Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Losing More than Money: Organizations’ Prosocial Actions Appear Less Authentic When Their Resources are Declining

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Companies often benefit from others’ attributions of moral conviction for prosocial behavior, for example, attributions that a company has a sincere moral desire to improve the environment when behaving sustainably. Across four studies, we explored how organizations’ changing resource positions influenced people’s attributions for the motivations underlying prosocial organizational behaviors. Observers attributed less moral conviction following prosocial behavior when they believed an organization was losing (vs. gaining) economic resources (Studies 1 and 2). This effect was primarily a “penalty” assessed against organizations that were losing resources, as opposed to a “reward” given to organizations gaining resources (Study 3). Finally, we found that this effect occurred because people perceive organizations that are losing resources as more situationally constrained, leading them to attribute less dispositional moral conviction (Study 4). We discuss theoretical and practical implications stemming from how changes in resource access can lead people to be more skeptical of organizations’ motivations following prosocial behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We conducted this study before Whole Foods was acquired by Amazon.

  2. We opted to shorten this scale because of the simplicity of the construct as well as research indicating that even single-item measures can be useful when assessing some psychological constructs, including moral conviction (see Loo 2002; Skitka 2010).

References

  • Aaker, J. L., Garbinsky, E. N., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Cultivating admiration in brands: Warmth, competence, and landing in the “golden quadrant.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 191–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 224–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 556–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1, 177–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., & Gelabert, L. (2017). Does greenwashing pay off? Understanding the relationship between environmental actions and environmental legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 144, 363–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharjee, A., Dana, J., & Baron, J. (2017). Anti-profit beliefs: How people neglect the societal benefits of profit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 671–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47, 9–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, 68–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burson-Marsteller. (2014). Corporate perceptions indicator. https://www.burson-marsteller.com/press-release/cnbc-and-burson-marsteller-reveal-results-of-first-ever-cnbcburson-marsteller-corporate-perception-indicator/.

  • Cohen, B. D., & Dean, T. J. (2005). Information asymmetry and investor valuation of IPOs: Top management team legitimacy as a capital market signal. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 683–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37, 39–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Sociological Perspectives, 18, 122–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 8–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18, 397–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Effron, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2012). How the moralization of issues grants social legitimacy to act on one’s attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 690–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fast, N. J., Gruenfeld, D. H., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Illusory control: A generative force behind power’s far-reaching effects. Psychological Science, 20, 502–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firth, M. (1998). IPO profit forecasts and their role in signalling firm value and explaining post-listing returns. Applied Financial Economics, 8, 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, G. P. (2015). Moral character in person perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 38–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 505–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929–964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haran, U. (2013). A person–organization discontinuity in contract perception: Why corporations can get away with breaking contracts but individuals cannot. Management Science, 59, 2837–2853.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., & Abelson, R. P. (1991). Velocity relation: Satisfaction as a function of the first derivative of outcome over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 341–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., Abelson, R. P., & Salovey, P. (1991). The relative weighting of position and velocity in satisfaction. Psychological Science, 2, 263–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jago, A. S., Kreps, T. A., & Laurin, K. (2019). Collectives in organizations appear less morally motivated than individuals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 2229–2244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219–266). New Cambridge, MA: Academic.

  • Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, T. A., & Monin, B. (2011). “Doing well by doing good”? Ambivalent moral framing in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 99–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, T. A., & Monin, B. (2014). Core values versus common sense: Consequentialist views appear less rooted in morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1529–1542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauber, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, A. M., Knobe, J., & Cohen, A. (2006). Acting intentionally and the side-effect effect: Theory of mind and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17, 421–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loo, R. (2002). A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 68–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monin, B., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The limits of direct replications and the virtues of stimulus sampling. Social Psychology, 45, 299–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15, 323–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parguel, B., Benoit-Moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability rating might deter “greenwashing”: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Ridge, J., & Hill, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 262–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rai, T. S., & Diermeier, D. (2015). Corporations are cyborgs: Organizations elicit anger but not sympathy when they can think but cannot feel. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 18–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramus, C. A., & Montiel, I. (2005). When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing? Business and Society, 44, 377–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). New Cambridge, MA: Academic.

  • Rozin, P. (1999). The process of moralization. Psychological Science, 10, 218–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59, 1045–1061.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjovall, A. M., & Talk, A. C. (2004). From actions to impressions: Cognitive attribution theory and the formation of corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 7, 269–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, L. J. (2010). The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 267–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, L. J., & Morgan, G. S. (2014). The social and political implications of moral conviction. Political Psychology, 35, 95–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, S., & Gray, K. (2018). CEOs imbue organizations with feelings, increasing punishment satisfaction and apology effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 115–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zant, A. B., & Moore, D. A. (2015). Leaders’ use of moral justifications increases policy support. Psychological Science, 26, 934–943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zlatev, J. J. (2019). I may not agree with you, but I trust you: Caring about social issues signals integrity. Psychological Science, 30, 880–892.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Washington-Tacoma, 1900 Commerce St., Tacoma, WA, USA

    Arthur S. Jago

  2. University of Southern California, 3670 Trousdale Pkwy., Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Nathanael Fast

  3. Stanford University, 655 Knight Way, Stanford, CA, USA

    Jeffrey Pfeffer

Authors
  1. Arthur S. Jago
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathanael Fast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey Pfeffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arthur S. Jago.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Ethical Standards of an Institutional Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in these experiments.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Study 1 Organizations

Adobe

Best Buy

H&R Block

Ford

Tiffany & Co.

Hewlett Packard

Southwest Airlines

Macy’s

Under Armour

Whole Foods

Study 1 Behaviors

Recently, [company] donated $100,000 to a sustainability charity.

Recently, [company] initiated a river clean up that ultimately removed 4000 lb of trash from a local stream.

Recently, [company] decided to offer full dental insurance to all of its employees.

Recently, [company] decided to help some other organizations raise money to renovate forty soup kitchens in urban areas.

Recently, [company] decided to initiate an annual donation to local community organizations, such as the boy and girl scouts.

Study 3 Behaviors

Recently, [company] pledged to recruit and hire more minority candidates.

Recently, [company] released a statement that it wished to rely more on sustainable energies.

Recently, [company] strengthened its ethics code, outlining that leaders and executives must behave in moral ways.

Recently, [company] improved its mission statement, outlining the company’s moral duties to society.

Recently, [company] pledged to support a “fair treatment” doctrine, outlining that it will treat all employees equally, regardless of gender, race, religion, or age.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jago, A.S., Fast, N. & Pfeffer, J. Losing More than Money: Organizations’ Prosocial Actions Appear Less Authentic When Their Resources are Declining. J Bus Ethics 175, 413–425 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04645-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04645-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation