Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 83:207216 DOI 10.

1007/s10551-007-9612-0

Springer 2007

Do Firms Practice What They Preach? The Relationship Between Mission Statements and Stakeholder Management

Barbara R. Bartkus Myron Glassman

ABSTRACT. The accuracy of corporate mission statements has not been well explored. In this study, the authors investigate the relationship between mission statement content and stakeholder management actions. Findings indicate that although social issues such as the environment and diversity are less frequently included, their mention in mission statements is significantly associated with behaviors regarding these issues. The study found no relationship between firms with mission statements that mention specific stakeholder groups (employees, customers, and community) and behaviors regarding these stakeholders. This suggests that the inclusion of specific stakeholder groups in missions is likely the result of institutional pressures, while specifying social issues in missions is related to policy decisions. KEY WORDS: diversity, environment, mission statement, social issues, stakeholder management

Introduction Practice what you preach. Walk your talk. Actions speak louder than words. These are all phrases commonly used to describe the expectation that words should match behaviors. It is generally acknowledged that rms should be truthful in advertising, and publish accurate annual nancial statements and reports. Misrepresentation is met
Barbara R. Bartkus is Associate Professor at Old Dominion University. She received her Ph.D. from Texas A&M University. Her research interests includes strategic goals, governance and corporate philanthropy. Myron Glassman is Professor of Marketing at Old Dominion University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois. His research focuses on integrating marketing and management concepts.

with harsh criticism and sometimes legal penalties. Similarly, there is an expectation that publicized statements such as missions are consistent with organizations actions. However, recent scandals suggest that an organizations actions are not always aligned with the promises made in mission statements. For example, actions by Enron executives contrasted sharply with phrases in the rms mission about the importance of integrity, respect, and communication. HealthSouths accounting scandal occurred at a time when their mission stated trust and integrity to be essential (Plender, 2003). This anecdotal evidence begs the question: how common is the misalignment between what is preached in mission statements and the actions that rms practice? Our article reports on a study that investigates the alignment of mission statements with decisions and actions regarding stakeholders and social issues. Although the literature on mission statements is fairly abundant, most is either prescriptive (e.g., Ireland and Hitt, 1992; Pearce and Roth, 1988) or descriptive (e.g., Bart, 1997a; David, 1989; Leuthesser and Kohli, 1997). Studies tend to focus on the elements that should be included or the elements that are commonly included in missions. Some authors (e.g., Bart, 1997b; 1998; Bart and Baetz, 1998; Bart et al., 2001; Bart and Hupfer, 2004; OGorman and Doran, 1999; Pearce and David, 1987) have extended the research by investigating if mission statements are associated with a more effective (i.e., higher performing) rm. Most rms publish their missions. Typically, these statements are now public declarations which suggest that Druckers (1973) original recommendation that a mission should be a simple statement of purpose

208

Barbara R. Bartkus and Myron Glassman regarding rms commitments to stakeholders. The literature on mission statements emphasizes not only the importance of a stakeholder emphasis, but includes recommendations on the inclusion of specic elements (e.g., Ireland and Hitt, 1992; Pearce and David, 1987; Vogt, 1994). Indeed, empirical research indicates that mission statements frequently include primary stakeholders (see Bart, 1997b; Bart and Hupfer, 2004; Leuthesser and Kohli, 1997) and emphasize the organizations social responsibility (David, 1989). The inclusion of primary stakeholders and social issues in mission statements suggests that some stakeholder groups are more salient to managers (Mitchell et al., 1997). These primary stakeholders, frequently holding both power and legitimacy (Mitchell et al., 1997), have their own goals that may impact the organizations long-term survival. As such, issues that are important to stakeholders, who directly or indirectly control needed resources (see Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978), may need to be publicly addressed. A rm that wishes to access stakeholdercontrolled resources may need to, at the least, pay lip service to these issues. As such, research indicates that corporate phrasing in publications has shifted from prot speak (Fairfax, 2006, p 692) to a public acknowledgment that stakeholders matter. Fairfax notes that 88% of the top 50 rms in the Fortune 500 include stakeholder rhetoric in the annual report and 86% include stakeholder rhetoric in the rms website. Moreover, most rms afrm positive relationships with stakeholders and society in general in their publications (Fairfax, 2006) and mention specic stakeholder groups in their missions (Bart, 1997a; Bartkus et al., 2004; Leuthesser and Kohli, 1997). The general use of stakeholder rhetoric supports Donaldson and Prestons (1995) argument that most managers recognize the importance of stakeholder management. Public declarations such as mission statements are created to convey a message to stakeholders about the way the organizations (i.e., executives, upper level management) want the rm to be perceived. As such, executives may include politically correct and/or socially acceptable phrases because the rm needs to acknowledge a responsibility to specic stakeholders and social issues. Such public declarations imply that the rm actually engages in behaviors that benet these

has either been supplemented or replaced with the mission as a marketing or public relations tool directed at stakeholders. Thus, the mission statement has become an important part of managing the organization-stakeholder relationship it communicates the rms identity to stakeholders (Leuthesser and Kohli, 1997). It is likely that stakeholders expect the publicized mission to be a clear and correct portrayal of the organization. However, some have suggested that a mission statement is not always an accurate self-report (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990; Waddock and Smith, 2000; Wright, 2002). A false or misleading mission statement can damage a rms reputation. The reason is that reputation is built on credibility and credibility is the believability of an entitys intentions at a particular moment in time credibility is whether a company can be relied on to do what it says it will do (Herbig and Milewicz, 1995, p. 21). If Mahon and Wartick (2003) are correct, that credibility and reputation are important issues in stakeholder management, then the accuracy of mission statements may be critical to effective stakeholder management and subsequent organizational success. Despite the importance of this issue, it appears that no one has investigated the accuracy of mission statements in regard to stakeholder issues. Thus, our study seeks to determine if mission statements are accurate self-reports of organizational stakeholder-related actions. That is, do rms practice what they preach? Our article is organized into ve parts. First, we look at mission statements as an important component of stakeholder management. Next, we present an argument that mission statements are likely to be accurate portrayals of the rms actions. Third, we submit an alternative view, that missions are merely the result of institutional pressures that result in symbolic statements that are not related to action. Our methodology and statistical analysis follow in the fourth part. Finally, we discuss the implications of our results and present suggestions for additional study.

Mission statements and stakeholder management Corporate missions, originally simple statements of purpose (Bailey, 1996; Drucker, 1973; Ireland and Hitt, 1992), have evolved into public disclosures of organizations promises to external constituencies

Do Firms Practice What They Preach? stakeholders. That is, the rm wants stakeholders to accept the mission as an accurate indicator of the organizations priorities and actions. However, because substantive management is expensive, difcult, and time-consuming, many managers may prefer symbolic mission statements (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990). Symbolic management can appear to be consistent with social values and expectations (p. 180) but has the advantage of [preserving] exibility and resources (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990, p. 182). We view stakeholder management as a broad concept that includes specic decisions and actions of the rm that affect stakeholders (see Hillman and Keim, s designed to 2001) and public relations communique improve the rms image. Thus, we offer two perspectives on mission statements and stakeholder management. One is that mission statements are written to guide and/or reect policies and procedures within the organization, and therefore are accurate descriptions of the rms stakeholder management practices. Alternatively, mission statements are stakeholder management tools that have little resemblance to the organizations actual actions or decisions. Mission statements as a guide/motivator of behavior Our rst perspective posits that mission statements are accurate portrayals of rms stakeholder management actions. This argument is based on two factors. First, the mission statement is written as an internal policy or guide for employees and managers to direct behaviors and decision making, and second, the mission statement is an externally directed message that is part of an auto-communication or selftalk process (i.e., it reects back to the organizational membership and thereby helps to control behavior). A mission is the foundation upon which decision makers can build corporate strategic planning processes (Pearce and Roth, 1988, p. 39). This suggests that the mission is the basis for internal policies and procedures. As such, the mission statement is expected to guide and direct employees and managers (Campbell, 1997; Drucker, 1973; Ireland and Hitt, 1992). Research indicates that including clarity and specics in missions is important if the mission is to be the backbone of policy. According to Bart et al. (2001), clearly written mission statements are more likely to be aligned with a rms internal policies and

209

systems, and better alignment is more likely to result in an effective guide for employees. Although many missions may be directed at external constituencies, they are a form of autocommunication (see Christensen, 1997). Morsing (2006) argues that even when corporate communications are directed at an external audience (as are many mission statements), an important part of the communication is received internally. That is, the mission statement is a form of self-talk through which the organization recognizes and conrms its own images, values and assumptions (Christensen, 1997; p 199). Although the publicized mission statement [pretends] to inform external critical stakeholders about corporate actions and intentions the primary purpose of the corporate messages is an efcient disciplining of the corporate body (Morsing, 2006, p 177). This suggests that the publicized promises included in the mission statement increase the social pressures on executives and employees to make decisions that are aligned with the rms mission, even if the purpose of the phrasing in the mission is only to gain the approval of external stakeholders. This suggests that mission statement content should be a reliable indicator of the organizations stakeholder management. Therefore, if the mission was written specically to be a guide to behavior, or if the mission was written to appease stakeholders, we would expect organizational decisions to be aligned with mission statement content. However, some inconsistencies may be present because external issues (e.g., political pressures, regulations, competitive forces) may intervene and affect the end result. Nonetheless, we believe that if most decisions and policies are aligned with the mission statements goals, we should nd a positive relationship between mission statement content and stakeholder management actions.
H1:

Firms with mission statements that include stakeholder issues are more likely to successfully address these issues in practice than rms with missions that omit these issues.

It is possible that the mission statement is not used as the foundation for decision making. Rather, the rms current strategies, actions, decisions, policies, and reputation become the source of the information used to create the publicized mission. That is,

210

Barbara R. Bartkus and Myron Glassman the values that might be articulated at the Mission Statement stage, into the ethos and culture of the organisation [sic] and its day-to-day operations (Moore, 1993, p. 55). Also possible is that the mission itself may have been crafted to give off a false appearance of conformity to societal ideals (Suchman, 1995, p. 588). In either case, Wrights survey (2002) supports the disconnect between mission statements and their value as a guide to decision making: 60% of managers believed that their organizations mission statement was not realistic. We assert that rms create these misleading mission statements because they need to atone for their lack of positive stakeholder management actions. A socially acceptable mission statement is easier to craft than developing and implementing policies that meet stakeholder expectations. Thus, mission statements may be purely symbolic and be used instead of substantive management (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990). As Suchman (1995, p. 195) states, organizations often put forth cynically self-serving claims of moral propriety and buttress these claims with hallow symbolic gestures. Thus, our next hypothesis is based on Ashforth and Gibbs (1990, p. 185) proposition: The protestation of legitimacy will be greatest for organizations with low legitimacy (as perceived by constituents). and Suchmans (1995, p. 588) assertion: at the extreme, because organizational goals often serve primarily as rationales for existence rather than as technical directives, managers can cynically revise even their core mission statements in order to give off a false appearance of conformity to societal ideals.
H3:

the policies are written rst and then the mission is written to reect the policies and the resulting decisions. So, if the rm has been a good social performer in the past, the mission statement will reect that and, as such, the mission is an accurate indicator of the rms prior social performance. However, because a rm with a poor record of stakeholder management is not likely to boast about it, we take the position that an organization with a good stakeholder management record is more likely to include its accomplishments in its mission than a rm with poorer social performance.
H2:

Firms with mission statements that include stakeholder issues are more likely to have successfully addressed these issues in the recent past than rms with missions that omit stakeholder issues.

Mission statements as impression management Another rationale for mission statements is that rms are expected to have mission statements. Mission statements are popular because they are popular (Krohe, 1995, p. 17). The creation and publicizing of missions may be largely the result of institutional pressures (see Meyer and Rowan, 1977) to gain moral legitimacy (Suchman, 1995). That is, organizational missions are created to give an impression that the rm has appropriate and publicly acceptable objectives. Accordingly, most mission statements suggest that the rm desires a positive relationship with stakeholders a majority of mission statements include a phrase that indicates concern for employees, society, and customers (Bart, 1997a; Leuthesser and Kohli, 1997). Moreover, many mission statements also include phrases that indicate that the rm is concerned with its public image and social policy issues (David, 1989). Similarly, Kapteins (2004) study found that most rms include stakeholder concerns and social responsibility issues (e.g., discrimination, environment, product quality) in their corporate codes. However, the inclusion of stakeholder concerns in the mission may not indicate the rms actual objectives and guidelines for decision making (Bartkus et al., 2000). According to Campbell and Alexander (1997), developing realistic short-term and mid-term objectives based on a mission statement is fraught with problems. It is [difcult to incorporate]

Firms with mission statements that include stakeholder issues are less likely to successfully address these issues than rms with missions lacking these issues.

Method Sample The rms in our sample were the top 100 rms listed in the Fortune 500 published in 2001 (www.fortune.com). We were unable to locate a mission statement for 32 rms (these rms either did not have a mission statement in 2001, or did not

Do Firms Practice What They Preach? publish their missions on the web or in their annual reports in 2001.

211

Variables Dependent variable We dene the dependent variable, the ability to address stakeholder issues, as a rms actions and behaviors involving stakeholders. We limit our study to nonowners that are the primary stakeholders most common to mission statements, i.e., customers, employees, and the community (see Bart, 1997b; Leuthesser and Kohli, 1997). This denition is consistent with Mitchell et al.s (1997) perspective that stakeholder primacy is based on power, legitimacy, and urgency. We nd that the stakeholder groups mentioned in missions t Mitchell et al.s (1997) dominant category, possessing both power and legitimacy. We followed Hillman and Keims (2001) lead and used KLDs social issue ratings to measure stakeholder management actions. We looked at ve broad areas of stakeholder management actions reported by KLD. Two dene and evaluate the rms actions toward specic stakeholder groups (employees and customers). The other three dene and evaluate the rms actions toward a wider part of society: the community, the environment, and diversity. KLD Research & Analytics collects and organizes corporate social responsibility data. Evaluations are provided for positive actions (strengths) and negative actions (concerns). The employee relations category includes a rms strengths in its relationships with unions, prot sharing, participative management, and strong retirement benets. Employee concerns include problems with union relations, safety issues, downsizings, and underfunded retirement plans. We operationalized the customer category as KLDs product evaluations. Strengths include quality, R&D, innovation, and products provided to the economically disadvantaged; concerns include problems with product safety, marketing, and antitrust controversies. We combined the KLD human rights ratings with the community ratings for our community, society, world group. KLDs community category includes charitable giving and other community activities as

strengths; concerns include investment and economic controversies. The human rights strengths include positive relationships with indigenous peoples near the rms operating plants, transparent disclosure about overseas sourcing, and good union relationships in other countries; concerns include operations or investment in Burma, problems with labor issues in other countries, and controversies involving indigenous peoples. KLDs environment category includes positive ratings for benecial products and climate-friendly policies (reducing pollution, recycling, using alternative fuels). Environmental concerns include problems with hazardous waste, regulatory problems, ozone depleting chemicals, emissions, and fuel revenues associated with oil or coal combustion. Independent variable Our independent variable is mission statement content. Each rms web site and annual report was checked for the rms 2001 mission statement. Since some academics and practitioners have used the terms mission, vision, philosophy, values, and goals interchangeably (see David, 1989; Levin, 2000), we dened mission statement broadly, similar to Leuthesser and Kohlis denition (1997), and included equivalent company descriptions and value statements that listed the same elements. Decisions were based on Ireland and Hitts (1992) and Pearce and Roths (1988) description of a mission statement. Thus, statements that included some of the following elements: purpose, goals, productmarkets, and values/philosophical views were included in our study. For some rms, we found value statements adjoining the rms mission statement. In these cases, due to the focus of the study (public declarations of social responsibility in missions), we examined both the value statement and the rms mission. We read each mission statement to see if it included phrases that referred to the following stakeholders and/or social issues: community, society, world, environment, diversity, employees, and customers. Since many rms refer to the importance of the community in their missions, but may use different yet similar words such as the world or society, we viewed all of these terms as community. Similarly, we used the terms associates and employees as referring to the rms employees. We also looked for specic terms in the mission

212

Barbara R. Bartkus and Myron Glassman Results Frequencies and t-test results are presented in Tables I and II. Table I shows the relationship between the content of the 2001 mission and 2001 KLD data, which allows us to test if missions are indicators of current stakeholder management practices (Hypotheses 1 and 3). We present the results for mission statements as indicators of past stakeholder management actions (i.e., 2001 missions and 2000 KLD data), in Table II. Hypothesis 1 predicted that rms with mission statements that include stakeholder issues would be more likely to successfully address these issues in practice than rms with missions that omit these issues. Therefore we expected signicantly more KLD strengths in rms that included the relevant elements in the mission statement and signicantly fewer KLD concerns. We found mixed support for this hypothesis. As shown in Table I, KLD ratings on most of the stakeholder/social issues do not differ for rms that include the relevant element in their mission as compared to rms that omit the element. We found no signicant differences among rms that included a reference to employees in the mission statement compared to rms that did not mention employees in their missions. The relationship between the inclusion of customers in the mission and

that referred to customers, environment, and diversity. We created dummy variables for each of the stakeholder groups and social issues included in missions. Statistical methods We used t-tests to look for differences between rms that included a specic element in the mission and rms with a mission that lacked the element. We used Levenes test for equality of variances to determine which t-ratio to examine to determine statistical signicance. For Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 3, we examined whether there were signicant differences in KLDs 2001 identication of strengths and concerns for rms that included specic elements in their 2001 missions as compared to rms that omitted those elements. If the mission statement was used as a guide to control behavior and decision making, we expected that we would nd signicantly more KLD strengths (for each element/issue) in rms that included the relevant elements in the mission statement and signicantly fewer KLD concerns. To test Hypothesis 2, we looked at the 2000 KLD social performance ratings and the elements included in the 2001 mission statements. This allows us to test our hypothesis that past social performance is reected in the mission.

TABLE I Mission statement content and stakeholder management actions (H1 and 3) Mission (frequency of term in mission) Customer (63%) Employee (34%) Diversity (19%) Environment (13%) Community, society, world (31%)
a

Stakeholder management actions in 2001 Product strengths Product concerns Employee strengths Employee concerns Diversity strengths Diversity concernsa Environment strengths Environment concerns Society strengthsb Society concernsc

Mean difference

t-value

Signif (2 tailed)

0.07 0.03 0.06 0.12 )0.10 )0.43 0.79 0.49 0.24 0.42

0.528 0.096 0.278 0.666 )0.194 )6.717*** 3.267*** 0.910 0.847 1.406

0.599 0.924 0.782 0.508 0.846 0.000 0.002 0.366 0.400 0.179

Unequal variances; used signif level for unequal variances. Society strengths = community strengths + non us str [human rights]. c Society concerns = community concerns + non us con [human rights]. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
b

Do Firms Practice What They Preach?

TABLE II Mission statement content as an indicator of prior stakeholder management (H2) Mission (frequency of term in mission) Customer (63%) Employee (34%) Diversity (19%) Environment (13%) Community, society, world (31%)
a

213

Stakeholder management actions in 2000 Product strengths Product concerns Employee strengths Employee concerns Diversity strengths Diversity concernsa Environment strengths Environment concerns Society strengthsb Society concernsc

Mean difference

t-value

Signif. (2 tailed)

0.08 0.17 0.04 0.12 )0.35 )0.31 0.40 0.59 )0.07 0.49

0.629 0.590 0.174 0.718 )0.642 )4.915*** 1.182 1.030 )0.231 1.672

0.532 0.557 0.863 0.476 0.523 0.000 0.268 0.307 0.818 0.117

Unequal variances; used signif level for unequal variances. Society strengths = community strengths + non us str [human rights]. c Society concerns = community concerns + non us con [human rights]. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
b

product-related strengths or product-related concerns was not signicant. However, in support of Hypothesis 1, our ndings indicate that rms that include diversity in the mission statement have signicantly fewer diversity concerns (p < 0.000). Our results also indicate that rms that include the environment in their mission statement have more environment-related strengths than rms that do not include this element in their mission (p < 0.002). However, the environmental concerns difference between rms that mention environment and rms that do not mention environment in the mission was not signicant. Hypothesis 3 predicted that rms that included stakeholder issues in their missions would be less likely to successfully address these issues than rms that omitted stakeholder issues. We found no support for Hypothesis 3. Table II shows the results of our test of Hypothesis 2, the perspective that mission statements are more likely to be written after the fact and, as such, are descriptions of what the rm has done in the recent past. We found no signicant differences for rms that include customers or employees in the mission and rms that do not mention these stakeholders. We did, however, nd that rms that had more diversity-related concerns were less likely to emphasize diversity in their mission statement (p < 0.000).

Discussion Mission statements have become a public disclosure that concisely describes the rm as executives want the rm to be perceived. Originally simple statements of the organizations purpose, missions now include commitments to social issues (protecting the environment, encouraging diversity, supporting the community). Our study indicates that the most commonly included elements in missions (i.e., mentioning specic stakeholder groups) are the least likely to have a signicant impact on rm actions. However, elements that are not included in the prescriptive literature (social issues such as diversity and environment), are signicantly related to stakeholder management actions. We found that rms that include diversity in the mission statement had signicantly fewer diversity concerns or conversely, rms that omitted diversityrelated issues in their missions had more diversity concerns. Since the issue of diversity is not a typical part of a rms mission diversity does not describe the product market, or the strategy, or identify particular stakeholders as a priority, we surmise that diversity was part of the mission statement because diversity issues were also included in the organizations day-to-day operating directives. This perspective has additional support considering the nding that rms with a recent history of diversity

214

Barbara R. Bartkus and Myron Glassman stakeholders, but our ndings suggest that they are not included to guide decision-making, nor are they included as attempts to whitewash or cover-up negative actions or counter negative publicity. Including specic stakeholder groups in missions may be a public kindness in a world in which legally, stockholders are still the primary group to be satised. Such public gestures may be largely symbolic. Due to the conicts among fullling stakeholder needs and limited resources, many managers may prefer symbolism (see Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990). Although there is a temptation to explain the disconnect between the mention of specic stakeholder groups in missions and organizational action as a result of top managements attempt to persuade or manipulate the public into believing that the rm is highly stakeholder-oriented, Suchman (1995, p. 588) asserts the argument that organizations insincerely manage symbolism in order to dupe naive audiences may be somewhat overdrawn. Occasionally, audiences will actually desire a symbolic response, in order to further their own cultural or political objectives. This suggests that everyone feels a little better when included in the mission statement, even with full knowledge that their inclusion does not really make a difference. The nding that stakeholder groups were more commonly included in missions but had no relationship to rm actions lends support for a symbolic and institutional perspective (Meyer and Rowan, 1977), particularly because the less commonly included issues were associated with rm action. Most of the previous research has focused on the most common elements of mission statements, with mixed results from the studies that investigated relationships between elements of mission statements and rm performance. Perhaps, it would be more fruitful to look at the more unusual mission statements. Firms with mission statements that do not closely follow the norm might also have missions that inuence rm nancial and social performance. Additional studies are also needed to investigate if accuracy in mission statements leads to a better reputation and therefore improved nancial returns. Returning to our initial question, Do rms practice what they preach in their mission? the answer is sometimes. With respect to the stakeholders we studied, employees, customers, and society, the answer is no. Firms do not walk the

concerns omitted mentioning diversity in their missions in the following year. Although we have no earlier data for comparison, diversity may have been included in some mission statements as a reaction to the discrimination problems in the 1990s in rms such as Dennys Restaurants, the Coca-Cola Company, and Texaco. These rms and others were forced to include specic goals, and institute internal monitoring procedures and auditing systems as part of the settlement in these cases (see McKay, 2000; Schafer, 2000; Segal, 1999). It appears that positive stakeholder management actions regarding diversity are both a cause of mission statement content and an effect. An interesting nding is that relatively few rms mentioned the environment in their mission statement, but the rms that do include a reference to the environment have more environmental strengths. Thus, with respect to the environment, there is a connection between missions and rm action. It is important to note that our ndings refer to a positive relationship among environmental strengths (as measured by KLD) and mission content. We found no relationship between environmental concerns and mission content. This suggests that our nding is not industry-related. If rms in environment-unfriendly industries were more likely to include environment in the mission, we would have expected a signicant relationship between environmental concerns and the inclusion of a reference to the environment because KLDs environmental concerns include companies operating in industries that are likely to have a negative impact on the environment such as manufacturers of ozone depleting chemicals, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, coal and oil producers, utilities, transportation companies, automobile and truck manufacturers, etc. Environmental strengths are only associated with mission statement content in the same year. We are unable to determine if the relationship is because the mission statement was meant to be a guide to management decision making, or if the mission statement was intended purely as a public relations maneuver but inuenced executives and employees through auto-communication. We found that references to specic stakeholder groups (employees, customers, and community) were not related to stakeholder management actions. Mentioning stakeholders in missions may be an attempt to publicly acknowledge the importance of

Do Firms Practice What They Preach? talk. These elements are relatively common in mission statements, suggesting that these stakeholders are mentioned because it is expected (i.e., institutional reasons). With respect to the two social issues we investigated, diversity and the environment, there are a number of possible reasons why we found evidence that rms walk the talk. First, the inclusion of these issues is not prescribed. No one can be faulted if they are not included. This suggests that there are specic policy-related reasons that some social issues are woven into company mission statements. Second, because various groups and the government scrutinize rm performance in these areas, a rm that makes an untrue statement is likely to attract more attention. Thus, if the rm has internal guidelines that would oppose positive actions in these areas, the logical and credible course is avoid the talk not mentioning an issue when performance is poor. This study offers a new look at missions: their alignment (or misalignment) with rm actions. As such, it is somewhat preliminary in nature. Our ndings indicate that some content areas of missions are based on institutional pressures while others are related to actions. Longitudinal studies would be helpful to determine if stakeholder management actions changed as mission statements were revised or altered, or if missions have a long-term effect (positive or negative) on rm actions. A limitation is that some divisions of rms have separate (additional) mission statements, as do some departments and functional areas. These operationalunit missions may not be as publicized (or not publicized at all) and may reinforce the organizational mission, be unrelated to the organizational mission, or counteract the organizational mission. References
Ashforth, B. E. and B. W. Gibbs: 1990, The Doubleedge of Organizational Legitimation, Organization Science 1(2), 177194. Bailey, J. A.: 1996, Measuring Your Mission, Management Accounting 44(3), 4447. Bart, C. K.: 1997a, Sex, Lies, and Mission Statements, Business Horizons 40(6), 918. Bart, C. K.: 1997b, Industrial Firms and the Power of Mission, Industrial Marketing Management 26(4), 371 383.

215

Bart, C. K.: 1998, Mission Matters, CA Magazine 131(2), 3134. Bart, C. K. and M. C. Baetz: 1998, The Relationship Between Mission Statements and Firm Performance: An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Management Studies 35(6), 823853. Bart, C. K., N. Bontis and S. Taggar: 2001, A Model of the Impact of Mission Statements on Firm Performance, Management Decision 39(1), 1935. Bart, C. K. and M. Hupfer: 2004, Mission Statements in Canadian Hospitals, Journal of Health Organization and Management 18(2), 92110. Bartkus, B. R., M. Glassman and R. B. McAfee: 2000, Mission Statements: are They Smoke and Mirrors?, Business Horizons 43(6), 2328. Bartkus, B. R., M. Glassman and R. B. McAfee: 2004, A Comparison of the Quality of European, Japanese and U. S. Mission Statements: A Content Analysis, European Management Journal 22(4), 393401. Campbell, A.: 1997, Mission Statements, Long Range Planning 30(6), 931932. Campbell, A. and M. Alexander: 1997, Whats Wrong with Strategy?, Harvard Business Review 75(6), 4249. Christensen, L. T.: 1997, Marketing as Auto-Communication, Consumption, Markets, and Culture 1(1), 197 228. David, F. R.: 1989, How Companies Dene Their Mission, Long Range Planning 22(1), 9097. Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston: 1995, The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 6591. Drucker, P. F.: 1973, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (Harper & Row, New York). Fairfax, L. M.: 2006, The Rhetoric of Corporate Law: The Impact of Stakeholder Rhetoric on Corporate Norms, Journal of Corporation Law 31(3), 675718. Herbig, P. and J. Milewicz: 1995, To be or Not to beCredible that is: A Model of Reputation and Credibility Among Competing Firms, Marketing Intelligence & Planning 13(6), 2433. Hillman, A. J. and G. D. Keim: 2001, Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: Whats the Bottom Line?, Strategic Management Journal 22(2), 125140. Ireland, R. and M. Hitt: 1992, Mission Statements: Importance, Challenge and Recommendations for Development, Business Horizons 35(3), 3443. Kaptein, M.: 2004, Business Codes of Multinational Firms: What do They Say?, Journal of Business Ethics 50(1), 1331. Krohe, J., Jr.: 1995, Do You Really Need a Mission Statement?, Across the Board 32(7), 1621.

216

Barbara R. Bartkus and Myron Glassman

Pearce, J., II and K. Roth: 1988, Multi Nationalization of the Mission Statement, SAM Advanced Management Journal (Summer), 3944. Pfeffer, J. and G. R. Salancik: 1978, The External Control of Organizations, a Resource Dependence Perspective (Harper and Row, New York). Plender, J.: 2003, Lights Flash, Financial Times, March 31, 26. Schafer, S.: 2000, Coke to Pay $193 Million in Bias Suit; Black Employees Sought Damages, The Washington Post, November 17, Final A01. Segal, D.: 1999, Dennys Serves Up a Sensitive Image: Restaurant Chain Launches PR Drive to Show Minorities It Has Changed Its Ways, Washington Post, April 7, Final E01. Suchman, M.: 1995, Managing Legitimacy: Strategy and Institutional Approaches, Academy of Management Review 20(3), 571610. Vogt, J.: 1994, Demystifying the Mission Statement, Nonprot World 12(1), 2932. Waddock, S. and N. Smith: 2000, Corporate Responsibility Audits. Doing Well by Doing Good, Sloan Management Review 41(2), 7583. Cambridge. Winter 2000. Wright, J. N.: 2002, Mission and Reality and Why not?, Journal of Change Management 3(1), 3044.

Leuthesser, L. and C. Kohli: 1997, Corporate Identity: The Role of Mission Statements, Business Horizons 40(3), 5967. Levin, I. M.: 2000, Vision Revisited, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36(1), 91107. Mahon, J. F. and S. L. Wartick: 2003, Dealing with Stakeholders: How Reputation, Credibility and Framing Inuence the Game, Corporate Reputation Review 6(1), 1933. McKay, B.: 2000. For Cokes Big Race Lawsuit, a New Wild Card a Flamboyant Lawyer Known for Winning Big Awards Joins the Fray for Plaintiffs, The Wall Street Journal, April 14, B1. Meyer, J. W. and B. Rowan: 1977, Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony, American Journal of Sociology 83(2), 340363. Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle and D. J. Wood: 1997, Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identication and Salience: Dening the Principle of Who and What Really Counts, Academy of Management Review 22(4), 853886. Moore, G.: 1993, The Demise of Ethical Schizophrenia?, Business Strategy Review 4(1), 5366. Morsing, M.: 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility as Strategic Auto-Communication: On the Role of External Stakeholders for Member Identication, Business Ethics: A European Review 15(2), 171182. OGorman, C. and R. Doran: 1999, Mission Statements in Small and Medium-Sized Businesses, Journal of Small Business Management 37(4), 5966. Pearce, J. A. and F. R. David: 1987, Corporate Mission Statements: The Bottom Line, Academy of Management Executive 1(2), 109116.

Department of Business Administration, Old Dominion University, 49th & Hampton, Norfolk, VA 23529, U.S.A. E-mail: bbartkus@odu.edu