Search results

This article explores how companies in multiple controversial industries report their controversial issues. For the first time, the authors use a new conceptualization of controversial industries, focused on harm and solutions, to investigate the reports of 28 companies in seven controversial industries: Agricultural Chemicals, Alcohol, Armaments, Coal, Gambling, Oil and Tobacco.

The authors thematically analyzed company reports to determine if companies in controversial industries discuss their controversial issues in their reporting, if and how they communicate the harm caused by their products or services, and what solutions they provide.

From this study data the authors introduce a new legitimacy reporting method in the controversial industries literature: the solutions companies offer for the harm caused by their products and services. The authors find three solution reporting methods: no solution, misleading solution and less-harmful solution. The authors also develop a new typology of reporting strategies used by companies in controversial industries based on how they report their key controversial issue and the harm caused by their products or services, and the solutions they offer. The authors identify seven reporting strategies: Ignore, Deny, Decoy, Dazzle, Distort, Deflect and Adapt.

Further research can test the typology and identify strategies used by companies in different institutional or regulatory settings, across different controversial industries or in larger populations.

Investors, consumers, managers, activists and other stakeholders of controversial companies can use this typology to identify the strategies that companies use to report controversial issues. They can assess if reports admit to the controversial issue and the harm caused by a company's products and services and if they provide solutions to that harm.

This paper develops a new typology of reporting strategies by companies in controversial industries and adds to the theory and discourse on social and environmental reporting (SER) as well as the literature on controversial industries.

This study aimed at investigating employee training, employee participation and organizational commitment (OC) and the moderating effect of workplace ostracism among bank employees.

The study used a descriptive and cross-sectional design with the aid of a standard scale constructed into a questionnaire. Cluster, convenience and simple random sampling techniques were used to select 1,067 respondents, of which 870 were deemed fit for the study. The theories underpinning the study were the social exchange theory (SET) and social identity theory (SIT). Four hypotheses were developed and tested using hierarchical multiple regression analysis, and moderation using PROCESS macro.

The study found that employee training and employee participation had a significant positive relationship with organizational commitment, while organizational ostracism had a significant but negative relationship with organizational commitment among bank employees. The study also found that workplace ostracism moderated the relationship between organizational climate and organizational commitment The study recommended that organizational commitment requires management training their workforce, allowing employee participation in decisions, and minimizing or outrightly eradicating the practice of organizational ostracism. It is, therefore, concluded that workers place great value on training and participation in decision-making and frown at organizational ostracism.

This paper fills in the gaps left by the paucity of empirical investigation of the moderating role that workplace ostracism plays between employee training, employee participation and organizational commitment – a feat that is lacking in developing countries. It serves as a reminder to management to prevent or entirely eliminate workplace ostracism to allay an employee's impression of being a threat to an organization when commitment is low.