Firms face a great deal of pressure to engage in the heightened debate about climate change policies and practices. Building on the corporate political strategy literature, the authors evaluate how firms choose to influence those policies when faced with pressure from shareholders and activists. The authors triangulate firms’ choice of corporate political activity (CPA) with their environmental performance to draw out whether performance affects the firm’s choice of engagement level in CPA. The authors find that firms in the S&P 500 use a form of constituency-building (CB) more often than a financial-incentive (FI) tactic and that environmental performance moderates this choice. To date, there is little research connecting corporate political activity and climate change policies and performance. This research is intended to contribute to this literature gap.
AkerlofG. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488-500.
2.
BallouB.HeitgerD. L.LandesC. E. (2006, December). The future of corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Accountancy, 202(6), 65-74.
3.
BansalP. (2005). Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 197-218.
4.
BansalP.ClellandI. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 93-103.
5.
BaysingerB. D. (1984). Domain maintenance as an objective of business political activity: An expanded typology. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 248-258.
6.
BoddewynJ. J. (2007). The internationalization of the public affairs function in U.S. multinational enterprises. Business & Society, 46, 136-173.
7.
BonardiJ. P.KeimG. D. (2005). Corporate political strategies for widely salient issues. Academy of Management Review, 30, 555-576.
ChatterjiA. K.ToffelM. W. (2010). How firms respond to being rated. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 917-945.
11.
ChoC. H.PattenD. M.RobertsR. W. (2006). Corporate political strategy: An examination of the relation between political expenditures, environmental performance, and environmental disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 139-154.
12.
ClarksonP. M.LiY.RichardsonG. D.VasvariF. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 303-328.
13.
CurzanM. P.PeleshM. L. (1980). Revitalizing corporate democracy: Control of investment managers’ voting on social responsibility proxy issues. Harvard Law Review, 93, 670-701.
14.
DavidP.BloomM.HillmanA. J. (2007). Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 91-100.
15.
DavisG. F.ThompsonT. A. (1994). A social movement perspective on corporate control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 141-173.
16.
EesleyC.LenoxM. J. (2006). Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 765-781.
17.
GetzK. A. (2002). Public affairs and political strategy: Theoretical foundations. Journal of Public Affairs, 1(4) & 2(1), 305-339.
18.
GillanS. L.StarksL. T. (2007). The evolution of shareholder activism in the United States. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 19(1), 55-73.
19.
GravesS.WaddockS. A. (1994), Institutional owners and corporate social performance, Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1034-1046.
20.
GrayR.KouhyR.LaversS. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47-77.
21.
GriffinJ. J.MahonJ. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable debate. Business & Society, 36(1), 5-31.
22.
HillmanA. J.HittM. A. (1999). Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review, 24, 825-842.
23.
HillmanA. J.KeimG. A.SchulerD. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30, 837-857.
24.
HooghiemstraR. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management—New perspectives why companies engage in social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1/2), 55-68.
25.
KingB. G. (2008). A social movement perspective of stakeholder collective action and influence. Business & Society, 47(1), 21-49.
26.
KolkA.PinkseJ. (2007). Multinationals’ political activities on climate change. Business & Society, 46, 201-228.
27.
LawrenceA.WeberJ. (2011). Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics and public policy. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
28.
LiY.RichardsonG. D.ThorntonD. (1997). Corporate disclosure of environmental information; theory and evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, 14, 435-474.
29.
LogsdonJ. M.Van BurenH. J. (2009). Beyond the proxy vote: Dialogues between shareholder activists and corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 353-365.
30.
MarcusA. A.FremethA. R. (2009). Green management matters regardless. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 17-26.
31.
MathiasenC.WelshH. (2009). Social policy shareholder resolutions in 2008: Issues, votes and views of institutional investors. Rockville, MD: RiskMetrics.
32.
MattinglyJ. E.BermanS. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action: Discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data. Business & Society, 45(1), 20-46.
33.
OliverC.HolzingerI. (2008) The effectiveness of strategic political management: A dynamic capabilities framework. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 496-520.
34.
O’RourkeA. (2003). A new politics of engagement: Shareholder activism for corporate social responsibility. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12, 227-239.
35.
PattenD. M. (2002). The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27, 763-773.
36.
PrestonL. E.PostJ. E. (1975). Private management and public policy: The principle of public responsibility. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
37.
ProffittW. T. J.SpicerA. (2006). Shaping the shareholder activism agenda: Institutional investors and global social issues. Strategic Organization, 4, 165-190.
38.
RehbeinK.WaddockS.GravesS. B. (2004). Understanding shareholder activism: Which corporations are targeted?Business & Society, 43, 239-268.
39.
ReidE. M.ToffelM. W. (2009). Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1157-1178.
40.
RowleyT.BermanS. L. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39, 397-418.
41.
SchulerD. A.RehbeinK. (1997). The filtering role of the firm in corporate political involvement. Business & Society, 36(1), 16-139.
42.
SiegelD. S. (2009). Green management matters only if it yields more green: An economic/strategic perspective, Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 5-16.
43.
Sjöström E. (2008). Shareholder activism for corporate social responsibility: What do we know?Sustainable Development, 16, 141-154.
44.
SlaterD. (2007, August12). Resolved: public corporations shall take us seriously. New York Times Magazine.
45.
SpenceA. M. (1973). Time and communication in economic and social interaction. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 651-660
46.
StrikeV. M.GaoJ.BansalP. (2006). Being good while being bad: Social responsibility and the international diversification of US firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 850-862.
47.
UseemM. (1996). Investor capitalism. New York, NY: Basic Books.
48.
VogelD. J. (1978). Lobbying the corporation: Citizen challenges to business authority. New York, NY: Basic Books.
49.
VogelD. J. (1996). The study of business and politics. California Management Review, 38, 146-165.
50.
WaddockS. A.GravesS. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303-319.
51.
WaldenW. D.SchwartzB. N. (1997). Environmental disclosures and public policy pressure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 16, 125-154.
52.
WindsorD. (2007). Toward a global theory of cross-border and multilevel corporate political activity. Business & Society, 46, 253-278.
