Donna J. Wood

Bio: Donna J. Wood is an academic researcher from University of Northern Iowa. The author has contributed to research in topics: Corporate social responsibility & Stakeholder. The author has an hindex of 23, co-authored 50 publications receiving 20457 citations. Previous affiliations of Donna J. Wood include University of Pittsburgh.

Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts

Abstract: Stakeholder theory has been a popular heuristic for describing the management environment for years, but it has not attained full theoretical status. Our aim in this article is to contribute to a theory of stakeholder identification and salience based on stakeholders possessing one or more of three relationship attributes: power, legitimacy, and urgency. By combining these attributes, we generate a typology of stakeholders, propositions concerning their salience to managers of the firm, and research and management implications.

Corporate Social Performance Revisited

Abstract: This article defines corporate social performance (CSP) and reformulates the CSP model to build a coherent, integrative framework for business and society research. Principles of social responsibility are framed at the institutional, organizational, and individual levels; processes of social responsiveness are shown to be environmental assessment, stakeholder management, and issues management; and outcomes of CSP are posed as social impacts, programs, and policies. Rethinking CSP in this manner points to vital research questions that have not yet been addressed.

Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration

Abstract: The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science presents two special issues in which nine research-based articles and two overviews address various theoretical and empirical perspectives on the process o...

Stakeholder mismatching: a theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance

Abstract: This paper uses a stakeholder framework to review the empirical literature on corporate social performance (CSP), focusing particularly on studies attempting to correlate social with financial performance. Results show first that most studies correlate measures of business performance that as yet have no theoretical relationship (for example, the level of corporate charitable giving with return on investment). To make sense of this body of research, CSP studies must be integrated with stakeholder theory. Multiple stakeholders (a) set expectations for corporate performance, (b) experience the effects of corporate behavior, and (c) evaluate the outcomes of corporate behavior. However, we find that the empirical CSP literature mismatches variables in terms of which stakeholders are relevant to which kind of measure. Second, only the studies using market‐based variables and theory show a consistent relationship between social and financial performance, particularly those showing a negative abnormal return to the stock price of companies experiencing product recalls. Although this paper shows that the CSP construct is not yet well‐specified enough to produce stronger results, recent research suggests that much progress is being made both empirically and theoretically in developing valid and reliable measures of corporate social performance.

Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A Review

Abstract: This paper reviews the literature on corporate social performance (CSP) measurement and sets that literature into a theoretical context. Following a review of CSP theory development and the literature on relationships between CSP and corporate financial performance, Wood’s CSP model (Wood, D.J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, pp. 691‐718) is used as an organizing device to present and discuss studies that use particular measures of CSP. Conclusions emphasize the need for CSP scholars to refocus on stakeholders and society, and to incorporate relevant literatures from other scholarly domains. Corporate social performance (CSP) and its sister concepts – corporate social responsibility, corporate social responsiveness, corporate citizenship – have been present in management scholarship for about 45 years. Notwithstanding this longevity, the CSP domain has remained controversial, fluid, ambiguous and difficult to research. To a large extent, CSP has been equated with ‘doing good’, and the search has been on for a statistical relationship between CSP and financial performance (FP) so as to justify or delegitimize the normative calls for managers to pay attention to CSP. These two phenomena may be largely to blame for the lack of progress in CSP theory and measurement. It is possible, and I believe desirable, to take a different stance on CSP. Corporate social performance, as conceived in the Wood (1991) framework, is a set of descriptive categorizations of business activity, focusing on the impacts and outcomes for society, stakeholders and the firm itself. Types of relevant outcomes are determined by the firm’s linkages, both general and specific, as defined by the structural principles of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The production, monitoring, evaluation, compensation and rectification (or not) of these outcomes are defined by the processes of corporate social responsiveness – the boundary-spanning (or bridging) processes by which the firm connects itself to information, stakeholders and issues. All these elements can be measured and evaluated: impacts and outcomes; processes; and the specific guidance offered by structural principles. The aim of this paper is, first, to describe briefly the conceptual history of CSP and then to explain CSP as a set of structural categories that can be identified, described and measured (following Wood 1991 and modifications by Kang 1995; Swanson 1995, 1999; and Mitnick 1993, 1995, 2000). A ‘detour’ into CSP–FP research emphasizes how much attention has been paid to this aspect of the CSP domain and suggests that other research questions might now be more interesting. The paper then reviews the empirical literature in which some aspect of CSP is measured, showing how the measures themselves fit into an expanded structural CSP model. An additional result of this analysis will be to spotlight the aspects of CSP that have gone relatively (or completely) unexamined, or that have not yet been considered generally as indicators of CSP. Finally, the analysis will suggest some overarching conclusions about existing CSP research which suggest fruitful paths for future work.

Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches

Abstract: This article synthesizes the large but diverse literature on organizational legitimacy, highlighting similarities and disparities among the leading strategic and institutional approaches. The analysis identifies three primary forms of legitimacy: pragmatic, based on audience self-interest; moral, based on normative approval: and cognitive, based on comprehensibility and taken-for-grantedness. The article then examines strategies for gaining, maintaining, and repairing legitimacy of each type, suggesting both the promises and the pitfalls of such instrumental manipulations.

Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts

Abstract: Stakeholder theory has been a popular heuristic for describing the management environment for years, but it has not attained full theoretical status. Our aim in this article is to contribute to a theory of stakeholder identification and salience based on stakeholders possessing one or more of three relationship attributes: power, legitimacy, and urgency. By combining these attributes, we generate a typology of stakeholders, propositions concerning their salience to managers of the firm, and research and management implications.

The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications

Abstract: ?The stakeholder theory has been advanced and justified in the management literature on the basis of its descriptive accuracy, instrumental power, and normative validity. These three aspects of the theory, although interrelated, are quite distinct; they involve different types of evidence and argument and have different implications. In this article, we examine these three aspects of the theory and critique and integrate important contributions to the literature related to each. We conclude that the three aspects of stakeholder theory are mutually supportive and that the normative base of the theory-which includes the modern theory of property rights-is fundamental. If the unity of the corporate body is real, then there is reality and not simply legal fiction in the proposition that the managers of the unit are fiduciaries for it and not merely for its individual members, that they are . . . trustees for an institution [with multiple constituents] rather than attorneys for the stockholders.

Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract: Most theorizing on the relationship between corporate social/environmental performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP) assumes that the current evidence is too fractured or too variable to draw any generalizable conclusions. With this integrative, quantitative study, we intend to show that the mainstream claim that we have little generalizable knowledge about CSP and CFP is built on shaky grounds. Providing a methodologically more rigorous review than previous efforts, we conduct a meta-analysis of 52 studies (which represent the population of prior quantitative inquiry) yielding a total sample size of 33,878 observations. The meta-analytic findings suggest that corporate virtue in the form of social responsibility and, to a lesser extent, environmental responsibility is likely to pay off, although the operationalizations of CSP and CFP also moderate the positive association. For example, CSP appears to be more highly correlated with accounting-based measures of CFP than with market-based ...

Corporate Social Responsibility: a Theory of the Firm Perspective

Abstract: We outline a supply and demand model of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Based on this framework, we hypothesize that a firm's level of CSR will depend on its size, level of diversification, research and development, advertising, government sales, consumer income, labor market conditions, and stage in the industry life cycle. From these hypotheses, we conclude that there is an “ideal” level of CSR, which managers can determine via cost-benefit analysis, and that there is a neutral relationship between CSR and financial performance.