Measuring Deliberative Attitude and Attributes in Political Corporate Social Responsibility: Instrument Development and Validation

Measuring Deliberative Attitude and Attributes in Political Corporate Social Responsibility: Instrument Development and Validation

Ammar Redza Ahmad Rizal (Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia), Shahrina Md Nordin (University Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia) and Siti Haslina Hussin (Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-6960-3.ch004
OnDemand PDF Download:
Available
$37.50
No Current Special Offers
TOTAL SAVINGS: $37.50

Abstract

There are numerous calls for more empirical research in the study of political corporate social responsibility (PCSR). One of the important avenues in the process of deliberation in PCSR. Hence, this study aims to conceptualize, develop, and validate a scale that will be able to measure a person's deliberative attitude. The overall study has been divided into three studies. The first study aims to develop and assess the content validity of the measurement. The second study aims to purify the instrument through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). It is in this study that 14 indicators measuring three different constructs were identified. Besides the deliberative attitude, the indicators for measuring motivation and support on deliberation were also identified. The three constructs were then put through a construct and predictive validity assessment in study three. Findings from this study allowed researchers to explore a more complex model related to a person's or corporation's decision to participate in a deliberation.
Chapter Preview
Top

Introduction

Research and debates on Political Corporate Social Responsibility (PCSR) have significantly progressed since the last decades (Frynas & Stephens, 2015; Scherer, 2017). PCSR research grounded on examining corporation and institutional setting, where its core structure revolves around sustainability practice of corporation in a globalized world (Scherer & Palazzo, 2007, 2011). Habermas’ works including his Magnus Opus “Theory of Communicative Action” were adapted to construct the idea of deliberation and dialogue in PCSR. Scholars such as Scherer had not only conceptualized the idea of Habermas but also argued on the normative applicability of the idea as well as discussing the structure and function of a corporation on adapting the approach (Scherer, Baumann-Pauly & Schneider, 2013; Scherer, 2017). Nevertheless, the rigorous advocation by Scherer allows us to better understand the structure and institution of PCSR.

However, in the recent publication by Scherer, calls have been made for researchers within this discipline to provide more empirical findings (Scherer, 2017). This is also part of strengthening institutionalization and norms in PCSR by moving from normative (i.e., how it is supposed to be) literature towards prescriptive (i.e., how it can be done) literature. Multiple studies have been conducted in providing empirical findings for the works of literature. For instance, Levy and colleagues have been looking into the coffee industry and tried to trace the idea of sustainable coffee production (Levy, Reinecke, & Manning, 2016). Scholars are also trying to develop a measurement for understanding the deliberative capacity of a nation. However, the method relies on multiple other factors and can only be made as guidance for evaluating host norms (Ast, 2017).

Moreover, most empirical studies in PCSR had engaged in case studies and qualitative approach (Schouten & Glasbergen, 2011; Vallentin, 2013; Levy, Reinecke, & Manning, 2016). Findings which are based on quantitative study are still limited and a development model within this discipline is still lacking. In respect to other paradigms, the quantitative study did allow for theories developed to be tested and also allow better replication by other scholars (Creswell, 2013). This will help the idea of PCSR to penetrate further and be expanded in the academic study. As the theory becomes more structured and attracts participation from multiple stakeholders in various fields, a similar weightage needs to be given to the quantitative method.

Understanding one attitude towards deliberation allows for additional maneuver during the deliberation process. It is important as it shall allow a healthier environment for deliberation. Nonetheless, there remains no instruments or models developed in PCSR or deliberative democracy works of literature that measure one’s attitude towards deliberation. The closest is the work by Jennstål who examined the effect of personality towards motivation to participate in deliberative democracy event (Jennstål & Niemeyer, 2014; Jennstål, 2016). However, most management and social science works have been distinguishing between attitude and personality as both bring different interpretations and consist of different factors (Zuwerink & Devine, 1996; Jenkins & Downs, 2003; Bogaerts, Vervaeke, & Goethals, 2004). This article feature is to understand what the attitude of the participant towards deliberative democracy is or what is their deliberative attitude.

The proposed study aims to reduce the current gap in PCSR and deliberative democracy works of literature. The outcome of the research does not only provide a validated scale on attitude towards deliberation but also allows researchers to understand the possible antecedents which contribute to the attitude towards deliberation. This study contributes to the conceptualization, development, and validation of the deliberative attitude scale.

Future research in PCSR or deliberative democracy could implement this model in their larger and more complex nomological network. Furthermore, practitioners shall be able to conduct a more practical and sound approach in assuring comprehensive inclusion of smallholders in the deliberation process. The study also contributes to the quantitative approach which was lacking in PCSR literatures.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book:
Reset