Responsibility beyond the Board Room? A Systematic Review of Responsible Leadership: Operationalizations, Antecedents and Outcomes
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Background Literature
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Searches
2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.3. Data Abstraction and Synthesis
3. Results
3.1. Survey Instrument Content
Survey Instrument Content | Psychometric Validity | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Citation | Definition | Dimensions | Description and Example Item(s) | Content Validity | Convergent Validity | Internal Consistency | Discriminant Validity | Response Scale |
Multidimensional Measure of Responsible Leadership-Agarwal & Bahl, 2020 [57] | ||||||||
Agarwal & Bahl, 2020 [57] | A phenomenon in which a leader aims at achieving sustainable organizational growth through development of positive stakeholder interactions and promotion of ethical behaviours [57] (p. 7) | (1) Moral person, (2) Moral manager, (3) Multistakeholder consideration, (4) Sustainable growth focus | 18 items. 7 items adopted from the ethical leader questionnaire [58]. ‘Shows consistency in words and actions’; ‘Tries to assess impact on stakeholders before making business decisions’ | A series of procedures such as literature review, open-ended feedback from academic experts, adaption of items from previously validated questionnaire. English language applied in India. | CFA loadings above cut-off value r = 0.87–0.90. Two items removed due to low loadings. | Full scale: α = 0.95, Subscales (1) α = 0.88, (2) α = 0.86, (3) α = 0.83, (4) α = 0.84 | EFA four dimensions. The square root of AVE is higher than the value of each variable. Discriminant validity with servant and authentic leadership. | 1 = strongly disagree 5 = strongly agree |
Responsible Leadership-Doh, et al., 2011 [59] | ||||||||
Doh, et al., 2011 [59] | Builds on Maak [29]: ‘The art and ability involved in building, cultivating and sustaining trustful relationships to different stakeholders, both inside and outside the organization, and in co-ordinating responsible action to achieve a meaningful, commonly shared business vision.’ | (1) Stakeholder culture, (2) HR practices, (3) Managerial Support | 13 items. ‘This organization responds well to a diverse group of stakeholders’; ‘Our performance appraisal programs are effectively used to retain the best talent’ | Adaption of previously validated survey items as well as developed items through collaboration between academic team and HR experts. English language applied in India. | Not reported | Full scale: α = 0.95) Subscales (1) α = 0.83, (2) α = 0.90, (3) α = 0.94 | CFA confirmed three dimensions | 1 = strongly disagree 7 = strongly agree |
Haque, et al., 2019 [62] | ‘…the process of building and sustaining positive relationships with both internal and external stakeholders to the organization.’ [18]. | (1) Stakeholder culture, (2) HR practices, (3) Managerial Support | All 13 items were applied. | Adaption of previously validated survey items. Adjusted to improve participant’s comprehension after pilot test. English language applied in Australia. | CFA loadings between subscales r = 0.58–0.62 | Full scale: α = 0.94. Subscales (1) α = 0.87, (2) α = 0.93, (3) α = 0.95 | CFA confirmed three dimensions | 1 = strongly disagree 7 = strongly agree |
Haque, et al., 2019 [63] | ‘…the art and ability involved in building, cultivating and sustaining trustful relationships to different stakeholders, both inside and outside the organization, and in co-ordinating responsible action to achieve a meaningful, commonly shared business vision.’ [29] (p. 334) | (1) Stakeholder culture, (2) HR practices, (3) Managerial Support | All 13 items were applied. | Application of previously validated survey items. English language applied in Australia. | CFA loadings between subscales r = 0.58–0.62 | Full scale: α = 0.94. Subscales (1) α = 0.87, (2) α = 0.93, (3) α = 0.95 | CFA confirmed three dimensions | 1 = strongly disagree 7 = strongly agree |
Haque, et al., 2020 [64] | ‘A social and ethical phenomenon that occurs in the process of social interactions.’ [65] | (1) Stakeholder culture, (2) HR practices, (3) Managerial Support | All 13 items were applied. | Application of previously validated survey items. English language applied in Australia. | Not reported | Full scale: α = 0.94. Subscales (1) α = 0.87, (2) α = 0.93, (3) α = 0.95 | CFA confirmed three dimensions | 1 = strongly disagree 5 = strongly agree |
Taştan & Davoudi, 2019 [66] | ‘A multilevel phenomenon involving individuals, groups and organizations that emphasizes leadership effectiveness, ethical behaviour, respect for stakeholders and economically, socially and environmentally sustainable practices.’ [66] | (1) Stakeholder culture, (2) HR practices, (3) Managerial Support | Renames the scale to “Socially Responsible Leadership” (SRL). All 13 items applied | Application of previously validated survey items. Academic experts assessed face validity. Language not reported. | Not reported | Full scale: α = 0.80, Subscales (1) α = 0.76, (2) α = 0.77, (3) α = 0.75 | Not reported | 1 = completely false 5 = completely true |
Orientations of Responsible Leadership-Javed, Akhtar, et al., 2020 [60] | ||||||||
Javed, Akhtar, et al., 2020 [60] | ‘…responsibility is a subjective phenomenon and considerably depends on the leader. To whom a business leader is responsible, and for what he is responsible is a person-specific occurrence.’ [60] | (1) Traditional economist, (2) Opportunity seeker, (3) Integrator, (4) Idealist | 18 items. ‘I do not aim at creating value for other shareholders.’; ‘I have some use of cost benefit analysis’. | Item generation based on a conceptual study [33]. English language applied in Pakistan. | Full scale not reported. AVE for subscales (1) 0.82, (2) 0.51, (3) 0.54, (4) 0.56. CFA loadings above cut-off except from 3 items removed from the scale. | Full scale not reported. Subscales (1) α = 0.81, CR = 0.96, (2) α = 0.94, CR = 0.80, (3) α = 0.82, CR = 0.84, (4) α = 0.78, CR = 0.86 | CFA confirmed four factors | 1 = strongly disagree 7 = strongly agree |
Responsible Leadership-Lips-Wiersma, et al., 2018 [61] | ||||||||
Lips-Wiersma, et al., 2018 [61] | ‘the overarching term for the inclusion of ethical and moral aspects in leadership…at the overlap of studies in ethics, leadership and corporate social responsibility.’ [37] (p. 126) | Unidimensional | 4 items. Dictionary descriptions of authentic, transformational, ethical and shared leadership. ‘Shared leadership: Team members collectively lead each other’ | Items based on existing literature. English language applied in USA. | Not reported | α = 0.79 | PCA supported one factor. | 1 = never 4 = always |
Responsible Leadership-Liu & Lin, 2018 [67] | ||||||||
Liu & Lin, 2018 [67] | ‘A leader’s demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through inspiring, communicating with, and convincing employees to achieve positive change in workplaces.’ [12,68] | Unidimensional | 6 items. ‘I am responsible for achieving positive change in the firm’; ‘I am concerned about employee emotion’ | Item generation based on a conceptual study [69]. Items translated and modified from prior literature by focus group. | AVE = 0.56 | α = 0.88 | Model fitness indices fit the one-dimensional model. Chi square difference statistics for all pairs of constructs exceeded critical values. | 1–5 * |
Lin, et al., 2020 [70] | ‘A leader’s ethical act of inspiring others through his/her motivating, communicating with, empowering and convincing employees to engage with responsible development and responsible changes.’ [23] | Unidimensional | All 6 items applied. | Adaption of previously validated survey items. Language not reported. | AVE = 0.76 | α = 0.95 | CFA confirmed one factor. Chi square difference statistics for all pairs of constructs were significant. | 1–5 * |
Competency Assessment of Responsible Leadership-Muff, et al., 2020 [71] | ||||||||
Muff, et al., 2020 [71] | ‘A responsible leader demonstrates a deep understanding of the interdependencies of the system and the own person, is distinguished by an ethical and values-based attitude and able to build long-term relations with different stakeholders embracing their needs, while initiating change towards sustainable development.’ [71] (p. 4) | Domains of (1) action (a) Knowing, (b) Doing, (c) Being. Domains of (2) Competency (a) Stakeholder relations, (b) Ethics and values, (c) Self-awareness, (d) Systems thinking, (e) Change and innovation | The responsible leadership grid contains 15 combinations of the two domains, 3 items in each category. A total of 45 items. ‘I am able to initiate and moderate a dialogue among stakeholders’; ‘The welfare of nature and people is important to me’ | Adaption of previously validated and implemented survey items, as well as items from online surveys. Expert reviews and pre-testing. English language in Germany. | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | 1 = agree 2 = disagree |
Value Based Responsible Leadership-Saini, 2015 [72] | ||||||||
Saini, 2015 [72] | No clear definition, but describes ‘leadership which combines the righteousness, compassion and concern’ [72] (p. 52) | (1) Empathetic, (2) Value oriented, (3) Responsible, (4) Nurturing | 20 items. 6 items from the ethical leader questionnaire [58], 3 items from ECQ [73]. ‘Concerned about the customers and public interest’; ‘Responds fairly to complaints and concerns’ | Items from previously validated and implemented survey instruments. Not reported how self-developed items were generated. 3 experts in management assessed the relevance of items. Pre-test on 60 middle-level executives. Language not reported. | Correlations among subscales are provided r = 0.56–0.70 | Full scale not reported. Subscales (1) α = 0.91, (2) α = 0.87, (3) α = 0.85, (4) α = 0.85 | PCA supported four dimensions. | 1 = Quite false 4 = Quite true |
Responsible Leadership-Voegtlin, et al., 2019 [74] | ||||||||
Voegtlin, et al., 2019 [74] | States it is too early for a definition, article contributes to getting closer to a definition. | (1) Expert, (2) Facilitator, (3) Citizen | 28 items. Items in expert and facilitator dimensions adopted from LBDQ XII [75]. Items in citizen dimension adopted from servant leadership scales [76,77] ‘Tries out new ideas with the group’; Treats all group members as his equals’ | Adaption of previously validated and implemented survey items. Back-translation from English to German in Switzerland. | Not reported | Full scale not reported. Subscales (1) α = 0.89, (2) α = 0.87, (3) α = 0.89 | Not reported | 1–5 * |
Discursive Responsible Leadership-Voegtlin, et al., 2011 [78] | ||||||||
Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | ‘Responsible leadership refers to the awareness and consideration of the consequences of one’s actions for all stakeholders, as well as the exertion of influence by enabling the involvement of the affected stakeholders and by engaging in an active stakeholder dialogue. There in responsible leaders strive to weigh and balance the interests of the forwarded claims.’ [78] (p. 59). | (1) The frequency of interaction with different stakeholder groups, (2) Discursive RL | 16 items. The first subscale: ‘Please indicate how often your supervisor interacts with which stakeholder groups:’ Example items are ‘Labour unions’ and ‘Employees’. The second subscale: ‘My direct supervisor demonstrates awareness of the relevant stakeholder claims’; ‘My direct supervisor tries to achieve a consensus among affected stakeholders’ | A series of procedures including literature review, academic experts’ assessment. A student sample categorized items according to ethical, transformational and responsible leadership. English and German language in Switzerland and Germany. | Not reported | Study (3) α = 0.81, study (4) α = 0.84, study (5) α = 0.94 | CFA one factor. Discriminant from ethical and transformational leadership. | 1 = not at all 5 = frequently, if not always |
Akhtar, et al., 2020 [79] | ‘the art and ability involved in building, cultivating and sustaining trustful relationships to different stakeholders, both inside and outside the organizations, and in coordinating responsible action to achieve a meaningful, commonly shred business vision.’ [29] | (2) Discursive RL | Only subscale (2) is included. 5 items | Application of previously validated survey items. Language not reported. | CFA factor loading greater than 0.5 AVE = 0.70 | α = 0.79 | CFA confirmed one factor | 1 = never 5 = always |
Castro-Gonzales, et al., 2019 [80] | ‘the awareness and consideration of the consequences of one’s actions for all stakeholders, as well as the exertion of influence by enabling the involvement of the affected stakeholders and by engaging in an active stakeholder dialogue. There in responsible leaders strive to weigh and balance the interests of the forwarded claims.’ [78] (p. 59) | (2) Discursive RL | Only subscale (2) is included. 5 items | Adaption of previously validated survey items. Back-translation procedure reported. | AVE above critical values, CR above critical values. CFA factor loading greater than 0.5 | α = 0.96 | CFA confirmed one factor. VIF showed no multicollinearity. AVE greater than its shared variance with any other construct. | 1 = strongly disagree 7 = strongly agree |
Cheng, et al., 2019 [81] | ‘…a relational and ethical phenomenon, which occurs in social processes of interaction with those who affect or are affected by leadership and have a stake in the purpose and vision of the leadership relationship.’ [18] (p. 103) | (2) Discursive RL | Only subscale (2) is included. 5 items | Application of previously validated survey items. Back-translation procedure reported. | Not reported | Low-level leaders α = 0.85; High-level leaders α = 0.92 | CFA confirmed one factor | 1 = not at all 5 = frequently, if not always |
Han, et al., 2019 [82] | No explicit definition | (2) Discursive RL | Only subscale (2) is included. 5 items | Application of previously validated survey items. Language not reported. | AVE = 0.50 | α = 0.82, CR = 0.83 | CFA confirmed one factor. AVE value greater than the square of the inter-construct correlations | 1 = strongly disagree 5 = strongly agree |
Han, et al., 2019 [83] | ‘…a relational and ethical phenomenon that occurs in the social interaction process.’ [18] | (2) Discursive RL | Only subscale (2) is included. 5 items | Application of previously validated survey items. Language not reported. | Not reported | α = 0.85, CR = 0.90 | CFA confirmed one factor | 1 = strongly disagree 5 = very agreed |
He, et al., 2019 [84] | ‘...leadership that emphasizes the firm’s sustainable development and embraces social responsibility.’ [37] | (2) Discursive RL | Only subscale (2) is included. 5 items | Application of previously validated survey items. Language not reported. | AVE = 0.45 | α = 0.79, CR = 0.80 | CFA confirmed one factor. AVE values greater than the square of the inter-construct correlation | 1 = strongly disagree 5 = strongly agree |
Javed, Ali, et al., 2020 [85] | ‘the art of building and sustaining good relationships to all relevant stakeholders.’ [18] (p. 40) | (2) Discursive RL | Only subscale (2) is included. 5 items. Adjusted to self-reports for supervisors. ‘I consider the consequences of decisions for the affected stakeholders’ | Application of previously validated survey items. English language in Pakistan. | AVE = 0.61 | α = 0.89, CR = 0.88 | CFA confirmed one factor | 1 = strongly disagree 5 = strongly agree |
Javed, Rashid, et al., 2020 [86] | ‘the art of building and sustaining good relationships to all relevant stakeholders.’ [18] (p. 40) | (2) Discursive RL | Only subscale (2) is included. 5 items. Adjusted to self-reports for supervisors. ‘I consider the consequences of decisions for the affected stakeholders’ | Application of previously validated survey items. Language not reported. | AVE = 0.59 | α = 0.85, CR = 0.90 | CFA confirms one factor. The square root of AVE is greater than paired correlations | 1 = strongly disagree 5 = strongly agree |
Rahim & Shah, 2020 [87] | No clear definition | (2) Discursive RL | Only subscale (2) is included. 5 items. Adjusted to reports of the CEO. ‘Our CEO demonstrates awareness of the relevant stakeholder claims’ | Application of previously validated survey items. Back-translation procedure reported. | AVE = 0.70 | α = 0.91, CR = 0.92 | CFA confirmed one factor. HTMT index showed acceptable values. | 1 = not at all 5 = frequently, if not always |
Rui & Lu, 2020 [88] | No clear definition | (2) Discursive RL | Only subscale (2) is included. 5 items. Adjusted to reports of the CEO. ‘Our CEO demonstrates awareness of the relevant stakeholder claims’ | Adaption of previously validated survey items. Back-translation procedure reported. | AVE = 0.55, CFA factor loadings = 0.70–0.75 | α = 0.84, CR = 0.92 | CFA confirmed one factor. The square root of AVE is higher than the value of each variable. HTMT index showed acceptable values | 1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree |
Yasin, et al., 2020 [89] | ‘the process of developing and sustaining positive contacts with all stakeholders’ [18] | (1) The frequency of interaction with different stakeholder groups, (2) Discursive RL | 14 items adapted from the original survey instrument, combined in one factor. ‘My supervisor interacts with local community representatives’; ‘My supervisor weighs different stakeholder claims before making a decision’ | Adaption of previously validated survey items. Language not reported. | CFA factor loadings above 0.5 except two items that were excluded. AVE = 0.53 | α = 0.92, CR = 0.93 | Factor analysis confirmed one factor. HTMT index showed acceptable values | 1 = strongly disagree 5 = strongly agree |
Zhao & Zhou, 2019 [90] | ‘…a leadership style where a leader acts as a weaver of stakeholder relationships and responds to both existing gaps in theory and practical leadership challenges.’ [18] | (2) Discursive RL | Only subscale (2) is included. 5 items | Application of previously validated survey items. Back-translation procedure reported. | Not reported | α = 0.89 | CFA confirmed one factor | 1 = strongly disagree 5 = strongly agree |
Zhao & Zhou, 2020 [91] | No clear definition | (2) Discursive RL | Only subscale (2) is included. 5 items | Application of previously validated survey items. Back-translation procedure reported. | Not reported | α = 0.94 | Risk of multicollinearity with socially responsible HRM, tested by VIF = 1.08. CFA confirmed one factor | 1 = strongly disagree 5 = strongly agree |
3.1.1. Units of Analysis in RL Survey Instruments
3.1.2. Response Scales in RL Survey instruments
3.2. Analysis of Survey Instruments: RL Core Aspects
3.3. Psychometric Validity of RL Survey Instruments
3.4. Descriptive Information of Selected Studies
3.4.1. Publication Timeline and Geographic Scope
3.4.2. Sample Characteristics in Selected Studies
3.4.3. Theoretical Frameworks in Selected Studies
3.4.4. Research Methods and Designs in Selected Studies
3.4.5. Applied RL Survey Instruments in Selected Studies
3.4.6. Control Variables
3.5. Integrative Overview of Empirical Evidence: Correlation Patterns
3.5.1. Intrapersonal Level
3.5.2. Micro-Level
3.5.3. Meso-Level
3.5.4. Macro-Level
4. Discussion
4.1. Conceptual Clarity
4.2. Characteristics of RL
4.3. Responsibility for Stakeholders and the Natural Environment
5. Limitations and Future Research Agenda
5.1. Establish Evidence for Incremental Validity
5.2. Explore Causal and Boundary Mechanisms
5.3. Expand the Stakeholder Focus
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Citation | Theoretical Framework | Methodology (Design; Statistic Analysis) | Survey Instrument | Unit of Analysis | Study Context (Country; Industry) | Sample Description (Sample Size; Position) | Correlations | Relevant Outcome(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Afsar, et al., 2020 [99] | Social identity theory | CS survey; HLM | Discursive RL 5 items-Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | Leader at department level | Pakistan; Service-and manufacturing firms | n = 329 knowledge workers; n = 88 supervisors | RL correlated positively with Green shared vision (r = 0.52, p < 0.001). | RL had positive effects on Pro-environmental behaviour (γ = 0.40, p < 0.001), Organizational commitment (γ = 0.43, p < 0.001), and Green shared vision (γ = 0.56, p < 0.01). RL had indirect positive effects on Pro-environmental behaviour through the mediation of Green shared vision (γ = 0.25, 95% CI [0.047, 0.616]). Internal environmental locus of control moderated the relationship between Organizational commitment and Pro-environmental behaviour (simple slope = 0.17, p < 0.01 when locus of control was high; simple slope = −0.11, ns when locus of control was low). |
Agarwal & Bhal, 2020 [57] | Theoretical frame not explicitly mentioned | Mixed method, Scale development; EFA, CFA | Multidimensional measure of RL-Agarwal & Bhal, 2020 [57] | Direct leader | India; across industries | Study 3 n = 285 employees; Study 4 n = 230 employees | Four RL dimensions (1) Moral person, (2) Moral manager, (3) Multistakeholder consideration, and (4) Sustainable growth focus, showed positive correlations with Servant leadership (r = 0.47–0.52, p < 0.01), Citizenship behaviours toward stakeholders (r = 0.23–48, p < 0.01), Followers’ moral courage (r = 0.47–0.76, p < 0.01). | Proposed RL survey instrument with four dimensions; Within strategic and ethical leadership. The survey instrument showed construct validity across four studies. RL was positively associated with followers’ moral courage and Citizenship behaviours towards stakeholders. |
Akhtar, et al., 2020 [79] | Role theory | 3 wave survey (but RL only measured once); Hayes’ approach | Discursive RL 5 items-Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | Direct leader | Pakistan; Banking sector | n = 171 employees | RL had significant positive correlations with whistleblowing intentions (r = 0.54, p < 0.01), Person organization fit (r = 0.52, p < 0.01), and Trust in leader (r = 0.21, p < 0.05). | RL had positive effects on whistleblowing intentions (β = 0.55, t = 7.75, p < 0.01). The relationship between RL and Whistle blowing intentions was mediated by trust in leader (β = 0.05, SE = 0.03, z value = 2.05, p < 0.1), and person-organization fit (β = 0.14, SE = 0.05, z value = 3.05, p < 0.01). |
Castro-Gonzales, et al., 2019 [80] | Social learning theory (+CSR perception) | CS survey; SEM | Discursive RL 5 items -Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | Direct leader | Spain; Sales industries | n = 176 salespeople; n = 105 supervisors | RL correlated positively with three CSR dimensions (r = 0.37–0.54, p < 0.01), Job satisfaction (r = 0.47, p < 0.01), Organizational identification (r = 0.43, p < 0.01), and Creativity (r = 0.18, p < 0.05). | RL had direct effects on CSR perception (β = 0.65, p < 0.01). RL had indirect effects on salespeople’s’ creativity through mediations by CSR-perceptions, job satisfaction, and identification with organization (β = 0.10, p < 0.001). |
Cheng, et al., 2019 [81] | Social learning theory | 3 wave survey (But RL only measured once); HLM | Discursive RL 5 items -Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | Direct leader | China; Insurance companies | n = 120 sales team supervisors; n = 426 salespeople | Low-level leader RL correlated negatively with unethical pro-organizational behaviour (UPB) (r = −0.46, p < 0.01). | Low-level leader RL showed a negative effect on UPB (γ = −0.34, p < 0.01). Low-level leader-employee value congruence (VC) moderated the relationship (γ = 0.61, p < 0.01). High- level leader RL was negatively associated with UPB (γ = −0.23, p < 0.01), and positively associated with low-level leader RL (γ = 0.32, p < 0.01). High- and low-level leader VC moderated the relationship (γ = 0.61, p < 0.01). |
Doh, et al., 2011 [59] | Theoretical frame not explicitly mentioned | Longitudinal (But RL only measured once);Step-wise multiple regression analysis and multiple regression analysis with interaction coding | RL-Doh, et al., 2011 [59] | Direct leader and Organization | India; Organizations operating in India | n = 4352 employees | RL correlated positively with Pride in the organization (r = 0.68, p < 0.001), and Satisfaction with the organization (r = 0.76, p < 0.001). RL correlated negatively with Intention to leave (r = −0.38, p < 0.001), and Turnover (r = −0.35, p < 0.001). | Proposed RL survey instrument consists of employee perceptions of managerial support, HR practices and CSR actions. High, medium and low level RL were grouped. 36.8% of employees in the low level RL group quit within a year. 8.5% in the high level RL group quit within a year. The relationship between RL and turnover was mediated by organizational satisfaction. |
Han, et al., 2019 [82] | Self-determination theory | CS survey; SEM | Discursive RL 5 items -Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | Direct leader | China; Corporate employees across industries | n = 384 employees | RL correlated positively with organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment (OCBE) (r = 0.20, p < 0.01), extrinsic environmental motivation (r = 0.14, p < 0.01), and intrinsic environmental motivation (r = 0.29, p < 0.01). | RL had positive impact on OCBE (β = 0.19, p < 0.001), external motivation (β = 0.14, p < 001) and autonomous environmental motivation (β = 0.29, p < 0.001). Intrinsic and extrinsic environmental motivation completely mediated the relationship between RL and OCBE. |
Han, et al., 2019 [83] | Stakeholder theory and Social learning theory | CS survey; Hierarchical regression analysis and SEM | Discursive RL 5 items -Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | Leaders (‘superiors’) | China; Corporate employees across industries | n = 384 employees | RL correlated positively with OCBE (r = 0.13, p < 0.05), Felt obligation for constructive change (r = 0.27, p < 0.01), and Supervisor-subordinate guanxi (r = 0.17, p < 0.01) | RL had a positive impact on OCBE (β = 0.11, p < 0.05), and Felt obligation for constructive change (β = 0.27, p < 0.001). Felt obligation for constructive change fully mediated the relationship between RL and OCBE (β = 0.05, p < 0.05). The effect was stronger when employees perceived a high-level supervisor-subordinate guanxi. |
Haque, et al., 2019 [62] | Social identity theory (SIT) and Psychological contract theory | CS survey; SEM | RL-Doh, et al., 2011 [59] | Direct leader and organization | Australia; full-time employees across industries | n = 200 | RL correlated positively with Organizational commitment (r = 0.55, p < 0.01), and negatively with Turnover intentions−0 (r = −0.56, p < 0.01). | RL influenced employees’ organizational commitment (β = 0.78, p < 0.001), and turnover intentions (β = −0.55, p < 0.001). The relationship between RL and organizational commitment was partially mediated by employees’ turnover intentions (β = 0.35, p < 0.001). |
Haque, et al., 2019 [63] | Social learning theory | CS survey; SEM | RL-Doh, et al., 2011 [59] | Direct leader and Organization | Australia; full-time employees across industries | n = 200 | RL correlated positively with Affective commitment (r = 0.57, p < 0.01), and negatively with Intention to quit (r = −0.56, p < 0.01). | RL influenced employees’ affective commitment (β = 0.64, p < 0.001), and intention to quit (β = −0.17, p < 0.05). The relationship between RL and intention to quit was partially mediated by affective commitment (β = −0.39, p < 0.001). |
Haque, et al., 2020 [64] | Social identity theory of leadership (SITL) | CS survey; SEM | RL-Doh, et al., 2011 [59] | Direct leader and Organization | Australia; full-time employees across industries | n = 200 | RL correlated positively with Employee organizational commitment (r = 0.55, p < 0.01) and its three components: Affective commitment (r = 0.57, p < 0.01), normative commitment (r = 0.54, p < 0.01), and continuance commitment (r = 0.08, ns). | RL affected all three components of Organizational commitment (Affective: β = 0.72, p < 0.001; Normative: β = 0.31, p < 0.001; Continuance: β = 0.71, p < 0.01). |
He, et al., 2019 [84] | Theoretical frame not explicitly mentioned | CS survey; Multiple regression analysis | Discursive RL 5 items -Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | Leader | China; Hotels | n = 243 employees | RL correlated positively with HRM (r = 0.62, p < 0.001), Well-being (r = 0.69, p < 0.001), and Performance (r = 0.60, p < 0.001) | RL had a positive impact on Employee well-being (β = 0.40, p < 0.001), and HRM positively impacted Employee well-being (β = 0.29, p < 0.001). RL moderated the effect of HRM on Employee well-being (β = 0.13, p < 0.01). The effect of HRM and RL on performance was partially mediated by well-being (β = 0.67, p < 0.001). |
Javed, Akhtar, et al., 2020 [60] | Stakeholder theory, Signalling theory, and Upper echelon theory | 3 wave survey (but orientations of RL only measured once); Multiple regression analysis | Orientations of RL 20 items-Javed, Akhtar, et al., 2020 [60] | Leader | Pakistan; Public listed firms | n = 298 managers | Four RL orientations (1) Traditional economist, (2) Opportunity seeker, (3) Integrator and (4) Idealist showed different correlations with CSR (r = 0.73, p < 0.01; r = 0.24, p < 0.01; r = 0.40, p < 0.01; r = −0.02, ns), Financial performance (r = 0.47, p < 0.01; r = 0.07, ns; r = 0.19, p < 0.01; r = −0.12, ns) and Corporate reputation (r = 0.12, p < 0.05; r = −0.18, p < 0.01; r = 0.08, ns; r = −0.04, ns). | The positive relationship between Responsible governance and CSR was negatively moderated by two RL orientations (Traditional economist: β = −0.07, p < 0.01; Opportunity seeker: β = −0.05, p < 0.05), and positively moderated by the other two RL dimensions (Integrator: β = 0.04, p < 0.05; Idealist: β = 0.06, p < 0.05). |
Javed, Ali, et al., 2020 [85] | Stakeholder theory and contingency theory | CS survey; SEM | Discursive RL 5 items -Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | Leader | Pakistan; Public listed companies | n = 227 top- and middle managers | RL positively correlated with innovation (r = 0.61, p < 0.001), corporate reputation (CR) (r = 0.67, p < 0.001), financial (r = 0.57, p < 0.001), environmental (r = 0.60, p < 0.001), and social (r = 0.61, p < 0.001) performance. | RL positively affected innovation (β = 0.61, p < 0.001), CR (β = 0.67, p < 0.001), financial (β = 0.27, p < 0.001), environmental (β = 0.41, p < 0.001), and social (β = 0.35, p < 0.001) performance. The relationship between RL and triple bottom line performance was mediated by innovation (β = 0.15–0.33, p < 0.002) and CR (β = 0.13–0.29, p < 0.01). CR did not mediate the relationship between RL and environmental performance (β = 0.06, ns). |
Javed, Rashid et al., 2020 [86] | Stakeholder theory and Contingency theory | CS survey; Path analysis | Discursive RL 5 items -Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | Leader | Pakistan; Public listed manufacturing firms | n = 224 managers | RL and CSR correlated positively with corporate reputation (CR) (r = 0.67, p < 0.01; r = 0.60, p < 0.01) and financial performance (FP) (r = 0.57, p < 0.01; r = 0.61, p < 0.01). | RL and CSR had direct effects on CR (β = 0.49, p < 0.01; β = 0.18, p < 0.05) and FP (β = 0.27, p < 0.01; β = 0.38, p < 0.01). RL negatively moderated the relationships between CSR and corporate reputation (β = −0.17, p < 0.05), and between CSR and financial performance (β = −0.12, p < 0.05). |
Lin, et al., 2020 [70] | Social exchange theory | CS survey; SEM and moderated regression analysis | RL-Liu & Lin, 2018 [67] | Direct leader | Taiwan; High-tech firms and banks | n = 512 knowledge workers | RL correlated positively with Job performance (r = 0.43, p < 0.01), Work engagement (r = 0.42, p < 0.01), Knowledge sharing (r = 0.34, p < 0.01), and Helping initiatives (r = 0.19, p < 0.01), | RL had positive effects on work engagement (β = 0.23, p < 0.01). Job tenure positively moderated the relationship between RL and work engagement (β = 0.01, p < 0.01), and between RL and helping initiatives (β = 0.01, p < 0.01). |
Lips-Wiersma, et al., 2018 [61] | Theoretical frame not explicitly mentioned | CS survey | RL 4 items-Lips-Wiersma, et al., 2018 [61] | Leaders in organization | United States; across industries | n = 879 employees | RL had a significant positive correlation with worthy work (r = 0.62, p < 0.01), and all dimensions of the comprehensive meaningful work scale (CMWS) (r = 0.20 −0.51, p < 0.01) except of the dimension service to others (r = 0.02, ns). | RL was a strong predictor of meaningful work, positively linked to four out of seven dimensions: unity with others (β = 0.44, p < 0.001), expressing full potential (β = 0.25, p < 0.001), inspiration (β = 0.36, p < 0.01), and balancing tensions (β = 0.30, p < 0.001). RL was negatively related to the dimension integrity with self (β = −0.15, p < 0.05). |
Liu & Lin, 2018 [67] | Attachment theory and Role theory | CS survey; SEM | RL-Liu & Lin, 2018 [67] | Direct leader | Taiwan; High-tech firms | n = 252 supervisors; 252 subordinates | RL correlated positively with Helping intention (r = 0.39, p < 05), and Organizational identification (r = 0.44, p < 0.05). RL correlated negatively with Turnover intention (r = −0.39, p < 0.05), Organizational uncertainty (r = −0.40, p < 0.05), and Ethical conflict (r = −0.13, ns). | RL had indirect effects on Turnover intention through organizational identification and organizational uncertainty (estimate = −0.35, p < 0.01). RL had indirect effects on helping intention through organizational identification and organizational uncertainty (estimate = 0.18, p < 0.01). |
Muff, et al., 2020 [71] | Competency Theory | Mixed method | RL-Muff, et al., 2020 [71] | Leaders | Switzerland; Telecom company | n = 89 supervisors | Not reported | Authors proposed a definition and practical measurement tool for RL. The RL survey instrument is suggested as a mapping tool for detecting blind spots in the leaders’ responsibility competencies and increase competency where needed. |
Rahim & Shah, 2020 [87] | Theoretical frame not explicitly mentioned | CS survey; SEM | Discursive RL 5 items -Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | CEO | Pakistan; across industries | n = 313 middle managers | Not reported | RL influenced Employee involvement in sustainability activities (β = 0.69, t = 10.33, p < 0.01). Employee involvement in sustainability activities had a positive effect on corporate sustainability performance (β = 0.50, t = 4.47, p < 0.01). Employee involvement in sustainability activities mediated the relationship between RL and corporate sustainability performance (β = 0.34, t = 4.04, p < 0.01) |
Rui & Lu, 2020 [88] | Institutional theory | CS survey; Stepwise regression analysis | Discursive RL 5 items -Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | CEO | China; Manufacturing industry | n = 255 entrepreneurs and executives | RL correlated positively with Regulatory pressure (r = 0.16, p < 0.05), Normative pressure (r = 0.17, p < 0.05), Imitation pressure (r = 0.18, p < 0.05), Environmental awareness (r = 0.22, p < 0.05), Environmental ethics (r = 0.26, p < 0.01), and Green innovation (r = 0.29, p < 0.01). | All three dimensions of stakeholder pressure positively influenced green innovation (β = 0.21, p < 0.05; β = 0.19, p < 0.1; β = 0.20, p < 0.05), and corporate environmental ethics (β = 0.24, p < 0.05; β = 0.15, p < 0.1; β = 0.16, p < 0.1). Entrepreneurs’ RL had a moderating effect on the relationship between stakeholder pressure and corporate environmental ethics (normative pressure: β = 0.13, p < 0.1; imitation pressure: β = 0.17, p < 0.1, but not regulatory pressure: β = 0.08, p < 0.1). |
Saini, 2015 [72] | Theoretical frame not explicitly mentioned | Mixed method (scale development); Multiple regression analysis | Value Based Responsible Leadership Scale (VBRL) Saini, 2015 [72] | Direct leader (CEO) | India; Telecom sector | n = 321 middle managers | Four VBRL dimensions (1) Empathetic, (2) Value oriented, (3) Responsible, and (4) Nurturing showed different correlations with Affective commitment (r = 0.48, p < 0.01; r = 0.39, p < 0.01; r = 0.31, p < 0.01; r = −0.22, p < 0.01), Managerial satisfaction (r = 0.59, p < 0.01; r = 0.52, p < 0.01; r = 0.32, p < 0.01; r = −0.47, p < 0.01), and Productivity (r = 0.36, p < 0.01; r = 0.42, p < 0.01; r = 0.24, p < 0.01; r = 0.32, p < 0.01). | The author proposes a value based RL measurement tool. Three RL dimensions predicted Affective commitment (Empathetic: β = 0.32, p < 0.0001; Nurturing: β = 0.25, p < 0.001; Value oriented: β = 0.21, p < 0.01). Four RL dimensions predicted managerial satisfaction (Empathetic: β = 0.22, p < 0.0001; Nurturing: β = 0.11, p < 0.05; Value oriented: β = 0.15, p < 0.001; Responsible: β = 0.14, p < 0.01). One RL dimension predicted Productivity (Value oriented: β = 0.24, p < 0.001). |
Taştan & Davoudi, 2019 [66] | Theoretical frame not explicitly mentioned | CS survey; SEM | RL-Doh, et al., 2011 [59] | Direct leader | Turkey; across industries | n = 246 various positions | Not reported | (S)RL had positive effects on organizational ethical climate through the full moderation of relational transparency (path coefficients = 0.56, t = 4.67). |
Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | Discourse ethics | Mixed method (scale development); EFA, CFA | Discursive RL 5 items -Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | Direct leader | Switzerland & Germany; across industries | Study 1: n = 14 students, Study 2: n = 13 experts, Study 3: n = 139 students, Study 4: n = 75 students, Study 5: n = 150 working population | Not reported | The author proposed an empirical scale of discursive RL. Discursive RL was dependent on the hierarchical organizational level (r = 0.25, p < 0.01), had positive effects on employee job satisfaction (r = 0.28, p < 0.01), and on reducing unethical behaviour towards colleagues (r = −0.14, p < 0.1). The relationships between Discursive RL and job satisfaction was partially mediated by observed unethical behaviour (r = −0.37, p < 0.01), and moderated by the frequency of interaction between supervisor and employees (β = 0.39, p < 0.05). |
Voegtlin, et al., 2019 [74] | Stakeholder theory and Theory of behavioural complexity | Study 1: CS survey, Study 2: Qualitative, Study 3: Experiment; Study 1: Regression analysis, Study 2: Regression analysis of coded responses, Study 3: Comparing means between scenarios | Three-Roles model of RL -Voegtlin, et al., 2019 [74] | Direct leader | Switzerland; across industries | Study 1: n = 95 supervisors; 95 subordinates, Study 2: n = 97 students, Study 3: n = 495 working population | Study 1: RL correlated positively with Leader effectiveness (r = 0.61, p < 0.001), Leader empathy (r = 0.36, p < 0.01), Employee organizational commitment (r = 0.37, p < 0.01), Leader holistic thinking (r = 0.17, ns), Employee duty towards colleagues (r = 0.12, ns), employee community citizenship behaviour (r = 0.14, ns). Study 2: RL correlated positively with Empathy (r = 0.34, p < 0.01), Positive affect (r = 0.24, p < 0.05), and Holistic thinking (r = 0.10, ns). | Study 1: Authors proposed an RL survey instrument involving three leadership roles. RL had positive effects on leaders’ effectiveness (β = 0.52, p < 0.001), employees’ affective organizational commitment (β = 0.32, p < 0.01), and employees’ community citizenship behaviour (β = 0.31, p < 0.1), but no effect on duty towards colleagues (β = 0.01, ns). RL behaviour was facilitated by leaders’ empathy (β = 0.50, p < 0.01), positive affect and universalism (β = 0.44, p < 0.05), there was no relation to holistic thinking (β = 0.11, ns). Study 2: Positive relationship between RL decision making and empathy (β = 0.28, p < 0.01), and positive affect (β = 0.19, p < 0.1), no relation to holistic thinking (β = −0.001, ns). Study 3: Stakeholders perceived Responsible leaders as more attractive role models than internally focused and instrumental leaders. They were also more inclined to work for a company with a responsible leader. |
Yasin, et al., 2020 [89] | Theoretical frame not explicitly mentioned | CS survey; SEM | Discursive RL 14 items -Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | Direct leader at branch level | Pakistan; Banking sector | n = 168 employees | Not reported | RL had positive direct effects on ethical climate (t = 2.90, p < 0.05). Ethical climate had negative effects on turnover intentions (t = 0.4.61, p < 0.05). Ethical climate mediated the effect between RL and turnover intentions (t = 0.2.46, p < 0.05). |
Zhao & Zhou, 2019 [90] | Social identity theory | 2 wave survey (but RL only measured once); SEM | Discursive RL 5 items -Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | Direct leader | China; Hotels | n = 302 employees | RL correlated positively with OCBE (r = 0.74, p < 0.01) and Leader identification (r = 0.60, p < 0.01). | RL had positive effects on OCBE (β = 0.58, p < 0.01). The relationship was partially mediated by Leader identification (estimate = 0.26, p < 0.01, 95% CI [0.14–0.41]. Perceived role of ethics and social responsibility (PRESOR) moderated the relationship between Leader identification and OCBE (β = 0.68, p < 0.05). |
Zhao & Zhou, 2020 [91] | Social cognitive theory | 2 wave survey (but RL only measured once); Hierarchical regression analysis | Discursive RL 5 items -Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | Direct leader | China; Hotels | n = 270 employees | Socially responsible human resource management (SRHRM) positively correlated with OCBE (r = 0.16, ns). | Socially responsible human resource management (SRHRM) had a positive effect on OCBE (β = 0.15, p < 0.05). Moral reflectiveness mediated the relationship (β = 0.35, p < 0.01), and RL negatively moderated the relationship between SRHRM and moral reflectiveness (β = −0.21, p < 0.01). |
References
- Tempels, T.; Blok, V.; Verweij, M. Understanding political responsibility in corporate citizenship: Towards a shared responsibility for the common good. J. Glob. Ethics 2017, 13, 90–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carini, C.; Rocca, L.; Veneziani, M.; Teodori, C. Sustainability regulation and global corporate citizenship: A lesson (already) learned? Corp. Soc.-Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 28, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svermova, P.; Cernik, M. Corporate Social Responsibility of Companies Producing PFOA Containing Waxes for Cross-Country Skiing. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fordham, A.E.; Robinson, G.M.; Blackwell, B.D. Corporate social responsibility in resource companies–Opportunities for developing positive benefits and lasting legacies. Resour. Policy 2017, 52, 366–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meseguer-Sánchez, V.; Gàlvez-Sánchez, F.J.; López-Martinez, G.; Molina-Moreno, V. Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability: A Bibliometric Analysis of Their Interrelations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elkington, J. Accounting for the triple bottom line. Meas. Bus. Excell. 1998, 2, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annual Edelman Trust Barometer. 2021. Available online: https://www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trust-barometer (accessed on 20 May 2021).
- Annual Edelman Trust Barometer. 2020. Available online: https://www.edelman.com/trust/2020-trust-barometer (accessed on 21 February 2021).
- Waldman, D.A.; Galvin, B.M. Alternative Perspectives of Responsible Leadership. Organ. Dyn. 2008, 37, 327–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benn, S.; Edwards, M.; Williams, T. Organisational Change for Corporate Sustainability; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Wood, D.J.; Jones, R.E. Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 1995, 3, 229–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waldman, D.A.; Siegel, D. Defining the socially responsible leader. Leadersh. Q. 2008, 19, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emerson, J. The Blended Value Proposition: Integrating Social and Financial Returns. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2003, 45, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84, 78–92. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Seeger, M.W.; Ulmer, R.R. Explaining enron: Communication and Responsible Leadership. Manag. Commun. Q. 2003, 17, 58–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pless, N.M. Understanding Responsible Leadership: Role Identity and Motivational Drivers. J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 74, 437–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lynham, S.A.; Chermack, T.J. Responsible Leadership for Performance: A Theoretical Model and Hypotheses. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2006, 12, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maak, T.; Pless, N.M. Responsible Leadership in a Stakeholder Society–A Relational Perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 66, 99–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marques, T.; Reis, N.; Gomes, J. Responsible Leadership Research: A Bibliometric Review. Braz. Adm. Rev. 2018, 15, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Frangieh, C.G.; Yaacoub, H.K. A systematic literature review of responsible leadership Challenges, outcomes and practices. J. Glob. Responsib. 2017, 8, 281–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mactaggart, R.W.; Lynham, S.A. An Integrative Literature Review of Responsible Leadership: Knowns, Unknowns, and Implications. J. Leadersh. Account. Ethics 2018, 15, 56–69. [Google Scholar]
- Miska, C.; Mendenhall, M.E. Responsible Leadership: A Mapping of Extant Research and Future Directions. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 148, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doh, J.P.; Quigley, N.R. Responsible Leadership and Stakeholder Management: Influence Pathways and Organizational Outcomes. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2014, 28, 255–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stahl, G.K.; de Luque, M.S. Antecedents of responsible leader behavior: A research synthesis, conceptual framework, and agenda for future research. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2014, 28, 235–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, R.E. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. In Pitman Series in Business and Public Policy; Pitman: Boston, MA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Hosking, D.M. Organizing, leadership and skilful process. J. Manag. Stud. 1988, 25, 147–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uhl-Bien, M. Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadersh. Q. 2006, 17, 654–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Doh, J.P.; Stumpf, S.A. Towards a framework of responsible leadership and governance. In Handbook on Responsible Leadership and Governance in Global Business; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2005; pp. 3–18. [Google Scholar]
- Maak, T. Responsible Leadership, Stakeholder Engagement, and the Emergence of Social Capital. J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 74, 329–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Patzer, M.; Voegtlin, C.; Scherer, A.G. The Normative Justification of Integrative Stakeholder Engagement: A Habermasian View on Responsible Leadership. Bus. Ethics Q. 2018, 28, 325–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Koh, C. The responsible leadership for performance framework. In Being Practical with Theory: A Window into Business Research; Hasan, H., Ed.; THEORI: Wollongong, Australia, 2014; pp. 67–70. [Google Scholar]
- Voegtlin, C.; Patzer, M.; Scherer, A.G. Responsible Leadership in Global Business: A New Approach to Leadership and Its Multi-Level Outcomes. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 105, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pless, N.M.; Maak, T.; Waldman, D.A. Different Approaches Toward Doing the Right Thing: Mapping the Responsibility Orientations of Leaders. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2012, 26, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, M.; Friedman, R.D. Capitalism and freedom. Econ. Syst. 1962, 34, 91–104. [Google Scholar]
- Voegtlin, C. What does it mean to be responsible? Addressing the missing responsibility dimension in ethical leadership research. Leadership 2015, 12, 581–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pruzan, P.; Miller, W.C. Spirituality as the basis of responsible leaders and responsible companies. In Responsible Leadership; Maak, T., Pless, N., Eds.; Taylor & Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 2005; pp. 68–92. [Google Scholar]
- Antunes, A.; Franco, M. How people in organizations make sense of responsible leadership practices. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2016, 37, 126–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valentine, M.; Nembhard, I.; Edmondson, A. Measuring Teamwork in Health Care Settings: A Review of Survey Instruments. Med. Care 2015, 53, e16–e30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le, H.; Schmidt, F.L.; Harter, J.K.; Lauver, K.J. The problem of empirical redundancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2010, 112, 112–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harter, J.K.; Schmidt, F.L. Conceptual Versus Empirical Distinctions Among Constructs: Implications for Discriminant Validity. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2008, 1, 36–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelley, T.L. Interpretation of educational measurements. In Measurement and Adjustment Series; World book company: New York, NY, USA, 1927. [Google Scholar]
- Rudolph, C.W.; LMurphy, D.; Zacher, H. A systematic review and critique of research on “healthy leadership”. Leadersh. Q. 2020, 31, 101335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yukl, G.; Gardner, W.L. Leadership in Organizations, Global Edition, 9th ed.; Pearson Education Ltd.: Harlow, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bendell, J. The responsibility of business schools. J. Corp. Citizsh. 2007, 28, 4–14. [Google Scholar]
- Berniak-Woźny, J. The role of business schools in csr and responsible management education: The polish students’ perspective. In Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability; Tench, R., Jones, B., Sun, W., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Ltd.: Bingley, UK, 2018; pp. 223–239. [Google Scholar]
- Blewitt, J. Educating for Responsible Management: Putting Theory into Practice. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2017, 15, 395–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belloso, N.; Bracho, M.P. Assimilation of information and communication technology in the mayor’s offices of Venezuela. Rev. De Cienc. Soc. 2009, 15, 139–147. [Google Scholar]
- Boer, H.J. Power, REDD plus and reforming forest governance in Indonesia. Third World Q. 2020, 41, 783–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fall, O.; Hori, N. Toward an integrated management plan of the Djoudj Park water resources: Senegal River mouth. Environ. Manag. 2003, 31, 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bazan, E.; Jaber, M.Y.; Zanoni, S. A review of mathematical inventory models for reverse logistics and the future of its modeling: An environmental perspective. Appl. Math. Model. 2016, 40, 4151–4178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dugan, J.P.; Komives, S.R. Influences on college students’ capacities for socially responsible leadership. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2010, 51, 525–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mousa, M. Inspiring Work-Life Balance: Responsible Leadership among Female Pharmacists in the Egyptian Health Sector. Entrep. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2018, 6, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mousa, M. Responsible Leadership and Organisational Commitment-An Empirical Study in Egypt. ASBM J. Manag. 2019, 12, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Latif, K.F.; Sajjad, A. Measuring corporate social responsibility: A critical review of survey instruments. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 1174–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, H.-F.; Shannon, S.E. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2005, 15, 1277–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Agarwal, S.; Bhal, K.T. A Multidimensional Measure of Responsible Leadership: Integrating Strategy and Ethics. Group Organ. Manag. 2020, 45, 637–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, M.E.; Treviño, L.K.; Harrison, D.A. Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2005, 97, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doh, J.P.; Stumpf, S.A.; Tymon, W.G., Jr. Responsible Leadership Helps Retain Talent in India. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 98, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Javed, M.; Akhtar, M.W.; Husnain, H.; Lodhi, R.; Emaan, S. A stakeholder-centric paradigm bids well for the “business case”—An investigation through moderated-mediation model. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2563–2577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lips-Wiersma, M.; Haar, J.; Wright, S. The Effect of Fairness, Responsible Leadership and Worthy Work on Multiple Dimensions of Meaningful Work. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 161, 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haque, A.; Fernando, M.; Caputi, P. The Relationship Between Responsible Leadership and Organisational Commitment and the Mediating Effect of Employee Turnover Intentions: An Empirical Study with Australian Employees. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 156, 759–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haque, A.; Fernando, M.; Caputi, P. Responsible leadership, affective commitment and intention to quit: An individual level analysis. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2019, 40, 45–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haque, A.; Fernando, M.; Caputi, P. How is responsible leadership related to the three-component model of organisational commitment? Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2020, 70, 1137–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernando, M. Leading Responsibly in the Asian Century; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Taştan, S.B.; Davoudi, S.M.M. The relationship between socially responsible leadership and organisational ethical climate: In search for the role of leader’s relational transparency. Int. J. Bus. Gov. Ethics 2019, 13, 275–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.M.; Lin, C.P. Assessing the effects of responsible leadership and ethical conflict on behavioral intention. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2018, 12, 1003–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seal, C.R.; Royce-Davis, J.; Miguel, K.; Andrews-Brown, A. Developing capacity for responsible leadership: The interactive role of identity and competence development. In Leader Interpersonal and Influence Skills: The Soft Skills of Leadership; Riggio, R.E., Tan, S.J., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 256–275. [Google Scholar]
- Cameron, K.; Caza, A. Developing strategies and skills for responsible leadership. InHandbook on Responsible Leadership and Governance in Global Business; Doh, J.P., Stumpf, S.A., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2005; pp. 87–111. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, C.P.; Huang, H.T.; Huang, T.Y. The effects of responsible leadership and knowledge sharing on job performance among knowledge workers. Pers. Rev. 2020, 49, 1879–1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muff, K.; Liechti, A.; Dyllick, T. How to apply responsible leadership theory in practice: A competency tool to collaborate on the sustainable development goals. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2254–2274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saini, D. Value based responsible leadership: Does it impact the workplace? Manag. Chang. 2015, 19, 49–64. [Google Scholar]
- Victor, B.; Cullen, J.B. The Organizational Bases of Ethical Work Climates. Adm. Sci. Q. 1988, 33, 101–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voegtlin, C.; Frisch, C.; Walther, A.; Schwab, P. Theoretical Development and Empirical Examination of a Three-Roles Model of Responsible Leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 167, 411–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stogdill, R.M. Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form XII Self; Fischer College of Business, Ohio State University: Columbus, OH, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
- Barbuto, J.E.; Wheeler, D.W. Scale Development and Construct Clarification of Servant Leadership. Group Organ. Manag. 2006, 31, 300–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dierendonck, D.; Nuijten, I. The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure. J. Bus. Psychol. 2011, 26, 249–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Voegtlin, C. Development of a Scale Measuring Discursive Responsible Leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 98, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Akhtar, M.W.; Javed, M.; Syed, F.; Aslam, M.K.; Hussain, K. Say no to wrongdoing: The serial mediation model of responsible leadership and whistleblowing intentions. Int. J. Manpow. 2020, 15, 889–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castro-González, S.; Bande, B.; Fernández-Ferrín, P. Responsible Leadership and Salespeople’s Creativity: The Mediating Effects of CSR Perceptions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheng, K.; Wei, F.; Lin, Y. The trickle-down effect of responsible leadership on unethical pro-organizational behavior: The moderating role of leader-follower value congruence. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 102, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, Z.; Wang, Q.; Yan, X. How Responsible Leadership Motivates Employees to Engage in Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment: A Double-Mediation Model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Han, Z.; Wang, Q.; Yan, X. How responsible leadership predicts organizational citizenship behavior for the environment in China. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2019, 40, 305–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, J.; Morrison, A.M.; Zhang, H. Improving millennial employee well-being and task performance in the hospitality industry: The interactive effects of HRM and responsible leadership. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Javed, M.; Ali, H.Y.; Asrar-ul-Haq, M.; Ali, M.; Kirmani, S.A.A. Responsible leadership and triple-bottom-line performance—do corporate reputation and innovation mediate this relationship? Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2020, 41, 501–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Javed, M.; Rashid, M.A.; Hussain, G.; Ali, H.Y. The effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate reputation and firm financial performance: Moderating role of responsible leadership. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1395–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahim, N.A.; Shah, S.I.U. Laboratory of CA micro-level implementation mechanism to enhance corporate sustainability performance: A social identity perspective. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Chang. 2020, 11, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- Rui, Z.; Lu, Y. Stakeholder pressure, corporate environmental ethics and green innovation. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2020, 29, 70–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yasin, R.; Namoco, S.O.; Jauhar, J.; Rahim, N.F.A.; Zia, N.U. Responsible leadership an obstacle for turnover intention. Soc. Responsib. J. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, H.; Zhou, Q. Exploring the Impact of Responsible Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment: A Leadership Identity Perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, H.; Zhou, Q. Socially responsible human resource management and hotel employee organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: A social cognitive perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 95, 102749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maak, T.; Pless, N.M. Responsible Leadership; Taylor & Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Denison, D.R.; Hooijberg, R.; Quinn, R.E. Paradox and Performance: Toward a Theory of Behavioral Complexity in Managerial Leadership. Organ. Sci. 1995, 6, 524–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habermas, J. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Sorlie, S. A complex task: Creating models for responsible leadership. Leadersh. Action 2007, 27, 21–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maria, J.F.; Lozano, J.M. Responsible Leaders for Inclusive Globalization: Cases in Nicaragua and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 93, 93–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ketola, T. Responsible leadership: Building blocks of individual, organizational and societal behavior. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2010, 17, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pless, N.M.; Maak, T. Responsible Leaders as Agents of World Benefit: Learning from PwC’s “Project Ulysses”. INSEAD Work. Pap. Collect. 2008, 85, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afsar, B.; Maqsoom, A.; Shahjehan, A.; Afridi, S.A.; Nawaz, A.; Fazliani, H. Responsible leadership and employee’s proenvironmental behavior: The role of organizational commitment, green shared vision, and internal environmental locus of control. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 297–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, M.S.; Iqbal, F.; Siddique, R.; Abbas, S.; Fakhr, Z. Responsible leadership and workplace deviant behaviour: Modelling trust and turnover intention as mediator. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2020, 41, 939–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maak, T.; Pless, N.M.; Voegtlin, C. Business statesman or shareholder advocate? CEO responsible leadership styles and the micro-foundations of political CSR. J. Manag. Stud. 2016, 53, 463–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orlitzky, M.; Schmidt, F.L.; Rynes, S.L. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Organ. Stud. 2003, 24, 403–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busch, T.; Friede, G. The Robustness of the Corporate Social and Financial Performance Relation: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 583–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Freeman, R.E.; Wicks, A.C.; Parmar, B. Stakeholder theory and “The corporate objective revisited”. Organ. Sci. 2004, 15, 364–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agarwal, S.; Bhal, K.T. Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure of Responsible Business Leadership. Acad. Manag. Annu. Meet. Proc. 2019, 2019, 12279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarkson, M.B.E. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haigh, N.; Griffiths, A. The natural environment as a primary stakeholder: The case of climate change. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2009, 18, 347–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laine, M. The nature of nature as a stakeholder. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 96, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Olaimy, T. Why Nature Is the Most Important Stakeholder of the Coming Decade. 2020. Available online: Weforum.org. (accessed on 12 January 2021).
- Phillips, R.A.; Reichart, J. The environment as a stakeholder? A fairness-based approach. J. Bus. Ethics 2000, 23, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wo, D.X.H.; Schminke, M.; Ambrose, M.L. Trickle-Down, Trickle-Out, Trickle-Up, Trickle-In, and Trickle-Around Effects: An Integrative Perspective on Indirect Social Influence Phenomena. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 2263–2292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultz, P.W.; Kaiser, F.G. Promoting pro-environmental behavior. In The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology; Clayton, S.D., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 556–580. [Google Scholar]
Survey Instrument | Accountable Role Model | Inclusive Facilitator |
Agarwal & Bhal, 2020 [57] | Shows consistency in words and actions | Makes fair and balanced decisions |
Doh, et al., 2011 [59] | My immediate manager leads by example | This organization responds well to a diverse group of stakeholders |
Javed, Akhtar, et al., 2020 [60] | I practice shared moral values and principles | I focus on all relevant and salient stakeholders |
Lips-Wiersma, et al., 2018 [61] | Ethical leadership: The demonstration of ethical conduct through what they do and how they relate to others, and the promotion of such behaviour to employees | Shared leadership: Team members collectively lead each other |
Liu & Lin, 2018 [67] | Overall, being responsible is highly important for my job | (No items in this aspect) |
Muff, et al., 2020 [71] | I’m interested in my own mistakes since I can learn from them | I like working in diverse teams |
Saini, 2015 [72] | Shows integrity and honesty in his actions | Consider my views when decisions are being made |
Voegtlin, et al., 2019 [74] | He makes his attitudes clear to the group | He treats all group members as his equals |
Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | (No items in this aspect) | …involves the affected stakeholders in the decision-making process |
Survey Instrument | Pro-Active Planner | Benevolent Value Creator |
Agarwal & Bhal, 2020 [57] | Shows concern for availability or conservation of resources (e.g., natural resources) when planning for future business demands | Considers stakeholder well-being as important business outcome |
Doh, et al., 2011 [59] | Our performance appraisal programs are effectively used to retain the best talent | Our organization believes all employees deserve to be actively managed as talent |
Javed, Akhtar, et al., 2020 [60] | I create long term value for a number of stakeholders | I try to empower stakeholders |
Lips-Wiersma, et al., 2018 [61] | Transformational leadership: Leader behaviours that transform and inspire employees to perform beyond expectations, push employees to develop innovative strategies while going beyond self-interest for the good of the organization | (No items in this aspect) |
Liu & Lin, 2018 [67] | I am responsible for achieving positive change in the firm | I am concerned about employee emotion |
Muff, et al., 2020 [71] | When making decisions one should also consider future generations | The welfare of people and nature is important to me |
Saini, 2015 [72] | (No items in this aspect) | Has a sense of responsibility to the outside community |
Voegtlin et al., 2019 [74] | My supervisor is preparing the organization to make a positive difference in the future | My supervisor sees the organization for its potential to contribute to society |
Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | (No items in this aspect) | …considers the consequences of decisions for the affected stakeholders |
Intrapersonal Level | |||||
Antecedent | Leadership | Mediator | Moderator | Outcome | Citation |
Leader’s empathy(+), Positive affect(+), Universal values(+), Holistic thinking(/) | RL | Voegtlin, et al., 2019 [74] | |||
Micro-Level | |||||
Antecedent | Leadership | Mediator | Moderator | Outcome | Citation |
RL | Satisfaction with the organization(+) | Turnover intentions(-), Turnover(-) | Doh, et al., 2011 [59] | ||
RL | Ethical climate(+) | Turnover intentions(-) | Yasin, et al., 2020 [90] | ||
RL | Affective commitment(+) | Intention to quit(-) | Haque, et al., 2019 [63] | ||
RL | Organizational identification(+), Organizational uncertainty(-) | Turnover intentions(-), Helping intention(+) | Liu & Lin, 2018 [67] | ||
RL | Job tenure(+) | Work engagement(+), Helping initiatives(+) | Lin, et al., 2020 [70] | ||
RL | Turnover intentions(-) | Organizational commitment(+) | Haque, et al., 2019 [62] | ||
RL | Affective commitment(+), Normative commitment(+), Continuance commitment(+) | Haque, et al., 2020 [64] | |||
RL | Affective commitment(+), Managerial satisfaction(+) | Saini, 2015 [72] | |||
RL | Affective commitment(+), Community citizenship behaviour(+), Duty towards colleagues(/) | Voegtlin, et al., 2019 [74] | |||
RL | Followers’ moral courage(+), Citizenship behaviours towards stakeholders(+) | Agarwal & Bhal, 2020 [57] | |||
RL | Green shared vision(+), Organizational commitment(+) | Internal environmental locus of control(+) | Pro-environmental behaviour(+) | Afsar, et al., 2020 [99] | |
RL | Intrinsic motivation(+), Extrinsic motivation(+) | OCBE(+) | Han, et al., 2019 [82] | ||
RL | Felt obligation for constructive change(+) | Supervisor-subordinate guanxi(+) | OCBE(+) | Han, et al., 2019 [83] | |
RL | Leader identification(+) | Perceived role of ethics and social responsibility(+) | OCBE(+) | Zhao & Zhou, 2019 [90] | |
RL | Trust in leader(+), Person-organization fit(+) | Whistle blowing intentions(+) | Akhtar, et al., 2020 [79] | ||
High-level leader RL | Value congruence(+) | Unethical pro-organizational behaviour(-), Low-level leader RL(+) | Cheng, et al., 2019 [81] | ||
RL | Observed unethical behaviour(-) | The frequency of interaction between supervisor and subordinates(+) | Job satisfaction(+), Unethical behaviour towards colleagues(-) | Voegtlin, 2011 [78] | |
RL | CSR-perceptions(+), Job satisfaction(+), Identification with organization(+) | Creativity(+) | Castro-Gonzales, et al., 2019 [80] | ||
RL | Meaningful work(+) | Lips-Wiersma, et al., 2018 [61] | |||
RL, HRM | Well-being(+), Performance(+) | He, et al., 2019 [84] | |||
Socially responsible HRM | Moral reflectiveness(+) | RL(-) | OCBE(+) | Zhao & Zhou, 2020 [91] | |
Meso-Level | |||||
Antecedent | Leadership | Mediator | Moderator | Outcome | Citation |
RL | Innovation(+), Corporate reputation(+)(but not on environmental performance), | Financial performance(+), Environmental performance(+), Social performance(+) | Javed, Ali, et al., 2020 [85] | ||
RL | Employee involvement in sustainability activities(+) | Corporate sustainability performance(+) | Rahim & Shah, 2020 [87] | ||
RL | Relational transparency(+) | Ethical climate(+) | Taştan & Davoudi, 2019 [66] | ||
Stakeholder pressure | RL | Green innovation(+), Corporate environmental ethics(+) | Rui & Lu, 2020 [88] | ||
CSR | RL(-) | Corporate reputation(+), Financial performance(+) | Javed, Rashid et al., 2020 [86] | ||
Responsible governance | RL traditional economist(-), RL opportunity seeker(-), RL integrator(+), RL idealist(+) | CSR(+) | Javed, Akhtar, et al., 2020 [60] | ||
Macro-Level | |||||
Antecedent | Leadership | Mediator | Moderator | Outcome | Citation |
RL | Stakeholder perception of leader as attractive role model(+), Stakeholder perception of RL-lead organization as attractive(+) | Voegtlin, et al., 2019 [74] |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Foldøy, S.; Furunes, T.; Dagsland, Å.H.B.; Haver, A. Responsibility beyond the Board Room? A Systematic Review of Responsible Leadership: Operationalizations, Antecedents and Outcomes. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810298
Foldøy S, Furunes T, Dagsland ÅHB, Haver A. Responsibility beyond the Board Room? A Systematic Review of Responsible Leadership: Operationalizations, Antecedents and Outcomes. Sustainability. 2021; 13(18):10298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810298
Chicago/Turabian StyleFoldøy, Sylvelin, Trude Furunes, Åse Helene Bakkevig Dagsland, and Annie Haver. 2021. "Responsibility beyond the Board Room? A Systematic Review of Responsible Leadership: Operationalizations, Antecedents and Outcomes" Sustainability 13, no. 18: 10298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810298