The reading under review is “License to Ill” which talks about the effects of corporate social responsibility and the chief executive officer moral identity on corporate social irresponsibility. According to the study of chief executives, bosses who are known for their history of doing good deeds are more likely to take part in nefarious acts (Ormiston & Elaine 861). Most leaders feel that they have the right to act badly as they already have moral “credit”. Chief executives who have a good record in social responsibility, in the corporate world, have higher chances of thinking that they can behave in an undesirable way socially without their image being discredited. This is a study by Elaine Wong and Margaret Ormiston.
Firms whose aim is to pursue an agenda of social responsibility have a higher chance of behaving in irresponsible ways socially. This is usually more likely to happen when the bosses air their inclination of doing the right thing. Example of this is seen when Tony Hayward, the chief executive officer of British Petroleum, announced the company’s safety record which was one of his main points of focus as the head of the company. British Petroleum ran safety training sessions for its employees under his leadership and encouraged safety so as to take care of its key stakeholders like the companies employees, the environment and the community (Kotler & lee, 67). This changed in 2010 when its positive safety record was shattered by the Deepwater Horizon explosion that resulted to the worst offshore oil spill and the death of 11 people. Hayward’s reaction to this incident was cold and seen as minimizing the responsibility of British Petroleum for the environmental damage it caused and the spill.
Corporate social responsibility is firm behavior which goes past legal requirements or compliance to give social good. It has been seen that firms that get negative environmental ratings end up improving their performance environmentally. This makes it easier to understand the relationship between corporate social irresponsibility and later corporate social responsibility but it does not consider whether corporate social responsibility influences later corporate social irresponsibility (Ormiston & Elaine 865). In relation to the British Petroleum example, the socially responsible behavior was increasing safety records that resulted to the subsequent less responsible behavior which was minimizing its responsibility and ignoring safety warnings.
When examining whether prior corporate responsibility affects subsequent corporate social irresponsibility, strategic leadership can be viewed. This is because leaders have an influence on strategy of the organization and the outcomes of the firm. When analyzing leaders using moral licensing research, leaders holding the top position glean moral credits leading them to create a strategy which mistreats stakeholders of the firm. In spite of moral licensing research showing a relationship which is positive between behavior that is moral and later immoral behavior, research that has been done recently shows that individual differences could have an effect on this relationship (Kotler & lee 153). This individual differences could include things such as symbolization of moral identity or how being moral is shown to the public using behavior and actions. The moral identity symbolization of leaders controls the relationship existing between prior corporate social responsibility and corporate social irresponsibility.
Firm stakeholders such as consumers, employees and shareholders, have put a lot of pressure on firms so that their interests can be managed. Firms are, therefore, expected to listen to their various stakeholders. They are later seen as socially responsible when they successfully manage these demands (Kotler & lee 123). Corporate social responsibility is seen to exist in the form of a continuum though some people argue that that responsibility and irresponsibility should not be viewed as opposite ends of a similar continuum as they are distinct even though they are related constructs.
Even though research on moral licensing has shown that people are generally expected to practice morally questionable behavior after engaging in behavior that is socially desirable, this is the opposite of the fundamental psychological findings saying people are want to be consistent in their behaviors and beliefs. People who have a high symbolization of moral identity practice activities and engage in behavior which shows others that they are moral beings. People like this may show their morality through these actions so as to show their desire to portray their moral identity. Showing their good behavior could also be due to their self-interested desire to show themselves in a positive light and to control what others think of them (Ormiston & Elaine 863).
People high on moral identity symbolization can take part in moral actions so as to show their true morality, or it could be a technique so as to mislead people on a false value they say they have on morality. On the other hand, people who are lower on symbolization of moral identity do not put the effort in making people think that morality is important to them and can even take part in behavior which show that they do not value morality. Leaders should display their importance of morality but at the same time be true to what they displaying so that their values are true.
Works Cited
Kotler Philip & Lee Nancy. Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause. Wiley; 1 edition .2004. Print.
Ormiston Margaret & Wong Elaine. license to ill: the effects of corporate social responsibility and CEO moral identity on corporate social irresponsibility. Wiley Periodicals. 2013. Print.
