Stakeholder satisfaction with corporate conflict engagement actions : Exploring the effects of goodwill, trust, and value alignment

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Stakeholder satisfaction with corporate conflict engagement actions : Exploring the effects of goodwill, trust, and value alignment © 2024 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. Published version Valentini, Chiara; Munnukka, Juha; Zhao, Hui Valentini, C., Munnukka, J., & Zhao, H. (2024). Stakeholder satisfaction with corporate conflict engagement actions : Exploring the effects of goodwill, trust, and value alignment. Business Horizons, 67(6), 797-813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2024.08.003 2024 Stakeholder satisfaction with corporate conflict engagement actions: Exploring the effects of goodwill, trust, and value alignment Chiara Valentini a,* , Juha Munnukka a , Hui Zhao b a Jyva ¨skyla ¨School of Business and Economics, University of Jyva ¨skyla ¨, PO Box 35 (Agora) FIN 40014, Jyva ¨skyla ¨, Finland b Department of Strategic Communication, Lund University, Sweden, Helsingborg Box 882, 251 08 Helsingborg, Sweden KEYWORDS Business engagement; Conflict mitigation; Finland; Stakeholder perceptions; Corporate citizenship; Corporate social responsibility Abstract In the last decade, businesses have played an increasingly significant role in promoting stability, democracy, and human rights, particularly concerning the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, which emphasize peace, justice, and strong institutions. Consequently, there has been a greater focus on corporate social responsibility and corporatecitizenship.Researchhasexplored business motivations and actions in conflict mitigation. Nevertheless, less attention has been given to the impact of conflict engagement actions on stakeholders’ perceptions and behavioral intentions. This study aims to fill this gap by testing the effects of types of corporate conflict engagement actions (CCEAs) on stakeholders’ satisfaction with business choices and overall corporate goodwill. This study employs an experimental design in which respondents are exposed to CCEAs in scenarios related to the RussiaeUkraineconflict.Thefindingsofthisstudyare particularly relevant to business firms and their quest for whether to engage in regions undergoing conflict. The results illuminate the key factors of CCEAs that shape stakeholder satisfaction and corporate goodwill perceptions in today’s complex geopolitical landscape. ª2024 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). * Corresponding author E-mail addresses: chiara.v[email protected] (C. Valentini), [email protected] (J. Munnukka), [email protected] (H. Zhao) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2024.08.003 0007-6813/ª2024 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Business Horizons (2024) 67, 797e813 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect www.journals.elsevier.com/business-horizons 1. Business engagement with conflict mitigation Over the past decade, rising stakeholder expectations have demanded that businesses assume responsibility for a sustainable and democratic future (Edelman, 2022). The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals emphasize the challenge of achieving peace, justice, and strong institutions, a key objective for firms involved in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate citizenship (CC) initiatives. The latter broadly defines corporate social engagement with global issues. Businesses are now expected to actively promote peace, to prevent conflict, and to mitigate their consequences (Forrer & Katsos, 2022). Hence, CC and CSR initiatives have gained prominence in professional discussions, emphasizing actions that surpass conventional environmental, ethical, philanthropic, and economic responsibilities. This study empirically tests the effects of different corporate conflict engagement actions (CCEAs) on stakeholders’ perceptions of a firm’s goodwill and their satisfaction with the firm’s response to a conflict. In addition, this study explores the key factors that impact the relationship between stakeholder satisfaction with CCEAs and corporate goodwill. CCEAs cover various types of CC actions taken by businesses to address conflicts. These actions vary from no direct conflict engagement, when the business continues its operations as usual, to comprehensive involvement, such as creating job opportunities, generating wealth, making social investments, forming partnerships, and participating in policy dialogues (Fort & Schipani, 2007;Idemudia, 2017). Firms can help reduce conflict and promote peace, especially when CCEAs aim to reduce conflicts and their societal impact through dialogue, mediation, and support for affected communities (Forrer & Katsos, 2022). Undertaking CCEAs can bring several benefits to businesses; however, there are potential pitfalls. Perceived inappropriate actions could lead to adverse outcomes, such as exacerbated stakeholder polarization (Weber et al., 2023), consumer skepticism (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006;Lim & Lee, 2022;Rifon et al., 2004), and market distrust (Tosun & Eshraghi, 2022). Because CCEAs encompass a wide range of actions, it is important for businesses to carefully choose CC initiatives that align with stakeholder expectations. In investigating the impact of CCEAs on stakeholders’ perceptions, this study addresses a gap in the literature. The extant literature in business, peacebuilding, and development studies has targeted motives, actions, and factors that influence firms’ engagement in conflict-reduction efforts (Jamali & Mirshak, 2010;Oetzel & Getz, 2012;Wolf et al., 2007) and has only briefly discussed the effects of business decisions on stakeholders. Thus, this study contributes to the literature by shifting the research focus from firms to stakeholders, highlighting the importance of stakeholders’ support of business engagement in conflict situations. This work employs an experimental design in which Finnish respondents were exposed to CCEA scenarios related to the RussiaeUkraine conflict. Within the limits of focusing on a specific situation and country, the study’s findings offer preliminary insights into stakeholder perceptions of businesses engaged in initiatives concerning peace, justice, and strong institutions. This information can help businesses make informed decisions on how to direct their resources and efforts toward conflict mitigation. In the following, we outline the main conceptual and theoretical premises used to study stakeholders’ perceptions before explaining our conceptual framework and methodological choices. Subsequently, we present the results and discuss the main implications and key lessons for business managers. 2. Literature review 2.1. Corporate citizenship, global issues, and conflict mitigation When discussing the roles of business in society, it is important to clarify the basic premises of corporate responsibility and its relationship to the field of CC, which investigates how a firm interacts with society in ways that extend beyond merely attending to the needs of customers and investors (Altman & Vidaver-Cohen, 2000). This research is extensive, with many perspectives, often presenting diverse ideas on what CC involves (Matten & Crane, 2005). At its core, CC constitutes businesses’ voluntary efforts to connect with communities devoid of specific legislative mandates (Whitehouse, 2016). It can manifest as a demonstration of a firm’s good community involvement through philanthropic endeavors. But it can also broadly intersect with CSR, including aspects such as engaging in sustainable and ethical economic practices, fulfilling legal obligations, addressing ethical standards, and contributing to charitable acts (Matten & Crane, 2005). Concerning global issues, CC initiatives have been connected with 798 C. Valentini et al. global corporate activities (Moon et al., 2005) and with businesses tackling big problems affecting our world, such as climate change, water shortages, infectious diseases, wars, and terrorism (Schwab, 2008). Conflict engagement actions can be considered global CC actions, since the negative outcomes of conflicts external to the firm are rarely confined to a community; they can affect businesses directly or indirectly, and they can produce global repercussions in other markets or areas. Nowadays, with societies facing more instability, a lack of strong leadership, natural disasters, and health crises, firms are more at risk of getting caught in social conflicts. This phenomenon is not confined to nations characterized by violence or upheaval; rather, it is manifesting in regions with democratic governance structures wherein political disagreements and divisions are on the rise (Banfield et al., 2005;Burgess et al., 2022). Wars, revolutions, riots, community disputes, or even ongoing violence and terrorism are a few examples of conflictual situations (Oetzel & Getz, 2012). Such conflicts can significantly impact the international business landscape, making it crucial for firms to think carefully about how they respond as part of their overall strategy and responsibility (Bader et al., 2015;Miklian et al., 2022). 2.2. Influencing factors and business responses to conflicts Firms operating in conflict areas have various ways of responding, ranging from low involvement to high engagement (Jamali & Mirshak, 2010). They can avoid conflict by not getting involved, by sharing the responsibility of dealing with the conflict, or by actively attempting to control the situation (Idemudia, 2017). Business responses to conflict are categorized as reactive or proactive (Maignan & Ferrell, 2001). In reactive responses, firms reject the responsibilities assigned by their stakeholders to address conflicts and adapt to the situation as it unfolds. In proactive responses, they actively seek to meet stakeholder expectations by, for example, taking steps to lessen the impact of conflicts. Overall, the literature contains four forms of corporate behaviors: (1) business-as-usual behavior, when a firm simply complies with local regulatory stipulations; (2) take-advantage behavior, where the firm exploits the conflict to expand its business and opportunities; (3) withdrawal behavior, when a firm completely disengages its business operations and activities from a conflict zone; or (4) proactive behavior, when it intentionally contributes to public security with concrete actions (Wolf et al., 2007). Multiple factors heavily influence a business’s choice of response. Important factors include stakeholders’ roles in and proximity to the conflict (Meyer & Thein, 2014), spatiotemporal aspects of the conflict and its intensity (Oh & Oetzel, 2017; Witte et al., 2017;Xiaopeng & Pheng, 2013), the firm’s resilience and risk tolerance (Dai et al., 2013; Darendeli et al., 2021;Gonchar & Greve, 2022;Lee & Chung, 2022), the firm’s size, age, industry sector, and investment structure, and the significance of risks (Calvano, 2008;Driffield et al., 2013; Jamali & Mirshak, 2010;Oetzel & Getz, 2012). Of these, stakeholder pressure (Calvano, 2008)is notable for choosing the business’s response. 2.3. Effects of corporate citizenship initiatives Choosing the right CCEAs is also a question of deciding whether and how to meet stakeholders’ expectations of the business’s responsibility to global issues, considering each action has effects. Early work has indicated that when people think positively about a firm’s CC efforts, its image improves, and the firm is perceived as more appealing. These efforts also strengthen the firm’s brand and customer loyalty (Barnett & Salomon, 2012;Kim, 2019;Lin, 2012). Positive effects are also found on stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate goodwill (Cherner & Blair, 2015), which correlates strongly with a sense of caring for others (McCroskey & Teven, 1999) and which stakeholders may expect when businesses mitigate conflicts. Corporate goodwill is an intangible asset acquired over time and relates to a positive reputation, trust, and positive evaluations by key stakeholders (Rodell et al., 2020). Its positive impact extends beyond daily operational functions; it eases critical situations, acting as a safeguard during adversities and affording the firm some leniency in challenging circumstances, even when stakeholders are uncertain about the rationales for the firm’s actions (Dawar, 2004;Godfrey, 2005;Hess et al., 2002;Uzzi, 1997). Furthermore, corporate goodwill is not just an outcome of stakeholders’ approval of business actions; it can also be considered a social performance indicator (Ananzeh, 2024). When businesses score highly in corporate goodwill, stakeholders are more willing to speak positively and proactively about the firm to others (Dang et al., 2020; Stakeholder satisfaction with corporate conflict engagement actions 799 Overton et al., 2021). Indeed, stakeholders are even willing to pay more for firms’ products and services and to support these firms’ investments in initiatives (Xu et al., 2020). Given the important effects of goodwill on businesses’ social license and performance, we investigate whether stakeholders’ satisfaction with CCEAs affects corporate goodwill, as the latter can produce high social value for businesses (Chauvin & Hirschey, 1994). Early CC studies indicate a positive relationship between stakeholder satisfactiondalso known as public approvaldand corporate goodwill. Therefore, we hypothesized the following: H1: Stakeholders’ satisfaction with a CCEA positively influences their perceptions of corporate goodwill. 2.4. Perceived authenticity of CCEAs Stakeholders’ satisfaction with a business’s CC actions depends largely on whether these actions are perceived as authentic. Authenticity affects stakeholders’ judgments of CSR programs and, by extension, CC initiatives, and stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate goodwill are highly influenced by the authenticity of corporate actions (Joo et al., 2019). In recent years, authenticity has emerged as an important indicator of business success, leading firms to rethink how they can adopt more authentic behaviors and communications (Fritz et al., 2017;Lim & Young, 2021). The emphasis on authenticity is driven by increased awareness of the role of business in societies and the fact that stakeholders have become savvier and more critical of business actions that seem constructed, fake, or pretend (Gilmore & Pine, 2007;Mazutis & Slawinski, 2014). Authenticity is often characterized by frankness, candor, and moral courage (Jin et al., 2023). Yet authenticity is not a tangible, objectively definable concept; instead, it is a socially constructed phenomenon (Fritz et al., 2017) intertwined with stakeholder expectations (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009). Therefore, authenticity is considered a stakeholder’s perception of firms’ being genuine or real and should represent an organization’s identity (Hahl, 2016). It often entails congruence between corporate external expressions and internal values and beliefs (Lehman et al., 2019). According to Lehman et al., three macro perspectives define authenticity. Authenticity is “(1) consistency between an entity’s internal values and its external expressions, (2) conformity of an entity to the norms of its social category, and (3) connection between an entity and a person, place, or time as claimed” (Lehman et al., 2019, p. 1). Authenticity may play an important role in stakeholders’ evaluation and satisfaction with a business’s choices of actions in conflict zones. From early CSR studies, we know that CSR initiatives with a high cause fit can augment corporate authenticity and brand attitude (Kim & Lee, 2019) and that high CSR authenticity can reduce boycotting intentions and improve brand loyalty and purchase intentions (Alhouti et al., 2016). The effects are the opposite if stakeholders sense the organization lacks true commitment to a cause or if initiatives are perceived as insincere (Wagner et al., 2009). Low perceived authenticity can harm stakeholders’ perceptions of these initiatives’ impact, fit, and reparation (Alhouti et al., 2016). Accordingly, CC initiatives with a high cause fit should be preferred because these may be considered more authentic, plausible, and consistent, (Wettstein & Baur, 2016) and they may enhance stakeholders’ perceptions of firms’ corporate goodwill. Correspondingly, in the context of conflicts and corporate engagement, we hypothesize the following: H2: The effect of stakeholders’ satisfaction with a CCEA on perceptions of corporate goodwill is positively mediated by stakeholders’ perceived authenticity of a firm’s action. 2.5. Stakeholders’ trust in corporate citizenship initiatives Besides authenticity, the literature indicates that corporate trust is another important factor influencing stakeholders’ perceptions of CC initiatives’ efficacy, importance, and business capacity to address a social cause (Hoeffler et al., 2010). Trust is “the expectation of ethically justifiable behavior” (Hosmer, 1995, p. 379) and concerns the trustee’s level of competencies, honesty, and goodwill (Rotter, 1971). Trust is a core element through which businesses build strong bonds with stakeholders (Rasheed & Abadi, 2014) and contribute to long-lasting relationships and customer loyalty (Islam et al., 2021;Keh & Xie, 2009). A stakeholder’s perception of a corporation’s ethical operations is crucial to building a trusting relationship (Swaen & Chumpitaz, 2008). To demonstrate their commitment to society and to further gain stakeholders’ trust, firms must engage in ethical and socially responsible activities (O ¨berseder et al., 2014). They also must display this commitment through their actions and 800 C. Valentini et al. communication (Swaen & Chumpitaz, 2008). But stakeholders’ trust in corporations could be shattered by discrepancies between firms’ actions and communications (Kim, 2019). It takes time to build trustworthy relationships, but when trust is created, it can enhance stakeholders’ perceptions of an organization’s credibility and authenticity (Castro-Gonza ´lez et al., 2021) as well as its reputation and goodwill (van der Merwe & Puth, 2014). Consequently, we expect the following: H3a: Stakeholders’ trust in a firm moderates the relationships between stakeholders’ satisfaction with a CCEA and perceived authenticity, so that high trust in a firm strengthens the relationship and low trust in the firm weakens it. H3b: Stakeholders’ trust in a firm moderates the relationships of stakeholders’ satisfaction with a CCEA and corporate goodwill, so that high trust in a firm strengthens the relationship and low trust in the firm weakens it. 2.6. Salient value similarities and corporate citizenship perceptions When businesses engage in CC initiatives, they demonstrate support for a cause and the values associated with it (Hoeffler et al., 2010;Maignan & Ferrell, 2001). Stakeholders judge business choices for social causes by comparing their values, objectives, and goals for the social cause with those of the organization (Vaske et al., 2007). Stakeholders have more positive perceptions of businesses when value similarities are high, and they assess businesses’ CC initiatives as more salient (Hoeffler et al., 2010). Thus, businesses would benefit more from investing in CC initiatives when these are value-aligned actions (Joireman et al., 2015)that match stakeholders’ values (e.g., Golob et al., 2008;Siltaoja, 2006). Values are “laden beliefs that refer to a person’s desirable goals and guide the selection or evaluation of actions, policies, people, and events” (Schwartz, 2003,p.297). Salient value similarities between stakeholders and the corporate entity are pivotal for effective CSR (e.g., Rangan et al., 2015;Tobey & Yasanthi Perera, 2012). Salient value similarities raise stakeholders’ expectations for firms’ engagement in CSR (Lorne & Dilling, 2012) and affect how they may assess its corporate goodwill. When stakeholders value CC objectives as similar to theirs, their trust in the business increases (Siegriest et al., 2000). So does their satisfaction with the initiative (Winter & Cvetkovich, 2004). Firms should align their values with current societal values (Lindorff et al., 2012) to enhance value alignment with stakeholders and to demonstrate authenticity. Initiatives that resonate with stakeholders’ values are likelier to boost their perceptions of corporate goodwill. Hence, we hypothesize the following: H4a: Salient value similarity moderates the relationship between stakeholders’ satisfaction with a CCEA and perceived authenticity, so that high salient value similarity strengthens the relationship and low salient value similarity weakens it. H4b: Salient value similarity moderates the relationship between stakeholders’ satisfaction with a CCEA and corporate goodwill, so that high salient value similarity strengthens the relationship and low salient value similarity weakens it. 3. Conceptual framework Based on this study’s purpose of measuring stakeholders’ satisfaction with various CCEAs and the effects of such satisfaction on corporate goodwill outlined in our hypotheses, we propose the following conceptual model describing the relationships between stakeholders’ satisfaction with a firm’s CCEA (independent variable) and their perceived corporate goodwill (dependent variable; see Figure 1). Given the voluntary nature of firms’ decisions to engage in conflict mitigation via specific actions, we expect that a firm’s choice to engage or not depends on its existing corporate values and CC stewardship. The chosen CCEA is aligned with its corporate values and is perceived as authentic. But authenticity is a perceptual characteristic held by a stakeholder over an organization/entity, not an intrinsic characteristic of the latter (Shen & Kim, 2012). In other words, stakeholders define how authentic an organization is, not vice versa. Hence, we expect that stakeholders’ perceived authenticity of a firm’s CCEA mediates between people’s satisfaction with the CCEA and their overall view of the firm’s corporate goodwill. Furthermore, we anticipate that stakeholders’ trust in the firm and stakeholders’ perceived saliency of shared values moderate both the relationship between stakeholder satisfaction and corporate goodwill, as well as the relationship between stakeholder satisfaction and perceived Stakeholder satisfaction with corporate conflict engagement actions 801 authenticity. Trust is a critical factor influencing positive stakeholder perception, and sharing similar values affects stakeholders’ perceptions of positive evaluations of firms’ performance (Hoeffler et al., 2010;Joireman et al., 2015). 4. Research approach This study employs an experimental research design to investigate the effects of disparate CCEAs on stakeholder satisfaction toward the firm’s engagement choice and their perception of corporate goodwill. Data collection took place in June 2023, when a sample of 1,000 consumers was drawn from a Finnish consumer panel managed by a market research firm. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before participating in the study. The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the authors’ universities. To confirm the sample represents adults in Finland, it was stratified by age, gender, and geographic location. Levels of education, household income, and political orientation were also recorded. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four test groups, where each group was exposed to one of the four scenarios constructed to manipulate satisfaction with CCEA. Given that the respondents were all Finnish, all material was translated from English into the Finnish language and checked for language consistency with a third person external to the study who was knowledgeable in both languages. 4.1. Procedures The experiment was conducted on an online platform comprising three parts. First, a conflict situation was introduced, and respondents were asked to rate their knowledge of it. The recent war between Russia and Ukraine was identified as a suitable conflict to contextualize our study in a real-world situation. The conflict was selected owing to its recency and high global significance for corporations and societies. This conflict situation holds significant proximity and relevance for the target population of this study, namely, the Finnish people. Throughout history, Russia has repeatedly occupied Finland, successfully annexing it in 1809. Finland remained an autonomous part of Imperial Russia until 1917, when it finally achieved independence (InfoFinland, 2023). Given this context, the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine struck a deeply resonant chord within the Finnish population, and we therefore considered it suitable for testing the effects of CCEAs on corporate goodwill. Next, the respondents were introduced to a real firm in the apparel industry and to its global activities. The firm was chosen because it is a wellknown international brand, and respondents know its Nordic values. Questions pertaining to respondents’ knowledge of the firm and previous buying behaviors were included to check any compounding factor effect. The respondents were also asked about their trust in the firm. In the third part, subjects were randomly introduced to one of Figure 1. Conceptual model of CCEAs’ effects 802 C. Valentini et al. four scenarios, representing four CCEAs that the firm fictionally chose to undertake, and then completed the questions concerning their satisfaction with the action described in the scenario, their perceived authenticity, and how they felt about the firm’s corporate goodwill. While information on the firm’s operations was retrieved from the organization’s official sources, the business actions described during the conflict were fictitious. Manipulation and attention checks were applied to guarantee the effectiveness of the manipulations and the reliability of the data collected. Those who failed the attention-check questions were excluded from the sample. At the end of the questionnaire, demographic data were collected, and subjects were informed about the fictitious scenarios. 4.2. Stimuli development To construct four realistic scenarios, we drew inspiration from actions undertaken by real corporations that have directly or indirectly positioned themselves in the conflict (Smith, 2022). Based on news articles, we prepared an introductory scenario describing the conflict’s main events and the main outcomes, taking the perspective of the Nordic region, underscoring the impact on countries such as Finland. Next, we prepared a short introduction to a firm in the consumer apparel industry, including its markets and its operations, which included targeting the Russian market. This part was compiled using official information from the firm. Next, we created four fictitious scenarios describing four firms’ CCEAs (see Appendix 2). The four CCEAs represent the four stimuli we used to solicit stakeholders’ opinions of CCEAs and to measure their effects. Inspired by news reports on real corporate actions and based on Wolf et al.’s (2007) classification of the four macro corporate behaviors in conflict zones, we created four scenarios to test our hypotheses. Unlike Wolf et al., we positioned these actions not in the conflict zone but in the market area of the country considered responsible for the war, that is, Russia. We chose this approach to make the scenarios more realistic and to align with EU sanctions toward Russia, which aim at weakening Russia’s economic base and, indirectly, its capacity to continue its war against Ukraine (European Council, 2024). In the first scenario, the firm was presented as taking advantage of the fact that other firms had left the Russian market to increase their market opportunities (take-advantage behavior). In the second scenario, the firm was presented as withdrawing operations not from the conflict zone, Ukraine, but from Russia (withdrawal behavior). Thus, business withdrawal became a positive indirect corporate action in line with the EU sanctions towards Russia. In the third scenario, the firm was portrayed as keeping its business operations in Russia, complying with local regulatory stipulations, and thus disregarding EU sanctions (business-as-usual behavior). In the last scenario, the firm was described as withdrawing from the Russian market, as intentionally supporting victims of the conflict, and as engaging in actions assisting with conflict resolution (proactive behavior). 4.3. Pretest: Stimuli checks To test the effectiveness of manipulating satisfaction with CCEA using four fictitious scenarios, we conducted a pretest with a sample of Nordic university students. Individuals were contacted via email through the university’s official channels and randomly assigned to one of four test groups. Each group was exposed to one scenario. Participants were asked questions to assess their understanding of the information presented and their knowledge of the conflict. The data collection concluded after receiving a sufficient number of complete responses (nZ35). The analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed the effectiveness of the manipulations and the respondents’ ability to distinguish the four types of CCEAs. 4.4. Measures 4.4.1. Independent variable To measure stakeholders’ satisfaction with the firm’s CCEA, Oliver’s (1997) scale was used. Respondents were asked to give their opinion of how satisfied (1 Znot at all, 7 Zcompletely) they were with a firm’s response to the RussiaeUkraine conflict based on the scenario randomly presented to them. The original scale included four items and was reduced to three, since two items were almost identical after translating them into Finnish. The revised scale included only: “This firm’s response to the RussiaeUkraine conflict was the right one,” “The firm behaved exactly as it was supposed to behave,” and “Overall, I am satisfied with the firm’s response.” 4.4.2. Dependent variable As CC initiatives have a community as the main stakeholder (Phillips & Freeman, 2008), we chose McCroskey and Teven’s (1999) dichotomous scale to measure stakeholders’ perceived corporate goodwill, since this scale focuses on the Stakeholder satisfaction with corporate conflict engagement actions 803 community level. The scale items were contextualized to the RussiaeUkraine conflict. Subjects were asked to rate how much the firm cares (1 Z not at all, 7 Zcompletely) about its community, as well as the degrees to which it has the interests of conflict victims at heart, is self-centered, is concerned with the conflict, is sensitive, and understands the conflict situation. 4.4.3. Mediating variable Stakeholders’ perceptions of the authenticity of the CCEA were our mediating variable. To measure whether stakeholders perceived the firm’s actions as authentic, we used Jin et al.’s (2022) perceived authenticity scale, which measures stakeholders’ authenticity perceptions across nine semantic differential scales, such as pretentious/unpretentious, insincere/sincere, fake/real, dishonest/ honest, etc. Responses were recorded from 1 to 7. The lower number represented negative adjectives (pretentious, insincere, fake, etc.), and the higher number positive adjectives (unpretentious, sincere, etc.). 4.4.4. Moderating variables Two moderating variables (trust and salient value similarity) were expected to influence how the audience’s satisfaction with the firm’s CCEA affected corporate goodwill and the perceived authenticity of corporate engagement with the conflict. The measurement of trust was based on scales proposed by Johnson and Grayson (2005), including cognitive and affective trust in the firm. Both trust dimensions comprised the four original items. These included affective statements such as “I feel that the firm is trustworthy,” “I feel that the firm is very responsive to stakeholders,” etc., and cognitive statements such as “I believe that the firm will respond with understanding in the event of problems as expected,” “I have positive expectations regarding this firm’s responsiveness to stakeholders,” etc. Respondents were asked to assess their levels of cognitive and affective trust (1 Znot at all, 7 Zcompletely). The salient value similarity scale was based on Vaske et al.’s (2007),sothat subjects were asked to rate their feelings of how much the firm shared similar values, shared similar opinions, thought similarly, took similar actions, and had similar goals, as they considered the firm’s decisions regarding the RussiaeUkraine conflict. 4.4.5. Control variables The results were controlled for the effects of gender (1 Zmale, 2 Zfemale, 3 Zother), age, political orientation (1 Zextremely liberal, 7 Z extremely conservative), and global justice (1 Z totally disagree, 7 Ztotally agree). No answers about the “other” gender were recorded, so only distinctions between female and male respondents were tested. Political orientation and global justice were included as control variables, as people’s political orientations and their views of justice can influence their attitude toward conflicts and foreign-policy interventions (David & ShalhoubKevorkian, 2023;Gravelle et al., 2017; Haesebrouck & Mello, 2020;Martini, 2015). 4.5. Scale validation To confirm the validity of the measurement scales and of their abilities to measure one construct or dimension at a time, a confirmatory factor analysis with SPSS Amos was run. The results concerning internal consistency as well as discriminant and convergent validity are in Table 1 and Appendix 1, where scales and factor loadings are detailed. The items were successfully associated with their assigned factors, with factor loading values ranging from 0.47 to 0.99 (see Appendix 1). The factors were assessed as reliable, as they were found to consistently measure what they were supposed to. Each factor had a reliability score of 0.78 or higher, indicating good internal consistency (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012). The validity of our measurements was also checked to discern whether they accurately represented the concepts we were studying. The average variance extracted (AVE) was used for this, with values ranging from 0.56 to 0.97, which exceeded the commonly accepted cutoff of 0.5. Hence, the items we used in our study effectively measured the factors to which we assigned them. In addition, we evaluated whether our factors were distinct. The square root of the AVE for each factor was higher than the correlations between factors, indicating our factors were distinct (Ping, 2004). 5. Results The data were analyzed with composite constructs measuring each construct of the conceptual model with the PROCESS macro plugin for SPSS (v28), per Hayes (2018). 5.1. Manipulation check An ANOVA was run to assess the effectiveness of manipulating an individual’s satisfaction with the firm’s CCEA. The independent variable was the CCEA test group (withdrawal, proactive engagement, taking advantage of conflict, and business as usual), and the dependent variable was the 804 C. Valentini et al. Bader, B., Schuster, T., & Dickmann, M. (2015). Danger and risk as challenges for HRM: How to manage people in hostile environments. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(11), 1517e1519. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40,8e34. Banfield, J., Haufler, V., & Lilly, D. (2005). Transnational corporations in conflict-prone zones: Public policy responses and a framework for action. Oxford Development Studies, 33(1), 133e147. Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1304e1320. Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46e53. Burgess, G., Burgess, H., & Kaufman, S. (2022). Applying conflict resolution insights to the hyper-polarised, society-wide conflicts threatening liberal democracies. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 39(4), 355e369. Calvano, L. (2008). Multinational corporations and local communities: A critical analysis of conflict. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(4), 793e805. Carroll, G. R., & Wheaton, D. (2009). The formal construction of authenticity: An examination of contemporary food and dining in the U.S. Research in Formal Behavior, 29, 255e282. Castro-Gonza ´lez, S., Bande, B., & Ferna ´ndez-Ferrı ´n, P. (2021). Influence of companies’ credibility and trust in corporate social responsibility aspects of consumer food products: The moderating intervention of consumer integrity. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, 129e141. Chauvin, K. W., & Hirschey, M. (1994). Goodwill, profitability, and the market value of the firm. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 13(2), 159e180. Cherner, A., & Blair, S. (2015). Doing well by doing good: The benevolent halo of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1412e1425. Dai, L., Eden, L., & Beamish, P. W. (2013). Place, space, and geographical exposure: Foreign subsidiary survival in conflict zones. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(6), 554e578. Dang, V. T., Nguyen, N., & Wang, J. (2020). Consumers’ perceptions and responses toward online retailers’ CSR. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 48(12), 1277e1299. Darendeli, I., Hill, T. L., Rajwani, T., & Cheng, Y. (2021). Surviving the Arab Spring: Socially beneficial product portfolios and resilience to political shock. Multinational Business Review, 29(4), 522e544. David, Y., & Shalhoub-Kevorkian, N. (2023). Racializing human rights: Political orientation, racial beliefs, and media use as predictors of support for human rights violationsdA case study of the IsraeliePalestinian conflict. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 46(10), 1947e1971. Dawar, N. (2004, October 15). What are brands good for? MIT Sloan Management Review. Available at https:// sloanreview.mit.edu/article/what-are-brands-good-for/ Driffield, N., Jones, C., & Crotty, J. (2013). International business research and risky investments: An analysis of FDI in conflict zones. International Business Review, 22(1), 140e155. Edelman. (2022). Societal leadership is now a core function of business. Available at https://www.edelman.com/trust/ 2022-trust-barometer European Council. (2024). EU sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Brussels, Belgium: European Council of the European Union. Forrer, J., & Katsos, J. (2022). Business against violence: Assessing how business impacts peace. Multinational Business Review, 30(2), 153e172. Fort, T. L., & Schipani, C. A. (2007). An action plan for the role of business in fostering peace. American Business Law Journal, 44(2), 359e377. Fritz, K., Schoenmuelle, V., & Bruhn, M. (2017). Authenticity in brandingdExploring antecedents and consequences of brand authenticity. European Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 324e348. Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, J. B. (2007). Authenticity: What consumers really want. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777e798. Golob, U., Lah, M., & Jan ci c, Z. (2008). Value orientations and consumer expectations of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 83e96. Gonchar, K., & Greve, M. (2022). The impact of political risk on FDI exit decisions. Economic Systems, 46(2), 1e23. Gravelle, T. B., Reifler, J., & Scotto, T. J. (2017). The structure of foreign policy attitudes in transatlantic perspective: Comparing the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany. European Journal of Political Research, 56(4), 757e776. Haesebrouck, T., & Mello, P. A. (2020). Patterns of political ideology and security policy. Foreign Policy Analysis, 16(4), 565e586. Hahl, O. (2016). Turning back the clock in baseball: The increased prominence of extrinsic rewards and demand for authenticity. Firm Science, 27(4), 929e953. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4e40. Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369e388. Hess, D., Rogovsky, N., & Dunfee, T. W. (2002). The next wave of corporate community involvement: Corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 44(2), 110e125. Hoeffler, S., Bloom, P. N., & Keller, K. L. (2010). Understanding stakeholder responses to corporate citizenship initiatives: Managerial guidelines and research directions. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 29(1), 78e88. Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between formal theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379e403. Hydock, C., Paharia, N., & Weber, T. J. (2019). The consumer response to corporate political advocacy: A review and future directions. Customer Needs and Solutions, 6(1), 76e83. Idemudia, U. (2017). Business and peace in the Niger Delta: What we know and what we need to know. African Security Review, 26(1), 41e61. InfoFinland. (2023, December 14). Finnish history. Available at https://www.infofinland.fi/en/information-about-finland/ finnish-history Islam, T., Islam, R., Pitafi, A. H., Xiaobei, L., Rehmani, M., Irfan, M., & Mubarak, M. S. (2021). The impact of corporate social responsibility on customer loyalty: The mediating role of corporate reputation, customer satisfaction, and trust. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 25, 123e135. Stakeholder satisfaction with corporate conflict engagement actions 811 Jamali, D., & Mirshak, R. (2010). Businesseconflict linkages: Revisiting MNCs, CSR, and conflict. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(3), 443e464. Jin, X. L., Chen, X., & Zhou, Z. (2022). The impact of cover image authenticity and aesthetics on users’ productknowing and content-reading willingness in social shopping community. International Journal of Information Management, 62,102428. Jin, J., Mitson, R., Qin, Y. S., Vielledent, M., & Men, L. R. (2023). Enhancing young consumers’ relational and behavioral outcomes: The impact of CEO activism authenticity and value alignment. Public Relations Review, 49(2),102312. Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 500e507. Joireman, J., Smith, D., Liu, R. L., & Arthurs, J. (2015). It’s all good: Corporate social responsibility reduces negative and promotes positive responses to service failures among valuealigned customers. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 34(1), 32e49. Joo, S., Miller, E. G., & Fink, J. S. (2019). Consumer evaluations of CSR authenticity: Development and validation of a multidimensional CSR authenticity scale. Journal of Business Research, 98, 236e249. Keh, H. T., & Xie, Y. (2009). Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The roles of trust, identification, and commitment. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(7), 732e742. Kim, S. (2019). The process model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication: CSR communication and its relationship with consumers’ CSR knowledge, trust, and corporate reputation perception. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(4), 1143e1159. Kim, S., & Lee, H. (2019). The effect of CSR fit and CSR authenticity on the brand attitude. Sustainability, 12(1), 275. Lee, H., & Chung, C. C. (2022). Go small or go home: Operational exposure to violent conflicts and foreign subsidiary exit. Journal of World Business, 57(6), 1e14. Lehman, D. W., O’Connor, K., Kova ´cs, B., & Newman, G. E. (2019). Authenticity. The Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 1e42. Lim, R. E., & Lee, W.-N. (2022). Communicating corporate social responsibility: How fit, specificity, and cognitive fluency drive consumer skepticism and response. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(2), 955e967. Lim, J. S., & Young, C. (2021). Effects of issue ownership, perceived fit, and authenticity in corporate social advocacy on corporate reputation. Public Relations Review, 47(4),102071. Lin, C. P. (2012). Modelling the relationship among perceived corporate citizenship, firms’ attractiveness, and career success expectation. Human Resource Management International Digest, 20(3). Available at https://doi.org/10. 1108/hrmid.2012.04420caa.009 Lindorff, M., Prior Jonson, E., & McGuire, L. (2012). Strategic corporate social responsibility in controversial industry sectors: The social value of harm minimisation. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 457e467. Lorne, F. T., & Dilling, P. (2012). Creating values for sustainability: Stakeholders engagement, incentive alignment, and value currency. Economics Research International, 2012,142910. Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2001). Corporate citizenship as a marketing instrument: Concepts, evidence, and research directions. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 457e484. Martini, N. F. (2015). Foreign policy ideology and conflict preferences: A look at Afghanistan and Libya. Foreign Policy Analysis, 11(4), 417e434. Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166e179. Mazutis, D. D., & Slawinski, N. (2014). Reconnecting business and society: Perceptions of authenticity in corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 137e150. McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90e103. Meyer, K. E., & Thein, H. H. (2014). Business under adverse home country institutions: The case of international sanctions against Myanmar. Journal of World Business, 49(1), 156e171. Miklian, J., Katsos, J., & Forrer, J. (2022, March 15). In light of Russia’s sanctions, consider your conditions for doing business in other countries. Harvard Business Review. Available at https://hbr.org/2022/03/in-light-of-russia-sanctionsconsider-your-conditions-for-doing-business-in-othercountries Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2005). Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(3), 427e451. O ¨berseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Murphy, P. E., & Gruber, V. (2014). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 101e115. Oetzel, J., & Getz, K. (2012). Why and how might firms respond strategically to violent conflict? Journal of International Business Studies, 43, 166e186. Oh, C. H., & Oetzel, J. (2017). Once bitten twice shy? Experience managing violent conflict risk and MNC subsidiary-level investment and expansion. Strategic Management Journal, 38(3), 714e731. Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867e872. Overton, H., Kim, J. K., Zhang, N., & Huang, S. (2021). Examining consumer attitudes toward CSR and CSA messages. Public Relations Review, 47(4),102095. Phillips, R. A., & Freeman, M. (2008). Corporate citizenship and community stakeholders. In A. G. Scherer & G. Palazzo (Eds.), Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship (pp. 99e115). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Ping, R. A., Jr. (2004). On assuring valid measures for theoretical models using survey data. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 125e141. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717e731. Rangan, K., Chase, L., & Karim, S. (2015). The truth about CSR. Harvard Business Review, 93(1/2), 40e49. Rasheed, F. A., & Abadi, M. F. (2014). Impact of service quality, trust, and perceived value on customer loyalty in Malaysian services industries. ProcediadSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 164, 298e304. 812 C. Valentini et al. Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship: The mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 30e42. Rodell, J. B., Sabey, T. B., & Rogers, K. M. (2020). “Tapping” into goodwill: Enhancing corporate reputation through customer volunteering. Academy of Management Journal, 63(6), 1714e1738. Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26(5), 443e456. Schwab, K. (2008, January). Global corporate citizenship: Working with governments and civil society. Foreign Affairs, 87(1), 107e118. Schwartz, S. H. (2003). A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. In Questionnaire package of the European social survey (pp. 261e315). London, UK: European Social Survey. Shen, H., & Kim, J.-N. (2012). The authentic enterprise: Another buzzword, or a true driver of quality relationships? Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(4), 371e389. Siegriest, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353e362. Siltaoja, M. E. (2006). Value priorities as combining core factors between CSR and reputationdA qualitative study. Journal of Business Ethics, 68,91e111. Smith, K. V. (2022). How companies are responding to the war in Ukraine: A roundup. Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship. Available at https://ccc.bc.edu/content/ccc/ blog-home/2022/03/companies-respond-to-war-in-ukraine. html Swaen, V., & Chumpitaz, R. C. (2008). Impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer trust. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 23(4), 7e34. Tobey, D. H. S., & Yasanthi Perera, B. (2012). Corporate social responsibility initiatives: A stakeholder model for aligning competing values in west africa. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 3(1), 95e115. Tosun, O. K., & Eshraghi, A. (2022). Corporate decisions in times of war: Evidence from the RussiaeUkraine conflict. Finance Research Letters, 48,102920. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35e67. van der Merwe, A., & Puth, G. (2014). Toward a conceptual model of the relationship between corporate trust and corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 17,138e156. Vaske, J. J., Absher, J. D., & Bright, A. D. (2007). Salient value similarity, social trust, and attitudes toward wildland fire management strategies. Human Ecology Review, 14(2), 223e232. Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 77e91. Weber, T. J., Joireman, J., Sprott, D. E., & Hydock, C. (2023). Differential response to corporate political advocacy and corporate social responsibility: Implications for political polarization and radicalization. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 42(1), 74e93. Wettstein, F., & Baur, D. (2016). Why should we care about marriage equality? Political advocacy as a part of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2), 199e213. Whitehouse, L. (2016). Corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, and the global compact. Global Social Policy, 3(3), 299e318. Winter, P. L., & Cvetkovich, G. T. (2004). The voices of trust, distrust, and neutrality: An examination of fire management opinions in three states. Paper presented at the 10 th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management. Keystone: CO. Witte, C. T., Burger, M. J., Ianchovichina, E. I., & Pennings, E. (2017). Dodging bullets: The heterogeneous effect of political violence on greenfield FDI. Journal of International Business Studies, 48, 862e892. Wolf, K. D., Deitelhoff, N., & Engert, S. (2007). Corporate security responsibility: Toward a conceptual framework for a comparative research agenda. Cooperation and Conflict, 42(3), 294e320. Xiaopeng, D., & Pheng, L. S. (2013). Understanding the critical variables affecting the level of political risks in international construction projects. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 17(5), 895e907. Xu, B., Costa-Climent, R., Wang, Y., & Xiao, Y. (2020). Financial support for micro and small enterprises: Economic benefit or social responsibility? Journal of Business Research, 115, 266e271. Stakeholder satisfaction with corporate conflict engagement actions 813