Introduction 

​

What is Corporate Social Responsibility?

​

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become an essential component of how organizations build trust, manage risk, and create long-term value. 93% of the largest companies in the world formally report on corporate responsibility practices as of 2013 (KPMG, 2013). CSR can be defined as the act of caring for individuals, the environment, and other stakeholders, while simultaneously increasing the value of the corporation (Glavas, 2016). At its core, CSR is a business model. While CSR was once positioned as a tool for maximizing profits for the company’s shareholders, it has now become a tool for societal and organizational development. CSR encompasses a variety of activities that advance social agendas beyond legal requirements, including responsible business practices intended to promote sustainable economic growth, social cohesion and environmental protection (Govindasamy & Suresh, 2017). The aims of CSR are multifaceted, and it can be considered “informal law”, as it is based on numerous fundamental legal principles. ​​​

​​

Legal Models of Fiduciary Duty 

​​

Industrialization and globalization have brought about increased international competition between organizations. This competition encourages unethical decision-making to attract more investors and consumers. This has led to a widespread lack of trust in corporations and management, and increased the need for accountability. To re-establish trust, corporations must abide by legal conditions of fiduciary duty. Fiduciaries can be defined as parties that have a duty to act primarily for another person’s benefit. The relationship between a fiduciary and its benefactor, the principal actor, is one based in trust, confidence and good faith, creating duties owed by the fiduciary such as a duty of loyalty, a duty of care, and a duty of good faith (Atherton et al., 2011). 

A duty of care can be defined as the amount of care that a rational individual would use in the particular circumstance, while the duty to act in good faith is based in genuine care for the principal actor and refers to actions being motivated by achieving positive outcomes for the principal. A duty of good faith can be breached when directors disregard their duties, intend to harm the corporation, or cause the corporation to knowingly have violated the law (Atherton et al., 2011). 

 

Key decision-makers in their respective organizations owe a duty of care to the organization itself, meaning that corporate management and the board of directors owe fiduciary duties to shareholders and employees owe duties to their employers. Thus, at all levels of the organization, employees must act in the benefit of the organization and not in their own personal interest (Atherton et al., 2011). 

 

However, distinctions have been made between fiduciary duty owed to shareholders compared to stakeholders. While shareholders have a direct financial stake in the organization, stakeholders encompass all groups affected by organizational decisions such as employees, consumers, and the local community (Nikolova & Arsić, 2017). Shareholder primacy holds the view that every corporate action is intended to increase shareholder wealth, and directors owe a fiduciary duty to engage in decision-making to support this goal. Other scholars hold the view that corporate directors should owe a fiduciary duty to stakeholders like employees and consumers (Povilonis, 2021). 

Directors have limited liability for failure in risky decisions, because courts review the standard of care in directors’ decision-making processes and not the amounting decision itself. Thus, the duty of care to shareholders can only be breached when a director is found grossly negligent and the decision made by the board cannot be attributed to any rational business purpose (Atherton et al., 2011). Courts use the ‘business judgement rule’ as the standard of review, wherein directors are protected from liability. Courts presume that board directors acted in good faith and board decisions are overturned only in rare circumstances, even if the decision unduly benefits stakeholders over shareholders. As long as directors do not breach a duty of care and a duty of loyalty, courts may not be able to inquire further on shareholders’ claims of a breach of fiduciary duty. While fiduciary duty prevents directors from unduly benefitting from their role at the expense of shareholders, the business judgement rule protects directors from shareholder liability, even when their decisions favor stakeholders (Povilonis, 2021). 

 

Thus, while fiduciary duty law limits directors from acting against shareholder interests, it does not require them to prioritize stakeholders such as consumers, communities, or the environment. Further, the business judgement rule further limits judicial oversight, leaving significant discretion in corporate decision-making. This creates a regulatory gap wherein socially responsible behaviour is not strictly mandated by law. Hence, CSR emerges as a voluntary governance mechanism that aims to promote decision-making in the interest of stakeholders. 

 

Why is CSR important?
​

CSR is beneficial to both the organization itself as well as its external benefactors. As consumers in the West become more socially responsible, demanding sustainable goods, they are more likely to boycott organizations that do not follow CSR regulations (Križanová & Gajanová, 2016). Consequently, CSR has the potential to increase revenue by fostering consumer loyalty. 

Further, socially responsible organizations can assist the government in fulfilling welfare goals. By contributing to integration of migrants or providing health services to retired employees, corporations may act and fund activities that are usually the responsibility of governments, and thus, governments may use funds for other purposes (Buhmann, 2006). 

While international law including labour law, environmental law, and human rights law cannot be legally enforced on corporations, corporations often act in accordance with these laws through CSR. This is partly because Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), investors, and media corporations have exposed and held responsible corporations that violated such rights (Buhmann, 2006). While organizations may not have a formal legal obligation, they partake in CSR to protect their own reputation, to be the first in the industry to adopt CSR initiatives, and to gain recognition. They pursue CSR initiatives to avoid the risk of sanctions and to maintain relevance. 

Often, unethical acts are intended to benefit the organization. Formally recognized as “unethical pro-organizational behaviour”, this term refers to employee engagement in unethical activities with the intention of furthering corporate goals. Unethical behaviour can take many forms, like deleting harmful information threatening the organization, falsifying documents, falsely advertising to consumers, and partaking in corrupt business practices (Bugdol & Sułkowski, 2024). 

Although CSR allows corporations to promote socially responsible decision-making, its effectiveness depends on those responsible for its implementation. CSR is shaped by the decisions of directors, employees, investors, consumers, and regulatory institutions. Since corporations are not legally required to prioritize stakeholder interests, the extent to which CSR meaningfully protects these interests relies on the motivations, incentives, and the behaviours of these key players. Therefore, it is essential to understand who these key players are, and how they influence corporate conduct. 
 

Who are the key players in CSR?

​

Employees and organizations are mutually dependent, such that organizations rely on employees in the development and adoption of CSR initiatives as employees are expected to participate in CSR-related activities in the workplace. Employee awareness and willingness to collaborate are key for the successful implementation of CSR initiatives. Further, it is important to understand how unethical behaviour arises, and how it goes unnoticed. Thus, two key players in unethical behaviour include those directly involved in perpetrating unethical decision-making, and those who may know about it and refuse to report it. 

The remainder of this article analyzes the psychological mechanisms that undermine socially responsible corporate decision-making, by examining how moral disengagement, conformity to social and group norms, and financial incentives contribute to unethical pro-organizational behaviour that prevents the effective implementation of CSR. 

​

Barriers to CSR

​

Although corporations increasingly claim to value social responsibility, psychological and structural barriers often discourage them from acting ethically. Barriers prevent the execution of CSR, while drivers promote its adoption (Govindasamy & Suresh, 2017). Barriers to the implementation of CSR can be considered at three levels: individual, organizational and institutional. Individual-level barriers are psychological in nature, concerning the cognition of individual decision-makers, like employees. Organizational barriers are structural, affecting organizational culture and reward systems. Institutional barriers refer to rules, regulations, and organizational norms (Garavan et al., 2010).

​

Moral Disengagement 
 

Moral disengagement has been linked to undesirable behaviours in the workplace, such as unethical decision-making, accident underreporting, cheating behaviours and deception tactics (Newman et al., 2019). Moral disengagement can explain why employees and leaders may act contrary to CSR principles, even after these principles have been formally adopted. 

​

As a facet of social cognitive theory, prominent social psychologist Bandura proposed the moral disengagement theory, wherein individuals may utilize cognitive mechanisms to disengage their moral self-sanctions to allow themselves to act in immoral ways. People may morally disengage using a number of strategies, like cognitively reconstructing the behaviour or minimizing one’s responsibility for the behaviour. Individuals are able to commit unethical behaviour by subscribing to rationalizations that render the behaviour situationally appropriate. Rationalizations facilitate moral disengagement by providing reasons why the act was justifiable or excusable as compared to general moral norms (Barsky, 2011). Mechanisms of moral disengagement facilitate corruption in organizations, through unethical decision-making (Moore, 2008). 

​

Further, moral justification is another type of rationalization where individuals cognitively reconstruct the behaviour by linking it to a worthy purpose. Unethical behaviour is made socially acceptable by connecting it to a higher moral purpose. Moral justifications lower perceived costs and heighten perceived benefits of engaging in unethical behaviour (Barsky, 2011). In attempts to rationalize unethical behaviour for others, individuals may engage in euphemistic labelling by using language that makes the immoral act sound respectable (Newman et al., 2019). 

​

Additionally, displacement of responsibility is another type of rationalization and is concerned with agency, wherein people may disengage their moral self-sanctions, deny responsibility by stressing that they are not responsible for the immoral conduct, and attribute blame to circumstances beyond their control (Barsky, 2011). Conversely, diffusion of responsibility refers to individuals’ unwillingness to take responsibility for group immoral conduct by asserting that they do not feel personally liable (Newman et al., 2019). 

​

Moral disengagement does not solely occur within individuals, but can become ingrained within group dynamics. Moral disengagement has been argued to be an interpersonal phenomenon, in which the divergence of one group member increases the likelihood that others in the group will also morally disengage as a result of social contagion due to high levels of interpersonal proximity (Newman et al., 2019). Although moral disengagement may spread through social contagion, individuals vary in their susceptibility. 

​

Conversely, individual differences have been found to predict moral disengagement. Locus of control and envy have been associated with increased moral disengagement, while empathy and moral identity have been negatively associated with moral disengagement. Psychological entitlement and organizational identification increase the likelihood of one morally disengaging (Newman et al., 2019). Further, personal gain as an opportunity from the organization has been found to prompt higher levels of moral disengagement (Newman et al., 2019). However, moral disengagement is not determined by personality alone, and organizational context plays a crucial role in reinforcing or limiting these tendencies. 

​

Apart from individual factors, organizational factors like leadership and organizational culture can impact individuals’ propensity to participate in moral disengagement. Employees’ perceptions of organizational justice led to engagement in unethical behaviour like risk-taking, noncompliance, and lack of participation (Newman et al., 2019). Thus, unethical behaviour and rationalization ideologies become normalized within organizational culture through leadership. Ethical leadership leads to lower levels of group moral disengagement and a reduction in unethical behaviour of employees. Group members with unethical leaders are more likely to morally disengage, leading to deviant behaviours at the group level (Newman et al., 2019). Conversely, strong CSR-focused organizational cultures have demonstrated a positive impact on employees adopting pro-sustainable behaviour (Hejjas et al., 2019). 

​

Applying moral disengagement theory to the adoption of CSR reveals that the mere presence of CSR policies is insufficient to ensure ethical conduct. When individuals cognitively justify misconduct, diffuse responsibility, CSR principles may go unimplemented. Therefore, moral disengagement acts as a psychological barrier to the effective implementation of CSR and illustrates how socially responsible corporate decision-making can be weakened by the cognitive processes of the individuals responsible for enacting it.

​

Normative Influences

 

Social Norms

​

Individuals look to social norms to better understand and respond to social situations in times of ambiguity. Social norms influence behaviours towards what society has deemed typically appropriate (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Social norms refer to the set of shared beliefs held by individuals and groups, with social norms of responsibility referring to shared beliefs about what responsible behaviour entails. These norms guide group decisions to contribute to society and to help others without expecting benefits in return. Local social norms shape executives’ perceptions of what responsible behaviour looks like, ultimately influencing corporate practices, since corporate leaders are the primary decision makers in CSR initiatives and individuals look to other groups in their social network for ideas and business strategies. Professionals in communities with low social responsibility norms demonstrate acting less responsibly and engage in more fraudulent acts to take advantage of their clients. Firms headquartered in cities with higher social responsibility norms have a tendency to demonstrate greater social responsibility (You, 2023). Similarly, social responsibility values held by directors impact adoption of CSR in their firms. Ning et al. (2019) studied the background of directors in Chinese firms to uncover that directors from overseas positively impacted adoption of CSR in the firm, with firms demonstrating higher levels of employee care and environment protection. However, only directors from rule-based and western economies improved CSR, through overseas social norms. 

While social norms have been found to encourage firms to behave responsibly, they are ineffective in preventing irresponsible behaviour since corporations may also adopt CSR initiatives for self-serving reasons (You, 2023). People change their behaviour to follow social norms to possess membership in society and avoid social sanctions associated with unethical behaviour (You, 2023). 

While broader societal norms shape corporate behaviour externally, internal organizational climates similarly influence employees’ ethical conduct. Justice climate refers to the collective evaluation of the level of fairness directed towards the group in an organization. Employees can experience injustice as individuals and as members of groups. According to social exchange theory, responses to unfairness are proportional to the treatment experiences. Groups have been found to respond to unjust work climates, such that groups experiencing consistently unfair experiences engage in fewer prosocial behaviours. The compounded effect of an unfair justice climate and favourable CSR led to an increase in deviant behaviours (Thornton & Rupp, 2015). 

Identification with leaders and the organization plays an important role in internalizing the values perpetuated by these actors (Bugdol & Sułkowski, 2024), and in the case of immoral or unjust organizational cultures, strong identification may lead employees to adopt and reproduce unethical norms by prioritizing organizational loyalty over broader stakeholder interests. Similarly, employees with strong organizational identification have a greater tendency to engage in unethical pro-organizational behaviour as compared to employees with weak organizational identification. Strong perceptions of belonging lead to employees striving to achieve the goals of the organization, at the expense of external stakeholders (Sheedy et al., 2021). 

In all, these findings demonstrate that social norms operate at multiple levels to shape corporate conduct. While norms of social responsibility can encourage firms to adopt CSR initiatives, they may also foster conformity, reputational compliance, or excessive identification with the organization that prioritizes internal goals over stakeholder interests. In environments characterized by unjust climates or strong in-group identification, employees may internalize organizational objectives to a degree that allows them to engage in unethical pro-organizational behaviour. Social norms represent a dual faceted mechanism in which employees can promote responsible corporate conduct through setting social norms, but they can also undermine the effective implementation of CSR when responsibility becomes secondary to group loyalty or reputational concerns. 
 

Group Norms

​​

Conformity entails changing one’s behaviour to match that of others, and individuals may go along with the group for various reasons (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Normative conformity, wherein individuals conform to the group in public more than private settings, do so because they are motivated to be perceived positively by the group. On the other hand, informational conformity occurs when individuals believe that others possess an accurate view of reality, and are likely to conform in both public and private settings. This phenomenon occurs because individuals look to others and the group when trying to navigate ambiguous situations and wish to make the right decision using all available information, including the beliefs of others (Tolbert & Darabi, 2019). 

When conformity pressures define decision-making processes, they may evolve into more systematic distortions of judgement. Groupthink refers to the phenomenon in which group members are overly concerned with consensus and harmony, preventing consideration of alternative solutions, making groups vulnerable to flawed and potentially dangerous decision-making due to members’ reluctance to voice dissent or differing perspectives. Groupthink can limit the diversity of ideas and lead to biased decision-making by ignoring objectively better options. It occurs when dissenting voices are suppressed by a preference for maintaining team cohesion (Damanik & Wening, 2024). 

In contrast to conformity and groupthink, organizational dissent serves as a corrective mechanism within decision-making processes. Firms rely on access to high-quality information to function effectively, and may encourage employees to freely dissent. This results in more enhanced knowledge. Dissenters challenge assumptions, causing an increase in heterogeneity that promotes the consideration of novel ideas and innovation. However, professionals often self-censor and withhold information when they believe their opinions will be ignored, or that they will lose the social acceptance of their peers (Yockey, 2024). 

In the context of CSR, conformity pressures and groupthink may undermine socially responsible corporate decision-making by discouraging employees and executives from questioning ethically dubious strategies. When maintaining group harmony takes precedence over critically evaluating decisions, harmful practices may go unchallenged despite formal commitments to CSR principles. Although dissent enhances informational quality and organizational innovation, fear of social exclusion often leads employees to self-censor, allowing unethical or socially irresponsible decisions to persist. Thus, conformity and suppressed dissent constitute significant psychological barriers to the effective implementation of CSR. 
 

Goal Setting & Reward Structures

 

According to Locke and Latham’s (2002) goal-setting theory, working towards a goal motivates individuals to exert prolonged effort towards the goal, and leads individuals to use new task-relevant knowledge to improve performance. Difficult goals and the expectation of a reward are both linked to increased productivity, satisfaction, and self-efficacy; there are adverse effects to setting challenging goals in the organizational context. Welsh & Ordóñez (2014) argue that depletion of self-regulatory mechanisms mediates the relationship between challenging goals and unethical organizational behaviour. Self-regulation allows individuals to override instant gratification mechanisms by ignoring immediate desires to engage in behaviours promoting goal achievement. However, the ability to self-regulate is derived from a limited reservoir of self-control. Ego depletion occurs when one cannot engage in further self-regulation. Individuals who exert significant effort on an individual task might experience depletion and exhibit reduced self-regulatory capacity on subsequent tasks, leading employees with consistently hard goals to engage in unethical behaviour as a means to achieve said goals.

Similarly, directors and senior executives operating under sustained psychological strain may engage in deviant decision-making through over-reliance on heuristics, groupthink and a diminished capacity to consider long-term consequences (Rodrigues, 2025). 

Niven & Healy (2015) studied goal setting in conjunction with moral disengagement, to find that specific, performance-based goals as compared to vague goals such as ‘do your best’ led to greater participation in unethical behaviour, but only for individuals high in moral justification. Thus, theories like goal setting and moral disengagement interact, and certain individuals are more likely to engage in and justify unethical behaviour. 

Bugdol & Sułkowski (2024) found that an inability to achieve set goals leads to unethical pro-organizational behaviour. When set goals are too difficult, employees may engage in unethical behaviour. Employees who desire to be perceived as valuable may engage in dishonest means to achieve highly challenging goals, whether consciously or unconsciously. Additionally, repeated engagement in dishonest behaviour gradually orients employees towards results, leading them to ignore ethical issues. In organizations where set goals are highly difficult, and employee rewards are contingent on the achievement of these goals, employees are more likely to engage in unethical behaviours such as lying, cheating, and overreporting financial gains (Bugdol & Sułkowski, 2024). 

Beyond goal difficulty itself, the structure of reward systems further shapes employee responses to performance pressure. Team-based rewards promote collaboration and teamwork, but they have also been associated with an increase in underreporting of unethical behaviour by teammates. Hu et al. (2024) found that individual-based reward systems promote reporting of unethical behaviour of teammates through moral anger experienced by others within the team. Thus, individual-based rewards, as compared to team-based rewards, can incentivize whistleblowing. Conversely, team-based rewards reduce the likelihood of whistleblowing since they benefit all team members, who are less likely to experience moral anger by their teammates’ unethical behaviour. 

Moral emotions were found to be the key psychological mechanism that influenced employees’ decision to report their team members’ unethical behaviour, rather than self-interested motives like perceived benefit. While anger has been traditionally perceived to be a negative emotion, when appropriately channeled, it can encourage reports of unethical behaviour and curb corruption. (Hu et al., 2024). 
Further, organizations that utilize employee ranking methods (wherein rigorous performance appraisals lead to financial bonuses for high achieving employees and layoffs for poorly performing ones), the likelihood of unethical pro-organizational behaviour increases greatly due to increased competition. Additionally, when ranking is associated with financial rewards, employees may falsify reports or provide misleading data to boost their image and that of their organization (Bugdol & Sułkowski, 2024). 

Taken together, these findings suggest that aggressive goal structures, performance-contingent rewards, and competitive ranking systems can undermine self-regulation, normalize moral disengagement, and discourage reports of unethical conduct. In the context of CSR, such incentive systems may inadvertently weaken socially responsible decision-making by prioritizing short-term performance outcomes over ethical considerations. To mitigate these risks, organizations should ensure competitive baseline compensation and carefully design reward systems that do not rely excessively on extrinsic incentives that encourage performance at the expense of integrity. 
 

Discussion

 

This paper suggests that the biggest challenge for CSR is not whether companies adopt it, but how individuals in organizations behave. Even when strong CSR policies exist, day-to-day corporate decisions are shaped by pressure, incentives, and group dynamics. This results in CSR existing more on paper than in practice.

One key insight is that CSR can be used in conflicting ways. While it is meant to guide ethical behaviour, employees and leaders can also use it to justify harmful decisions if they believe those decisions help the organization succeed, such as cutting corners being framed as necessary for long-term growth. Thus, CSR is not perceived as a fixed moral guide, but is interpreted by employees situationally. 

Another issue is that organizations reward performance over responsibility. If employees are pushed to meet difficult targets or compete with others, they may ignore ethical concerns to succeed. Thus, CSR becomes secondary to performance. To make CSR effective, it must be tied directly to how performance is measured and rewarded, rather than being treated as a separate goal. 

The role of silence is also important. Unethical behaviour often continues because bystanders choose not to speak up. Fears of conflict, loss of status, or dissenting with the group can prevent employees from raising concerns. For this reason, a psychologically safe environment where people feel safe to question coworkers’ and leaders’ decisions is essential for CSR to work. 

There is also a tension between teamwork and ethics. Strong group loyalty encourages cooperation, but it can also lead employees to prioritize the organization over broader social responsibilities. Employees who strongly identify with their organization may justify unethical actions if they believe it benefits the group. Thus, encouraging employees to think beyond the organization to consider their role in society may help reduce this effect.

CSR is limited by human behaviour and organizational structures, and it cannot rely solely on policies or good intentions. For CSR to have tangible impacts, companies need to align incentives with ethical behaviour, encourage open discussion, and recognize that responsibility is shaped by everyday decisions, not just overarching formal commitments. 
 

​​​​

​

References 

 

1. Atherton, S., Blodgett, M., & Atherton, C. (2011). Fiduciary principles: Corporate responsibilities to stakeholders fiduciary principles: corporate responsibilities to stakeholders. Journal of Religion and Business Journal of Religion and Business Ethics Ethics, 2(5), 5. https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=jrbe

2. Barsky, A. (2011). Investigating the effects of moral disengagement and participation on unethical work behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0889-7

3. Bugdol, M., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2024). The hidden cost of winning at all cost: Unethical pro-organisational behaviour a goal theory perspective. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 138–159. https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2024.29.2.07

4. Buhmann, K. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: What role for law? Some aspects of law and CSR. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 6(2), 188–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700610655187

5. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

6. Damanik, F. A., & Wening, N. (2024). View of groupthink, leadership and cohesiveness as contexts for quality of decision making: A systematic literature review. Asian Journal of Management Entrepreneurship and Social Science, 4(1), 1017–1029. https://ajmesc.com/index.php/ajmesc/article/view/688/441

7. Garavan, T. N., Heraty, N., Rock, A., & Dalton, E. (2010). Conceptualizing the behavioural barriers to csr and cs in organizations: A typology of HRD interventions. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(5), 587–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422310394779

8. Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(144). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00144

9. Govindasamy, V., & Suresh, K. (2017). Exploring approaches to drivers and barriers of corporate social responsibility implementation in academic literature. SHS Web of Conferences, 33, 00021. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20173300021

10. Hejjas, K., Miller, G., & Scarles, C. (2019). “It’s like hating puppies!” Employee disengagement and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3791-8

11. Hu, Q., Adam, H., Desai, S., & Mo, S. (2024). Turning a blind eye to team members’ unethical behaviour: The role of reward systems. Journal of Business Ethics (Print), 194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05598-4

12. KPMG. (2013). The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2013. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2013/12/corporate-responsibility-reporting-survey-2013.pdf

13. Križanová, A., & Gajanová, Ľ. (2016). The importance of CSR implementation. CBU International Conference Proceedings, 4, 515–519. https://doi.org/10.12955/cbup.v4.807

14. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year Odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

15. Moore, C. (2008). Moral disengagement in processes of organizational corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9447-8

16. Newman, A., Le, H., North-Samardzic, A., & Cohen, M. (2019). Moral disengagement at work: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04173-0

17. Nikolova, V., & Arsić, S. (2017). The stakeholder approach in corporate social responsibility. Engineering Management, 3(1), 24–35.

18. Ning, C., Hao, Y., Liu, Z., & Liu, Y. (2019). Business social norms from overseas and corporate social responsibility performance: Evidence from China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 29(1), 191–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/16081625.2019.1600416

19. Niven, K., & Healy, C. (2015). Susceptibility to the “dark side” of goal-setting: does moral justification influence the effect of goals on unethical behaviour? Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2545-0

20. Povilonis, J. (2021). The use and misuse of fiduciary duties: Corporate social responsibility and the standard of review. William and Mary Business Law Review, 13(1), 1–70.

21. Rodrigues, A. A. (2025). Corporate governance and mental health: Fiduciary duties, organizational culture, and the emerging legal architecture of psychological sustainability. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5915163

22. Sheedy, E., Garcia, P., & Jepsen, D. (2021). The role of risk climate and ethical self-interest climate in predicting unethical pro-organisational behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 173, 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04542-0

23. Thornton, M. A., & Rupp, D. E. (2015). The joint effects of justice climate, group moral identity, and corporate social responsibility on the prosocial and deviant behaviours of groups. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(4), 677–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2748-4

24. Tolbert, P. S., & Darabi, T. (2019). Bases of conformity and institutional theory: Understanding organizational decision-making. In Microfoundations of Institutions (pp. 269–290). https://doi.org/10.1108/s0733-558x2019000065a027

25. Welsh, D. T., & Ordóñez, L. D. (2014). The dark side of consecutive high performance goals: Linking goal setting, depletion, and unethical behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.07.006

26. Yockey, J. W. (2024). The fiduciary duty of dissent. Villanova Law Review, 69(1), 157–208. https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol69/iss1/4

27. You, L. (2023). The impact of social norms of responsibility on corporate social responsibility short title: The impact of social norms of responsibility on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 190(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05417-w