stakeholder Evaluations Of Csrmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Missing Link between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Stakeholder Salience and Identification

Peloza

Papania

2008

Corp Reputation Rev

177

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, the contribution addresses two further concerns with regard to existing measurement tools articulated by Bromley (2002): The first is Bromley's skepticism of overall scores of reputation, such as the RQ and the Fortune measures, which are derived from applying exactly the same model of reputation across different stakeholder groups. Research has shown that stakeholder groups are likely to differ in their values and beliefs and are therefore likely to judge a company's reputation in terms of different issues that are important to them (Fiedler and Kirchgeorg 2007). Bromley's other criticism is of reputation scores or rankings that are derived from the sum or average of scores on a number of sub-scales.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Reputation in Relationships

Money

Hillenbrand

Downing

2011

Reputation Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…First, an amalgamation approach ignores the fact that different stakeholders are likely to use differing—often self‐serving—criteria in their reputation evaluations (Rindova et al ; Sjovall and Talk ). Indeed, research has demonstrated that marketers are best advised to cater to the different attributes among stakeholder groups (Fiedler and Kirchgeorg ). This implies that stakeholders differ in what they value within organizations (Hillenbrand et al ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Primary Importance of Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethicality in Corporate Reputation: An Empirical Study

Walker

Dyck

2014

Business and Society Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine three assumptions commonly held in the corporate reputation literature: (1) reputation ratings of owners and investors are generally representative of all stakeholders; (2) stakeholders will generally provide a higher reputation rating to firms that emphasize corporate social responsibility versus firms that do not; and (3) profitability is the primary criterion of importance to all stakeholders when rating a firm's reputation. Using an exploratory in-class exercise, our findings suggest that:(1) there are significant differences among stakeholder groups in their reputation ratings; (2) firms that emphasize corporate social responsibility are not rated more highly across all stakeholder groups; and (3) for all stakeholder groups, the ethicality criterion explained Kent Walker is Assistant Professor,

show abstract

The Role Concept in Corporate Branding and Stakeholder Management Reconsidered: Are Stakeholder Groups Really Different?

Abstract: In many cases, research in corporate branding

Cited by 36 publications

References 30 publications

The Missing Link between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Stakeholder Salience and Identification

The Missing Link between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Stakeholder Salience and Identification

Reputation in Relationships

The Primary Importance of Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethicality in Corporate Reputation: An Empirical Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About