Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Wang, Shuo; Gao, Yuhui; Hodgkinson, Gerard P.; Rousseau, Denise; Flood, Patrick C. (2015)
Publisher: Springer
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: HD
This policy-capturing study, conducted in China, investigated the cognitive basis of managerial decisions to make a corporate charitable donation, a global issue in the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR) research and practice. Participants (N = 376) responded to a series of scenarios manipulating pressure from the five stakeholders (government, customers, competitors, employees, and shareholders) most commonly addressed by CSR research. The independent variables examined included organizational factors (industry, ownership, previous company donation, firm size, firm age, and perceived CEO attitudes toward charity) and the participants’ personal values. Results indicate a large positive effect of shareholder and governmental pressure on the decision with lesser positive effects from customers and competitors. Surprisingly, employee pressure had a negative effect on the decision to make a charitable donation. Further, personal values and perceived CEO attitudes toward charity were significantly related to the decisions participants made. In line with our theorizing, the findings indicate that a combination of personal, organizational, and institutional factors was salient in the minds of decision makers.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Aarts, H., Verplanken, B. and van Knippenberg, A. (1998). Predicting behavior from actions in the past: Repeated decision making or a matter of habit? Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28(15), 1355-1374.
    • Adkins, C. L., Russell, C. J. and Werbel, J. D. (1994). Judgments of fit in the selection process: The role of work value congruence. Personnel Psychology 47(3), 605-623.
    • Adler, N. J., Campbell, N. and Laurent, A. (1989). In search of appropriate methodology: From outside the People's Republic of China looking in. Journal of International Business Studies 20(1), 61-74.
    • Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K. and Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal 42(5), 507-525.
    • Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A. and Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multi-level theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review 32(3), 836-863.
    • Aiman-Smith, L., Scullen, S. E. and Barr, S. H. (2002). Conducting studies of decision making in organizational contexts: A tutorial for policy-capturing and other regression-based techniques. Organizational Research Methods 5(4), 388-414.
    • Avey, J. B., Luthans, F. and Youssef, C. M. (2010). The additive value of positive psychological capital in predicting work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management 36(2), 430-452.
    • Lioukas, S., Bourantas, D. and Papadakis, V. (1993). Managerial autonomy of state-owned enterprises: Determining factors. Organization Science 4(4), 645-666.
    • Luo, X. and Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing 70(4), 1-18.
    • Marrewijk, M. V. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics 44(2-3), 95-105.
    • McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal 21(5), 603-609.
    • McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review 26(1), 117-127.
    • McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S. and Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies 43(1), 1-18.
    • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. and Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22(4), 853-886.
    • Mujtaba, B. G. (2010). Strategic philanthropy and maximization of shareholder investment through ethical and values-based leadership in a post Enron/Anderson debacle. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 1(4), 94-109.
    • Nenova, T. (2003). The value of corporate voting rights and control: A cross-country analysis.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article