Do‐no‐harm versus do‐good social responsibility: Attributional thinking and the liability of foreignness

Crilly, D, Ni, N and Jiang, Y (2016) Do‐no‐harm versus do‐good social responsibility: Attributional thinking and the liability of foreignness. Strategic Management Journal, 37 (7). pp. 1316-1329. ISSN 0143-2095

Abstract

The efforts of multinational corporations to be socially responsible do not always engender positive evaluations from overseas stakeholders. Drawing on attribution theory, we argue that two heuristics guide stakeholders in evaluating firms' social performance: foreignness and the valence of firms' social responsibility. We provide evidence from a field study of secondary stakeholders and an experimental study involving 129 non-governmental organizations. Consistent with attribution theory, the liability of foreignness is minimized when firms engage in “do-good” social responsibility (focused on proactive engagement creating positive externalities) but is substantial when firms engage in “do-no-harm” social responsibility (focused on attenuating negative externalities). In online supporting information, Appendix S1, we demonstrate that these evaluations have consequences for whether stakeholders subsequently cooperate, or sow conflict, with firms.