Publications Database
Welcome to the new Schulich Peer-Reviewed Publication Database!
The database is currently in beta-testing and will be updated with more features as time goes on. In the meantime, stakeholders are free to explore our faculty’s numerous works. The left-hand panel affords the ability to search by the following:
- Faculty Member’s Name;
- Area of Expertise;
- Whether the Publication is Open-Access (free for public download);
- Journal Name; and
- Date Range.
At present, the database covers publications from 2012 to 2020, but will extend further back in the future. In addition to listing publications, the database includes two types of impact metrics: Altmetrics and Plum. The database will be updated annually with most recent publications from our faculty.
If you have any questions or input, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
Search Results
Charles H. Cho, Ewelina Zarzycka, Chaoyuan She, Dorota Dobija, Joanna Krasodomska, Joel Bothello (Forthcoming). "Examining stakeholder reactions to corporate social irresponsibility: Evidence from social media", European Management Journal.
Keywords
Abstract
What corporate behaviors are perceived as irresponsible by different stakeholders? How do such stakeholders react once they perceive irresponsibility? Using the literature on corporate social irresponsibility (CSiR), stakeholder theory and attribution theory, we examined a database of 100 000 social media posts on Twitter/X about Nestlé and H&M in the period 2015–2016. We found that the behavior of these two companies was perceived as irresponsible insofar as it caused direct harm to different stakeholder groups (stakeowners, stakeseekers, stakekeepers and stakewatchers). However, while stakeowners and stakeseekers were more likely to voice their concerns, they tended to voice their concerns only once. In contrast, stakewatchers and stakekeepers were more persistent in voicing concerns. In terms of goals, stakeowners and stakekeepers were more likely to advocate for information dissemination and community building than stakewatchers and stakeseekers, who were more likely to call for action. Our study therefore contributes to the CSiR and stakeholder engagement literature by illustrating how different stakeholder groups use social media to engage with firms perceived as irresponsible.Lilian Ng, Xiaoqiong Wang, Jing Yu, and Nataliya Zaiats (2025). "Ethical Leadership in Climate Action: Navigating National Government Intervention, Financial Constraints, and Corporate Decarbonization", Journal of Business Ethics.
Abstract
This study investigates how national climate policy instruments interact with financial constraints to shape corporate decarbonization, using data on 12,749 domestic and multinational firms across 51 countries from 2005 to 2022. We show that regulatory enforcement and carbon pricing reduce emissions even when firms face capital scarcity, while targeted subsidies have no measurable effect. The impact of regulation depends on institutional context: ESG disclosure requirements and supportive informal norms such as social trust, individualism, and competitiveness amplify effectiveness, whereas strong shareholder rights or uncertainty-averse cultures substitute for regulation and diminish its marginal role. We also uncover ethical risks in global production. Financially constrained multinationals often reallocate emissions to affiliates in weaker jurisdictions rather than invest in abatement, undermining collective climate goals, while firms subject to stringent regulation gain privileged access to global capital, disadvantaging peers in laxer regimes. By integrating institutional theory with business ethics, our findings show that climate accountability is not only a matter of environmental effectiveness but also of justice and fairness. Well-designed and well-enforced policies, aligned with institutional contexts and coordinated internationally, are essential for ensuring that the burdens and benefits of decarbonization are equitably distributed.Pouyan Foroughi, Hosein Hamisheh Bahar, and Lilian Ng (2025). "Environmental Violations in the Power Sector: Accountability and Community Welfare", Journal of Business Ethics.
Abstract
This study investigates how U.S. power sector firms respond to environmental violations identified by the EPA. Following a violation, affected plants adopt mitigation strategies such as reducing electricity generation, improving fuel quality, lowering coal use, installing scrubbers, upgrading pollution controls, and investing in energy-efficient generators. These actions are supported by economies of scale and public subsidies. At the firm level, violations are associated with increases in assets, capital expenditures, long-term debt, operating revenue, and electricity prices. However, operating and net income remain stable, suggesting that firms pass much of the compliance cost to consumers. While these responses contribute to environmental improvement, the accompanying rise in electricity prices raises concerns about social equity, particularly for households least able to absorb higher energy costs. Overall, the findings highlight a broader ethical and policy dilemma: efforts to enforce environmental accountability may disproportionately burden vulnerable populations.Pouyan Tabasi-Nejad and Yuval Deutsch (2025). "Beyond Dangling Carrots: The Effect of Policy Maker Motives on Their Response to Corporate Political Activity", Academy of Management Review, In-Press.
Abstract
Management scholars have predominantly theorized corporate political activity (CPA) as an exchange wherein a firm offers resources to a policy maker in return for favorable policy. While the CPA literature has extensively explored what drives firms to engage in CPA, it remains largely silent on the question of why a policy maker would accede to a firm’s attempt at influence. Drawing on social influence theory, we develop a framework that extends current CPA theory and centers a policy maker’s perspective when faced with CPA. We introduce a policy maker’s noninstrumental motives and identify novel types of CPA that appeal to these motives. We also consider the role of the bureaucrat—a heretofore largely ignored but important type of policy maker whose motives differ from those of politicians in key respects that shape whether and how a given policy maker is influenced. Lastly, we examine how third-party lobbyists affect the CPA process, identifying key pathways through which they are likely to enhance a firm’s CPA. By theorizing around the motives of the policy maker faced with CPA, we present a novel policy maker-centered framework that helps us better understand this socially and economically important strategy.Weitzner, D. & Deutsch Y. (2023). "Harm Reduction, Solidarity, and Social Mobility as Target Functions: A Rortian Approach to Stakeholder Theory", Journal of Business Ethics, 186, 479–492.
Abstract
Instrumental Stakeholder Theory has begun to suffer from what might be termed “mission drift.” Despite its initial success in creating a foothold for ethics in managerial decision-making, the efficiency arguments which now dominate this research stream have become counterproductive to the original goal of connecting ethics and capitalism. We argue in this paper that the way forward is by re-centering contingency, conversation, and inefficiency in stakeholder theory. To start this process, there needs to be a reckoning of some unintended impacts of the success of the instrumental stream of stakeholder research. For a contrasting approach, we draw on Richard Rorty’s pragmatism and its foundation of ethical “irony,” a state of continuous doubts about the utility of one’s moral vocabulary. We offer a Rortian approach to stakeholder theory, unearthing the possibility for new corporate target functions in the goals of harm reduction, solidarity, and social mobility, the foundational building blocks of an ironist ethical perspective.Freeman, R.E., Phillips, R.A. and Sisodia, R. (2020). "Tensions in Stakeholder Theory", Business & Society, 59(2), 213-31.
Abstract
A number of tensions have been suggested between stakeholder theory and strategic management (SM). Following a brief review of the histories of stakeholder theory and mainstream SM, we argue that many of the tensions are more apparent than real, representing different narratives about stakeholder theory, SM, business, and ethics. Part of the difference in these two theoretical positions is due to the fact that they seek to solve different problems. However, we suggest how there are areas of overlap, and we argue that some of the tensions may, instead, provide interesting ways to put the two areas of scholarship and practice together. We maintain that SM and stakeholder theory could mutually benefit from a more pragmatist philosophy.Leavitt, K., Zhu, L., and Aquino, K. (2016). "Good Without Knowing It: Subtle Contextual Cues Can Activate Moral Identity and Reshape Moral Intuition", Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 785-800.
Abstract
The role of moral intuition (i.e., a set of implicit processes which occur automatically and at the fringe of conscious awareness) has been increasingly implicated in business decisions and (un)ethical business behavior. But troublingly, because implicit processes often operate outside of conscious awareness, decision makers are generally unaware of their influence. We tested whether subtle contextual cues for identity can alter implicit beliefs. In two studies, we found that contextual cues which nonconsciously prime moral identity weaken the implicit association between the categories of “business” and “ethical,” an implicit association which has previously been linked to unethical decision making. Further, changes in this implicit association mediated the relationship between contextually primed moral identity and concern for external stakeholder groups, regardless of self-reported moral identity. Thus, our results show that subtle contextual cues can lead individuals to render more ethical judgments, by automatically restructuring moral intuition below the level of consciousness.Deutsch, Y. and Weitzner, D. (2015). "Understanding Motivation and Social Influence in Stakeholder Prioritization", Organization Studies, 36(10), 1337-1360.
Abstract
Insight into organizational responses to stakeholder claims and influence attempts is critical to understand the challenges currently facing managers and organizations. Drawing on Kelman’s (1958) model of social influence, we advance the field’s understanding of the factors driving firm-level prioritization of competing stakeholder claims by developing a theoretical framework that accounts for both the stakeholder attributes that are important to relevant decision makers, and the decision makers’ motivations for accepting or rejecting the influence attempts of varying stakeholders. Our framework distinguishes itself from existing research by focusing on stakeholder prioritization, not salience, recognizing that stakeholder-related decisions result from group interaction and that important decision makers are not limited to those found within the classic boundaries of the firm. Consequently, we argue that decision makers are simultaneously stakeholders with attributes that might be relevant to other decision makers involved in prioritization. In addition, we identify a more extensive set of stakeholder attributes that includes powerlessness and illegitimacy.Deutsch, Y. and Valente, M. (2013). "Compensating Outside Directors with Stock: The Impact on Non-Primary Stakeholders", Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 67-85.
Keywords
Abstract
Two obvious trends in corporate governance include broadening board accountability beyond shareholders’ interests and paying outside directors with equity compensation (stock and stock options). By integrating common agency and instrumental stakeholder theories, we examine the effect of stock compensation on secondary stakeholders and a firm’s participation in social issues, two areas where interests are less aligned with shareholder value. Consistent with our predictions, we found that while stock compensation may be an effective way to align directors’ goals to those of shareholders, it has adverse effects on important non-shareholder constituencies in the company’s operating environment.Deutsch, Y. and Valente, M. (2013). "Compensating Outside Directors With Stock: The Impact on Non-primary Stakeholders", Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 67-85.
Keywords
