Thomas Maak
email: thomas.maak@unisa.edu.au

Nicola M Pless
email: nicola.pless@unisa.edu.au

Christian Voegtlin
email: christian.voegtlin@uzh.ch

Carol Kulik

William Mckinley

CEO responsible leadership styles and the micro-foundations of political CSR

Keywords: CEO leadership, leadership complexity, political CSR, responsible leadership, upper echelons

In this article we pursue two objectives. First, we refine the concept of responsible leadership from an upper echelon perspective by exploring two distinct styles (instrumental and integrative) and thereby further develop the understanding of the newly emerging integrative style. Second, we propose a framework that examines the micro-foundations of political corporate social responsibility (CSR). We explicate how the political CSR engagement of organizations (in social innovation and multi-stakeholder initiatives) is influenced by responsible leadership styles and posit that most CEOs tend to espouse either instrumental or integrative responsible leadership approaches, based on perceived moral obligations toward shareholders or stakeholders. We examine the moderating effects of societal-and organizational-level factors (such as power distance and corporate governance), and individual-level influences (such as cognitive and social complexity). We discuss both approaches with respect to their effectiveness in dealing with political CSR challenges in a complex environment and conclude that an instrumental responsible leadership style may be effective in relatively stable settings with strong institutional arrangements, while the complex and unstable context of a post-national constellation with weak institutions calls for an integrative responsible leadership style. The latter can be expected to be more effective in dealing with political CSR challenges in a global world, contributing to closing governance gaps and producing sustainable outcomes for societies.

corporations (MNCs), there is increasing pressure from stakeholders (among them NGOs, consumers, and the broader public) on MNCs and their leaders to use their power and influence to take on more active roles as global citizens, beyond charitable action [START_REF] Maak | Business leaders as citizens of the world. Advancing humanism on a global scale[END_REF][START_REF] Stahl | Responsible global leadership[END_REF][START_REF] Voegtlin | Responsible leadership in global business: A new approach to leadership an its multi-level outcomes[END_REF]. Business leaders are expected to fill the void left by weak governments and failing states in areas such as regulation, public administration (health, education, and social security), or environmental protection, and to practice self-regulation and contribute to the production of global public goods [START_REF] Gilbert | Accountability in a global economy: The emergence of international accountability standards[END_REF][START_REF] Matten | Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization[END_REF][START_REF] Rasche | The United Nations Global Compact: Retrospect and prospect[END_REF]Scherer andPalazzo, 2008, 2011). At the same time, "neo-liberal" reforms have led to a privatization of former public services in areas such as education, health care, water, and civic services [START_REF] Crouch | Typologies of capitalism[END_REF], blurring the boundaries between the political, civil, and economic spheres of society [START_REF] Mäkinen | Pluralism in political corporate social responsibility[END_REF]. Moreover, executives are often confronted with unavoidable and difficult political corporate social responsibility (CSR) challenges (see [START_REF] Moody-Stuart | Responsible Leadership: Lessons From the Front Line of Sustainability and Ethics[END_REF]) that require immediate attention and need to be resolved competently to ensure organizational legitimacy. For example, the leadership of Heineken, the Dutch-based global brewing company, was recently confronted with the challenge of whether it should stop its long-time business operations in war-torn Congo and was struggling to find a clear answer. On the one hand, the company contributes to the civic infrastructure through its "brewing a better future" program and its investment in basic education, health programs, and agricultural projects; on the other hand, the company's leadership faced mounting criticism that the soldiers' excessive beer consumption contributed to the violent conflict [START_REF] Baaz | Making sense of violence: voices of soldiers in the Congo (DRC)[END_REF].

For the purpose of this paper we define political CSR as activities that are traditionally understood as governmental responsibilities (e.g., enforcing human rights, and providing public goods and services, such as education and infrastructure), and that businesses undertake to contribute to public policies and global governance [START_REF] Scherer | The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy[END_REF][START_REF] Scherer | The business firm as a political actor: A new theory of the firm for a globalized world[END_REF]. Political CSR involves multiple stakeholders with different interests and demands, a high degree of local-global tension and thus conflicting norms and standards, or even moral dilemmas (Pless and Maak, 2011). As a consequence, political CSR in the global arena comes with higher levels of complexity and ambiguity (Child and Rodriguez, 2011;[START_REF] Jones | Unpacking complexity through critical stakeholder analysis the case of globalization[END_REF][START_REF] Kostova | Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise[END_REF] and its effectiveness also depends on responsible leadership from chief executive officers (CEOs) [START_REF] Moody-Stuart | Responsible Leadership: Lessons From the Front Line of Sustainability and Ethics[END_REF].

A unifying definition of responsible leadership has yet to emerge. However, there is agreement among scholars that different understandings of responsible leadership exist [START_REF] Miska | Intercultural competencies as antecedents of responsible global leadership[END_REF]Pless et al., 2012;[START_REF] Stahl | Antecedents of responsible leader behavior: A research synthesis, conceptual framework, and agenda for future research[END_REF][START_REF] Waldman | Defining the socially responsible leader[END_REF] and that interaction with stakeholders constitute an important part of responsible leadership [START_REF] Doh | Responsible leadership and stakeholder management: Influence pathways and organizational outcomes[END_REF]Pless and Maak, 2011;[START_REF] Stahl | Responsible global leadership[END_REF][START_REF] Voegtlin | Responsible leadership in global business: A new approach to leadership an its multi-level outcomes[END_REF]. We define responsible leadership as a relational influence process between leaders and stakeholders geared towards the establishment of accountability in matters pertaining to organizational value creation.

Further, we conceive of the responsible leadership style as observable leader behavior that reflects different degrees of such accountability in executive actions and decisions (Pless et al., 2014). This behavior can be evaluated by observers, such as subordinates ("classical followers"), peers, and external constituencies.

The call for business leaders to act as responsible citizens and statesmen [START_REF] Chin | Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives values on corporate social responsibility[END_REF] mirrors "the new political role of business in a globalized world" [START_REF] Scherer | The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy[END_REF], and concomitantly that of top executives as corporate representatives and decision-makers who act on behalf of the corporation, and respond to socio-political challenges. CEOs in particular shape the decision-making context in their organizations: they influence, and often determine, assessments pertaining to the vision, mission, and strategic direction of their organization [START_REF] Finkelstein | Strategic leadership[END_REF], including CSR initiatives [START_REF] Chin | Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives values on corporate social responsibility[END_REF]McWilliams and Siegel, 2011) and stakeholder interaction and thus influence the discourse on, and the management of, societal responsibilities of business organizations [START_REF] Mäkinen | Pluralism in political corporate social responsibility[END_REF][START_REF] Matten | Implicit" and "explicit" CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility[END_REF][START_REF] Scherer | Toward a political conception of corporate social responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective[END_REF]. In this article we focus on strategic choices of CEOs with regard to multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) and social innovation. Both are central indicators of political CSR: engagement of business organizations in MSIs is central to closing global governance gaps [START_REF] Mena | Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives[END_REF][START_REF] Rasche | Global policies and local practice: Loose and tight couplings in multistakeholder initiatives[END_REF], while social innovations are essential in addressing pressing public interest problems [START_REF] Voegtlin | Responsible innovation and the innovation of responsibility: Governing sustainable development in a globalized world[END_REF].

Upper echelon theory [START_REF] Hambrick | Upper echelons theory: an update[END_REF][START_REF] Hambrick | Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers[END_REF] has shown that CEOs make choices in accordance with highly individualized lenses, formed by their experiences, personalities, and values [START_REF] Chin | Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives values on corporate social responsibility[END_REF][START_REF] Hambrick | Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers[END_REF]. CEOs with a stakeholder perspective and other-regarding view will consider broader issues of human rights and justice in the system in which they operate [START_REF] Agle | Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values[END_REF]. Those who consider themselves agents of shareholders are less likely to emphasize CSR and thus issues pertaining to ethics and social responsibility [START_REF] Godos-Diez | How important are CEOs to CSR practices? An analysis of the mediating effect of the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility[END_REF]). Yet, despite indications that CEOs are decisive in shaping CSR we still know little about how a CEO's responsible leadership style may influence CSR [START_REF] Christensen | Taking responsibility for corporate social responsibility: The role of leaders in creating, implementing, sustaining, or avoiding socially responsible firm behaviors[END_REF], let alone political CSR. This is not surprising, considering that most research on CSR so far has focused on the macrolevel of firms [START_REF] Aguinis | What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility[END_REF][START_REF] Devinney | Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility[END_REF][START_REF] Siegel | Responsible leadership[END_REF]; it is only recently that attention has been directed to micro-level CSR [START_REF] Christensen | Taking responsibility for corporate social responsibility: The role of leaders in creating, implementing, sustaining, or avoiding socially responsible firm behaviors[END_REF]. For instance, [START_REF] Voegtlin | Responsible leadership in global business: A new approach to leadership an its multi-level outcomes[END_REF] examined the positive influence of responsible leaders on multi-level outcomes. [START_REF] Stahl | Antecedents of responsible leader behavior: A research synthesis, conceptual framework, and agenda for future research[END_REF] propose a multi-level model of antecedents of responsible leader behavior. They distinguish between two types of socially responsible behavior ("do good" and "avoid harm") and explicate a leader's propensity to engage in such behavior. [START_REF] Doh | Responsible leadership and stakeholder management: Influence pathways and organizational outcomes[END_REF] understand responsible leadership behavior as going beyond "doing no harm" and making a contribution to value creation in regard to multiple bottom lines. This perspective is in line with the approach pursued in this paper, which examines responsible leadership in relation to political CSR.

The key argument in this paper is that a CEO's responsible leadership style (determined by the CEO's value orientation) influences a firm's engagement in political CSR and its effectiveness in dealing with political CSR challenges in a global world. To date, the discussion at the interface of leadership and political CSR is very limited. One focus has been directed on leaders' engagement in public policy shaping. Some scholars suggest that managers and CEOs should actively try to shape CSR policies in their favor (Keim and Hillmann, 2008, p. 52) through direct or discreet lobbying, voluntary agreements, and so forth [START_REF] Lawton | Corporate political activity: A literature review and research agenda[END_REF]. Other scholars have investigated the CEO's political orientation and its effect on CSR. Chin and colleagues (2013) found that organizations led by CEOs with a liberal orientation show a stronger engagement in CSR than organizations led by CEOs with a conservative orientation, moderated by the power of the CEO (measured as relative power to the board) and by the company's recent performance. Borghesi and colleagues (2014) studied the influence of CEOs' political orientation (measured by the donations to the Democratic or Republican parties) and CEO characteristics (e.g., their age and gender) on their firms' CSR investment.

Here, we specifically examine the roles and responsibilities of leaders in the changing geopolitical context and take a broader view of political CSR. Shifts in the geopolitical arena have resulted in emerging governance gaps [START_REF] Kobrin | Globalization, transnational corporations and the future of global governance[END_REF] and raised the question of the new political role of business in a globalized world (e.g., Scherer andPalazzo, 2007, 2011). In the absence of enforceable global governance regimes, the social responsibilities of corporations take on a new explicit political dimension [START_REF] Scherer | The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy[END_REF]. Corporationsand their leadersare expected to help fill governance gaps by regulating their own impact on communities and the environment. In failing, or so-called rogue states, they might be expected to become active political actors and agents of justice or human rights [START_REF] Maak | The cosmopolitical corporation[END_REF].

More specifically, we build on the work of [START_REF] Waldman | Alternative perspectives of responsible leadership[END_REF], Pless et al. (2012) and [START_REF] Doh | Responsible leadership and stakeholder management: Influence pathways and organizational outcomes[END_REF] to develop a multi-level model that explains the link between individual responsible leadership behavior and political CSR at the organizational level. The central variable in our model is the enactment of responsible leadership behaviors, displayed in two distinctive stylesan instrumental and an integrative responsible leadership style (see Figure 1). This endeavor to examine the process between individual leadership behavior, influenced by leaders' value orientation, and organizational outcomes helps to fill a gap in the management literature about the micro foundations of CSR [START_REF] Aguinis | What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility[END_REF]; and the endeavor to illuminate the process between internal/unobservable value orientation and external/observable leadership behavior helps to shed light into the black box of strategic leadership discussed in upper echelon theory [START_REF] Hambrick | Upper echelons theory: an update[END_REF]. This paper contributes to and in fact links two discussions: the micro-foundations of political CSR and the responsible leadership literature. Despite a growing literature, research on political CSR still focuses predominantly on the business-society relationship and misses its micro-level foundations. Moreover, theorizing on political CSR is limited so far to descriptive and normative accounts (such as "Habermasian" or "Rawlsian" theories of democracy; [START_REF] Whelan | The political perspective of corporate social responsibility: A critical research agenda[END_REF] and lacks a focus on predictive influences that can offer a more nuanced explanation of "how"' and "why" firms engage in political CSR. The framework we develop in this article addresses these limitations in specifying how the political CSR engagement of organizations is influenced by the CEO's responsible leadership style. More specifically, we further refine the newly emerging integrative responsible leadership style in light of raising expectations pertaining to political CSR, contributing to a deeper understanding of responsible leadership and its various influences and outcomes.

-

-------------------------------------------- INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE ---------------------------------------------
The paper consists of two parts. In the first part of the paper we introduce the main components of our modelresponsible leadership behaviors, value orientations and political CSR outcomes, and discuss the relationship between them. The second part of the paper is dedicated to the discussion of multi-level moderating factors. We start the first part of the paper with introducing responsible leadership as an upper echelon construct and describing two behavioral styles of CEOs (instrumental and integrative leadership). Then we introduce the constructs of fiduciary duty and social welfare orientation-the normative states that motivate leaders to apply a specific responsible leadership style. After having established the link between value orientations and leadership styles, we examine how responsible leadership styles influence political CSR outcomes at the organizational level. At this point it could be concluded that organizations simply need to appoint the right CEO. However, we argue that even CEOs with a social welfare orientation will struggle to engage in integrative responsible leadership behavior depending on their skills and the context in which they operate.

Therefore, we examine in the second part of the paper the moderating effects of individuallevel influences (such as cognitive and social complexity) and organizational and societal level-factors (such as power distance and corporate governance). Finally, we discuss both leadership styles with respect to their effectiveness in dealing with political CSR challenges in a global world and conclude that CEOs with an integrative responsible leadership style will be more successful than leaders with an instrumental responsible leadership style when leading in complex conditions and unstable environments. We conclude the paper by delineating theoretical and practical implications (e.g. for CEO selection and development) and directions for future research.

RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR, IDIVIDUAL ANTECEDENTS AND POLITICAL CSR OUTCOMES

Applying an upper echelon perspective we examine responsible leadership from a strategic perspective [START_REF] Finkelstein | Strategic leadership[END_REF]. We specifically focus on top executives -CEOs with overall responsibility for the management, conduct and performance of an organization.

According to upper echelon theory organizations can be understood as a reflection of their top executives [START_REF] Hambrick | Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers[END_REF][START_REF] Hambrick | Upper echelons theory: an update[END_REF]. While we acknowledge that there are limits within which executives operate, such as environmental and organizational constraints (e.g. legal and fiscal barriers, governance, organizational culture), we share the premise that the characteristics of top executives affect organizational behavior and outcomes.

To understand why organizations pursue different approaches towards political CSR we want to examine here the relationship between leadership behavior and political CSR. Figure 1 provides an overview of the first part of the paper and visualizes the two stages in this model:

The first stage transitions from an internal/unobservable CEO value orientation to external/observable CEO behavior (propositions 1 and 2). CEO behavior in turn generates organizational activity in the second stage (propositions 3 and 4). Theoretically, we draw on values theories [START_REF] Latham | Work Motivation Theory and Research at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century[END_REF][START_REF] Schwartz | Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries[END_REF] to explain the link between leaders' value orientation and the observable leadership style, and on upper echelons theory [START_REF] Finkelstein | Strategic leadership[END_REF][START_REF] Hambrick | Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers[END_REF] to explain the link between CEO leadership style and organizational outcomes.

In the following, we will start by shedding light on the central variable in our model and describe the two distinctive styles discussed in the literature. We will then explore the micro foundations of responsible leadership by examining the relationship between CEO value orientation and CEO behavior. In other words, we will explore how the responsible leadership style is influenced by a leader's perception of his/her moral obligations. We argue that CEOs vary in their values and posit that their moral belief to whom they are accountable to influences their behavior and choices. We posit that most CEOs tend to espouse either an instrumental or integrative responsible leadership approach, based on perceived moral obligations toward shareholders or stakeholders. Finally, we explicate how the political CSR engagement of organizations is influenced by those responsible leadership styles. More specifically, we theorize that the integrative style is supportive of an organization's engagement in MSIs and its capabilities for developing social innovation.

Responsible Leadership Behavior: Description of Two Styles

Leadership is understood as an influence process, "whereby one person exerts influence over other people to guide, structure, and facilitate activities and relationships" (Yukl, 2012, p. 6) in order to achieve certain objectives. Leaders, specifically those at the upper echelon, have an outstanding position of power and control through which they impact stakeholders and thus have a particular responsibility when exercising their power [START_REF] Eisenbeiss | Re-thinking ethical leadership: An interdisciplinary integrative approach[END_REF][START_REF] Kacperczyk | With greater power comes greater responsibility? Takeover protection and corporate attention to stakeholders[END_REF]. This is specifically relevant in regard to political CSR issues, where leaders' behavior (e.g. decision making) often has an impact beyond the organization and can affect society at large. We argue here that how CEOs handle political CSR issues depends on their responsible leadership style. In line with research on responsible leadership (Pless et al., 2012;[START_REF] Waldman | Alternative perspectives of responsible leadership[END_REF], we distinguish between instrumental and integrative responsible leadership styles. We draw on this distinction, because it is fundamental to the discussion on responsible leadership and CSR. In fact, it was a point of departure for discussions about leaders' scope of responsibility [START_REF] Waldman | Alternative perspectives of responsible leadership[END_REF][START_REF] Waldman | Defining the socially responsible leader[END_REF] and surfaces in most CSR categorizations [START_REF] Garriga | Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory[END_REF][START_REF] Scherer | Toward a political conception of corporate social responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Windsor | Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches[END_REF].

Finally, empirical studies start to confirm this distinction in executive leadership behavior (Pless et al., 2012). However, the behavioral implications of both approaches have not yet been fleshed out in detail. Following upper echelon research, we want to provide such detail. [START_REF] Hambrick | Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers[END_REF]. In the following, we will describe the responsible leadership styles from the point of view of observers focusing specifically on such behavioral categories relevant to the upper echelons of organizations, namely leadership vision, approach to leading people, focus of value creation, stakeholder relations, and decision making [START_REF] Finkelstein | Strategic leadership[END_REF][START_REF] Freeman | Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation and Success[END_REF]Pless et al., 2012;[START_REF] Waldman | Leadership and neuroscience: Can we revolutionize the way that inspirational leaders are identified and developed?[END_REF] (see Table 1).

- --------------------------------------------INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE ---------------------------------------------

Instrumental Responsible Leadership Style

Instrumental responsible business leaders can be observed to drive the business with a strategic focus on business performance (Pless et al., 2012), paying limited attention to noncore business issues [START_REF] Hahn | Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames[END_REF]. Such a focus is often expressed in a personalized vison characterized by a task focus like achieving organizational objectives (e.g. maximizing profits, realizing growth) or dominance over competition [START_REF] Waldman | Leadership and neuroscience: Can we revolutionize the way that inspirational leaders are identified and developed?[END_REF]. An example provides the following statement by T.J. [START_REF] Rodgers | Cypress core values[END_REF], CEO of Cypress Semiconductors, who said: "We will transform Cypress from a traditional broad-line semiconductor company to the leading supplier of programmable solutions in systems everywhere." According to [START_REF] Waldman | Leadership and neuroscience: Can we revolutionize the way that inspirational leaders are identified and developed?[END_REF], task-oriented, personalized visions are perceived by followers as less inspirational.

When it comes to stakeholder relations, instrumental responsible leaders are observed to have regular interactions only with a limited number of key business stakeholders, such as employees, governments and investors [START_REF] Finkelstein | Strategic leadership[END_REF]Pless et al., 2012). Regarding internal stakeholder relations (e.g. employees), they are perceived to lead by objectives through setting high performance business goals and to focus on managing employees' performance and excellence to meet these goals [START_REF] Bass | Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications[END_REF]. In this spirit, T.J. Rodgers is described by the media as a task-oriented leader focusing on employees meeting target goals.

Stakeholders will also notice that leaders with an instrumental style rather behave in an autocratic, transactional and/or rule-based manner (Pless et al., 2012). With regard to external stakeholders, they are perceived to have interactions with only few stakeholder groups (low degree of connection) and apply instrumental, economic means-end relationships [START_REF] Hahn | Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames[END_REF]) and exclusive, boundary setting behavior by responding only to those constituencies that are either beneficial or, according to Mitchell et al.'s (1997) stakeholder salience framework, have power (e.g. governments, legislators) and/or can create urgency (e.g. media).

Due to their dominant focus on highly selective stakeholder groups and limited attention to non-core business issues [START_REF] Hahn | Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames[END_REF] these leaders can be observed to show a reactive approach to broader stakeholder demands.

In regard to decision making, instrumental leaders are perceived as being rational (Pless et al., 2012). They approach CSR related decision situations with known objectives, searching for information about how selected societal issues provide potential business benefits (Hahn et al., 2014, p. 470) and justifying their choices with a business-case logic [START_REF] Hahn | Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames[END_REF], as Jeff Immelt did when he introduced GE's Ecomimagination campaign in 2005: "We are investing in environmentally cleaner technology because we believe it will increase our revenue, our value and our profits... Not because it is trendy or moral, but because it will accelerate our growth and make us more competitive."

Integrative Responsible Leadership Style

Responsible leaders with an integrative style showcase a broad and balanced approach towards value creation and lead the business with a focus on business and societal objectives (in this sense we apply here the term "double-bottom-line" used by [START_REF] Miller | Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship[END_REF]). This can be observed in the approach of Danone's former CEO and current Chairman Frank Riboud who leads the firm as "a business that creates economic value by creating social value" [START_REF] Kruglianskas | Sustainability as innovation strategy: How sustainability and innovation drive each other and company competitiveness at danone[END_REF]. Integrative CEOs are perceived as leaders who use communication and vision statements as an active leadership tool. Stakeholders will be addressed by integrative leaders with messages that highlight a positive impact on society. In the case of Unilever's CEO Paul Polman, the company website states: "Under his leadership Unilever has an ambitious vision to fully decouple its growth from overall environmental footprint and increase its positive social impact through the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan." (Unilever, 2015).

In running their business, integrative CEOs can be observed to act as networkers [START_REF] Maak | Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society: A relational perspective[END_REF] and take on boundary spanning roles [START_REF] Chakravarthy | The sharing imperative[END_REF][START_REF] Hart | Roles executives play: CEOs, behavioral complexity, and firm performance[END_REF][START_REF] Noble | The role of boundary-spanning managers in the establishment of public-private partnerships[END_REF]Jones, 2006, Williams, 2002). They are widely connected [START_REF] Hahn | Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames[END_REF] and interact with a large range of legitimate stakeholders (Pless et al., 2012), including NGOs.

They not only represent the firm to external constituencies or engage in government relations and investor relations, but can be observed to facilitate communication, collaboration and alignment among stakeholders. They initiate activities that span across organizational boundaries, often linking organizations from other industries and sectors. For example, Franck Riboud spun boundaries when he approached Mohammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank [START_REF] Yunus | Creating a World without Poverty[END_REF] to investigate possibilities for collaboration in the pursuit of poverty alleviation.

Last, but not least, when it comes to decision making, integrative leaders can be observed to facilitate inclusive processes. Operating in a complex business environment, they are often confronted with conflicting stakeholder interests and demands. In such situations they show consideration for the interests, needs, and rights of a broad range of legitimate constituencies [START_REF] Doh | Responsible leadership and stakeholder management: Influence pathways and organizational outcomes[END_REF]Pless and Maak, 2011;[START_REF] Voegtlin | Responsible leadership in global business: A new approach to leadership an its multi-level outcomes[END_REF]. Consider the example of setting up an extractive mine on indigenous land. In such a situation an integrative responsible leader would not restrict engagement to shareholders and governments, as it happened in the case of the Goldcorp's Marlin Mine in Guatemala (Murphy and Vives, 2013).

Instead s/he would pursue a proactive, collaborative and inclusive approach and engage legitimate stakeholders (including fringe stakeholders) in the planning process and in ongoing discourse throughout different project stages and develop a jointly accepted approach.

Furthermore, when it comes to strategic decisions with impact on society integrative leaders can be observed to apply moral reasoning and make prosocial choices. For instance, integrative leaders weigh the fit of potential options in light of the company's purpose as a corporate citizen [START_REF] Margolis | Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business[END_REF]. An example is Roy Vagelos' (former CEO of Merck) decision to develop and manufacture Mectizan, a drug against river blindness that was without commercial value because it was "needed only by people who couldn't afford it" (Useem, 1998, p. 10). He justified the decision of producing the drug for alleviating human suffering with reference to the mission of the organization ("Medicine for people not for profits") that values "health over wealth" (Useem, 1998, p. 23), thereby demonstrating the application of a "logic of appropriateness" [START_REF] Margolis | Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business[END_REF].

Leaders' Value Orientation and Their Effects on Leadership Behavior

In this section we explore the relationship between leaders' value orientations and their leadership behavior. We acknowledge that other determinants such as demographics, emotions, and personality traits may also influence responsible leadership behavior (see Stahl and Sully de DeLuque, 2014). However, our major interest here is to decipher the normative aspect-specifically value orientations, because they are stressed as being a crucial determinant for CEO behavior and choices both in the upper echelon literature (e.g. [START_REF] Chin | Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives values on corporate social responsibility[END_REF][START_REF] Finkelstein | Strategic leadership[END_REF][START_REF] Hambrick | Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers[END_REF] as well as in the responsible leadership literature [START_REF] Kark | Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes[END_REF]Pless et al., 2012;[START_REF] De Luque | Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates' perceptions of leadership and firm performance[END_REF].

Perceived moral obligations to act on behalf of certain stakeholder groups can be understood as value orientations [START_REF] Agle | Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values[END_REF], which may help to understand why some leaders are more likely to act in accordance with one of the two responsible leadership styles. According to Schwartz (1992, p. 4), values are concepts or beliefs that transcend specific situations and pertain to desirable end states or behaviors. They serve as guiding principles for selecting and justifying actions and evaluating others' interests and claims (Schwartz, 1992, p. 1).

According to [START_REF] Latham | Work Motivation Theory and Research at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century[END_REF], they are acquired through cognition and experience and influence behavior "because they are normative standards used to judge and choose among alternative behaviors" (p. 491).

Previous work confirmed a link between value orientation, leadership style and outcome [START_REF] Egri | Leadership in the North American environmental sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations[END_REF][START_REF] De Luque | Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates' perceptions of leadership and firm performance[END_REF]. Against this background we argue that a leader's value orientation (embodied in perceived moral obligations) predicts a leader's adherence to one of the two styles. More specifically, the role expectations of being a CEO create moral obligations to fulfill the perceived duties of that role and to satisfy concurring expectations pertaining to CEO accountability [START_REF] Schlenker | What makes a hero? The impact of integrity on admiration and interpersonal judgment[END_REF]. CEOs perceive moral obligations towards shareholders or other stakeholders, by whom they may be held accountable [START_REF] Hernandez | Toward an understanding of the psychology of stewardship[END_REF][START_REF] Jensen | Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure[END_REF]. However, the scope of the perceived moral obligations varies among leaders (Pless et al., 2012). The two dominant value orientations discussed in the literature are the perceived fiduciary duty as custodian of the firms' owners and the perceived duty to create long-term welfare for all stakeholders. In the following we discuss why and how those value orientations influence leadership behavior.

Drawing on [START_REF] Latham | Work Motivation Theory and Research at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century[END_REF] we understand the motivational side of values as a mechanism that links value and behavior.

Fiduciary Duty

Fiduciary duty is a perceived moral obligation that managers feel toward the owners of the firm. It is based on the psychological contract between the CEO and the organization [START_REF] Rousseau | Psychological and implied contracts in organizations[END_REF]. Thompson and Bunderson (2003, p. 571) define such a contract as the perception of the unwritten promises and obligations implicit in the relationship with the employing organization, leading to an implicit duty to fulfill the requirements of the job [START_REF] Rousseau | Psychological and implied contracts in organizations[END_REF]. In their role, CEOs are custodians of ownership interests in the firm with a psychological contract based on a reciprocal relationship with shareholders as their employers. CEOs who value the psychological contract and the resulting fiduciary duty highly are often motivated by the assumption that the best way to satisfy their personal needs is to fulfil shareholder obligations. Furthermore, the beliefs in the fiduciary duty are based on assumptions inherent to the economic theory of the firm (Jensen and Meckling, 2002). They comprise assumptions such as that economic actors (shareholders and managers alike) are rational, selective, and that CEOs most effectively serve shareholders when guided by selfinterest, resulting in a "learned" moral obligation of CEOs to satisfy shareholder demands [START_REF] Ghoshal | Bad management theories are destroying good management practices[END_REF]. Thus, if CEOs perceive the fiduciary duty to maximize value for shareholders as the primary part of their psychological employment contract this will in all likelihood have an impact on their behavior, be it in regard to their communicated vision or mission, focus of value creation, stakeholder relations, or decision making.

The fiduciary duty orientation will influence a CEO's pursued philosophy summarized in the mission of the firm. Leaders are motivated by the fiduciary duty to serve shareholders and to run the business with the primary purpose to make profit and maximize value for shareholders (Pless et al., 2012). It motivates them to engage selectively with those constituencies that are either threatening or beneficial to the firm in terms of running the business or providing business opportunities thereby serving shareholder value creation. In this sense it motivates economic means-end relationships [START_REF] Jones | Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture[END_REF][START_REF] Hahn | Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames[END_REF]) and thus, instrumental responsible leadership behavior.

A fiduciary orientation also influences decision making behavior by motivating CEOs to apply an economic cost-benefit logic. According to this logic, social responsible activities are only pursued if the calculated benefits associated with such an engagement are substantially higher than the costs or do not imply any cost at all [START_REF] Jensen | Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function[END_REF][START_REF] Mcwilliams | Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective[END_REF]. For instance, over years T. J. Rodgers has supported an employee initiative for firm engagement in a local philanthropic project called Harvest Food Bank Competition, which the firm has won over more than ten consecutive years. While staff donates privately bought food products (no shareholder money is used), it creates multiple business benefits that are attractive for the firm and its shareholders: "The contest creates competition among our divisions, leading to employee involvement, company food drives, internal social events with admissions 'paid for' by food donations, and so forth. It is a big employee morale builder, a way to attract new employees, good P.R. For the company, and a significant benefit for the communityall of which makes Cypress a better place to work and invest in." (T. J. [START_REF] Rodgers | Rethinking the social responsibility of business. A reason debate featuring Milton Friedman, Whole Foods' John Mackey[END_REF] In this vein, leaders with a strong sense of fiduciary duty will engage with and respond to stakeholders other than shareholders only if it serves their perceived psychological contract with shareholders and is beneficial for satisfying their interests.

Proposition 1: A CEO's perceived fiduciary duty to shareholders is positively related to an instrumental responsible leadership style.

Social Welfare Orientation

Social welfare orientation is a perceived moral obligation that CEOs feel towards a broader range of stakeholders [START_REF] Agle | Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values[END_REF][START_REF] Waldman | Defining the socially responsible leader[END_REF]. Their role understanding may include a perceived duty to create long-term welfare for all stakeholders [START_REF] Hernandez | Toward an understanding of the psychology of stewardship[END_REF]. This perception is not so much rooted in an implicit psychological contract between managers and the owners of a firm, but rather in a perceived social contract between the firm and society [START_REF] Donaldson | Ties That Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics[END_REF]. This broader notion of perceived obligations towards society is based on the belief that business firms are an integral part of society and that through their privileged position (access to resources, power and influence) firms have a responsibility to give back to society [START_REF] Young | Responsibility for Justice[END_REF]. This value orientation influences CEO choices at the strategic level of the firm. In regard to the purpose of the firm, while an instrumental leader, driven by a fiduciary duty, understands profit maximization as the purpose of doing business, a social welfare orientation motivates leaders to incorporate a social dimension (e.g. serving society) and display integrative stakeholder behavior. This does not mean that such leaders disregard economic performance, they simply do not understand shareholder value creation as the purpose of the firm, but as an outcome of a purposeful and successful business (Anderson, 2005;[START_REF] Freeman | Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation and Success[END_REF]Mackey, 2012), as the following quote shows: "What we firmly believe is that if we focus our company on improving the lives of the world's citizens and come up with genuine sustainable solutions, we are more in synch with consumers and society and ultimately this will result in good shareholder returns." (Paul Polman, CEO Unilever; in [START_REF] Confino | Unilever's Paul Polman: Challenging the corporate status quo[END_REF] A social welfare orientation also influences stakeholder-related decision making. In situations, where CEOs have to make critical decisions with an impact on stakeholders they do not rely on economic cost-benefit analysis, but are motivated and feel obliged to apply a prosocial cost-benefit analysis [START_REF] Miller | Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship[END_REF]. This means that an increased weight is placed on the needs of others-as in the Roy Vagelos case. Other-related outcomes (e.g. curing riverblindness) are valued more highly, thereby increasing the perceived benefits of acting on others' behalf (e.g. alleviate others' suffering) and reducing the importance of individual or economic benefit.

In conclusion, a leader's perceived social welfare orientation will, in all likelihood, influence his/her behavior and result in an integrative style.

Proposition 2: A CEO's perceived social welfare orientation is positively related to an integrative responsible leadership style.

Responsible Leadership Styles and Their Effects on Political CSR

In this section we examine the relationship between different forms of individual leadership behavior and political CSR at the organizational level. Upper echelons research has shown that espoused CEO characteristics explain variance in organizational outcomes such as financial performance, beyond contextual factors [START_REF] Hambrick | Toward more accurate contextualization of the CEO effect on firm performance[END_REF], and that CEOs play a crucial role in decision making processes regarding political CSR [START_REF] Borghesi | Corporate socially responsible investments: CEO altruism, reputation, and shareholder interests[END_REF][START_REF] Chin | Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives values on corporate social responsibility[END_REF].

For the purpose of this article we focus on two political CSR activities pertaining to the upper echelons of organizations, namely multi-stakeholder initiatives and social innovation.

Engagement in, and self-regulation of companies through multi-stakeholder initiatives is a key mechanism in closing global governance gaps [START_REF] Mena | Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives[END_REF][START_REF] Rasche | Global policies and local practice: Loose and tight couplings in multistakeholder initiatives[END_REF].

Social innovation, understood as the generation and implementation of novel products or processes to meet social needs [START_REF] Phills | Rediscovering social innovation[END_REF], is an important means to address the challenges in the provision of global public goods [START_REF] Voegtlin | Responsible innovation and the innovation of responsibility: Governing sustainable development in a globalized world[END_REF]. Thus, both are decisive factors in political CSR [START_REF] Scherer | The business firm as a political actor: A new theory of the firm for a globalized world[END_REF]. While there are other political CSR activities (e.g. cross-sector collaboration, see [START_REF] Doh | Responsible leadership and stakeholder management: Influence pathways and organizational outcomes[END_REF] that may be equally relevant, it is specifically MSI and social innovation that are discussed more broadly with regard to upper echelon involvement. For instance, upper echelon literature stresses the importance of leadership in the generation of innovation (e.g. [START_REF] Finkelstein | Strategic leadership[END_REF] and the governance literature stresses the importance of senior leadership in MSI (e.g. Kang, 2015;[START_REF] Voegtlin | Global governance: CSR and the role of the UN Global Compact[END_REF]. In both cases CEOs commitment, involvement and support is needed.

Organizational engagement in MSIs, such as the United Nations Global Compact, is often related to a personal commitment of CEOs [START_REF] Voegtlin | Global governance: CSR and the role of the UN Global Compact[END_REF] and the decision to invest in social innovation often depends on an executive leader who endorses, supports and drives this endeavor [START_REF] Pless | Understanding responsible leadership: Role identity and motivational drivers[END_REF][START_REF] Rehbein | What drives executives to make socially responsible investments?[END_REF][START_REF] Voegtlin | Responsible innovation and the innovation of responsibility: Governing sustainable development in a globalized world[END_REF].

In the following, we use these two outcomes to explain how CEOs engage their firms in political CSR. We argue that depending on the CEOs responsible leadership style, firm engagement will either result in incremental-impact political CSR (such as engagement in low-involvement MSI and first-order social innovation) or in substantive-impact forms of political CSR (such as engagement in high-involvement MSI and second-order social innovations). We will specifically explore the mechanisms used by integrative responsible CEOs to mobilize capabilities for political CSR, such as influencing and inspiring of stakeholders, enabling of dialogue, facilitation of processes and role-modelling.

Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: CEO Engagement in Global Governance

In an emerging post-national constellation [START_REF] Habermas | The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays[END_REF], where nation state regulation is territorially bound and the local institutions of developing economies are often informal, in transition or non-existent, MSIs emerge as a means to regulate global business activities and to create universal standards for responsible business conduct [START_REF] Abbott | International regulation without international government: Improving IO performance through orchestration[END_REF][START_REF] Mena | Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives[END_REF][START_REF] Rasche | Global policies and local practice: Loose and tight couplings in multistakeholder initiatives[END_REF]. MSIs thereby try to govern social and environmental challenges across industries and on a global scale, and comprise a range of different actors, including business organizations, civil society actors, governments and international organizations in various constellations [START_REF] Abbott | International regulation without international government: Improving IO performance through orchestration[END_REF]. These initiatives build on the self-regulation of their members, and create non-binding and voluntary private rules for responsible conduct. An organization's engagement in MSIs is a contribution to the regulation of global business and a way business organizations can assume political responsibilities [START_REF] Scherer | The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy[END_REF].

MSIs vary considerably with regard to the representation of various stakeholder groups, their governance mechanisms, and the implementation requirements of responsible conduct [START_REF] Fransen | Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards[END_REF]. These aspects in turn determine the collective problem-solving capacity of MSIs. [START_REF] Fransen | Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards[END_REF] distinguish two ends of a continuum of MSIs alongside the categories of membership inclusion, governance, and implementation, depicting at one end high-involvement MSIs with a broad approach to inclusiveness leading to strong stakeholder involvement and participation; and at the other end low-involvement MSIs with a narrow approach to inclusiveness where business organizations merely consult with stakeholders, and do not develop collaborative solutions. In the following we will discuss first why and then how responsible leaders with different styles engage in high-involvement versus low-involvement MSI.

High-involvement MSI have strong participatory elements and require the investment of organizational resources in terms of time and money. Instrumental responsible leaders, due to their strong fiduciary duty to shareholders and the resulting business case frame [START_REF] Hahn | Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames[END_REF], are less likely to opt for self-regulation that would bind such organizational resources and thereby restrict the leaders' options for generating welfare for shareholders. Furthermore, engagement in high-involvement MSIs requires the self-declaration of CSR activities. This results in an increased transparency of social and ecological implications of business conduct potentially leading to increased stakeholder scrutiny regarding the sincerity of the engagement [START_REF] Fransen | Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards[END_REF]. Given that instrumental leaders have a dominant focus on highly selective stakeholder groups and pay limited attention to non-core business issues [START_REF] Hahn | Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames[END_REF], they are likely to refrain from strategies that expose their organization to such stakeholder scrutiny. However, they may support their organization's engagement in lowinvolvement MSIs which require less resources, less stakeholder interaction and which are primarily designed to allow business organizations to consult with stakeholders on CSR issues relevant for the organization and not for developing collaborative solutions for societal problems. CEOs will specifically support organizational engagement in these MSIs, if they help to manage reputational risk or mitigate higher costs through potential stricter governmental regulation [START_REF] Mcwilliams | Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective[END_REF].

In contrast, integrative responsible leaders are more likely to opt for business self-regulation and mobilize their organization and its members to engage in high-involvement MSIs for several reasons. First, being driven by a social welfare orientation they think it is the right thing to do (Pless et al. 2012). They regard an extended citizenship engagement of their organization as part of the social contract between business and society. They also perceive MSI to offer possibilities for bottom-up, participatory development of rules and regulations for the benefit of all stakeholders [START_REF] Mena | Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives[END_REF]. Second, high-involvement MSIs, with a broad membership base and strong participatory elements, provide integrative responsible leaders with an institutionalized context to identify, manage and balance diverse stakeholder interests and concerns. In other words, they provide the realm to integrate stakeholders actively in the consultation and decision making processes pertaining to political CSR. Thereby MSIs can serve integrative leaders to realize their societal vision and running of a purposeful business.

Integrative responsible leaders can not only be observed to engage personally in such highinvolvement MSI-thereby acting as role models for employees, but also to provide organizational capabilities for such an engagement. Part of an integrative leadership style is to communicate internally and externally about the relevance of stakeholder engagement and to signal to organizational members the importance of creating social value. This includes emphasizing the engagement in MSI as a meaningful and important way to achieve doublebottom-line goals. The leader's social vision thereby serves as a fundamental inspiration and driving force for follower engagement [START_REF] Waldman | Leadership and neuroscience: Can we revolutionize the way that inspirational leaders are identified and developed?[END_REF]). In addition, as process facilitators integrative leaders involve a broader base of stakeholders (including competitors, civil society and government representatives), and enable institutionalized dialogue among constituencies inside and outside the organization. This provides the chance for extended opportunities for exchange on fundamental political CSR topics (e.g. fair labor practices), for creating collaborative relationships among different actors [START_REF] Rondinelli | How corporations and environmental groups collaborate: Assessing cross-sector collaborations and alliances[END_REF], and for realizing possibilities for bottom-up, participatory development of rules and regulations for the benefit of all stakeholders [START_REF] Mena | Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives[END_REF]. Finally, integrative CEOs will try to actively shape the work context to increase double-bottom line performance, for example by honoring social engagement in performance evaluation and providing employees with paid volunteering opportunities. This will mobilize and motivate employees to create or engage in initiatives with multiple stakeholders. We therefore propose: Proposition 3: A CEO's integrative leadership style is positively related to the organization's engagement in high-involvement multi-stakeholder initiatives.

Social Innovation: CEO Influence on Global Public Good Provision

Social innovations encompass the invention, diffusion and implementation of novel solutions to societal problems [START_REF] Phills | Rediscovering social innovation[END_REF]. They address unmet social needs in areas such as education, health, or sustainability where governments or public service organizations are unable to, or fail to, tackle pressing public problems, often for lack of resources. Drawing on the work of [START_REF] Watzlawick | Change: Principles of Problem Formulation and Problem Resoultion[END_REF] and [START_REF] Pless | Responsible leaders as agents of world benefit: Learnings from Project Ulysses[END_REF], we distinguish two types of social innovation with regard to public goods provision, those that provide "first-order" solutions and those that generate "second-order" solutions. First-order solutions address the symptoms of a problem and provide a remedy, while second-order solutions are designed to treat a social or environmental problem at its roots, often leading to societal change.

An example of a first-order solution is the product PUR, which is a water disinfectant that can turn contaminated into potable water (used by Procter and Gamble as part of their philanthropic CSR engagement). The product is of immediate help for people in emergency situations like natural catastrophes who lack access to clean drinking water. However, the product only alleviates the symptoms of the problem and as such, is a first-order innovation that does not provide a sustainable solution for communities to get affordable access to clean drinking water. In contrast to PUR, Indian based Gram Vikas' (GV) Water and Sanitation Program (W&SP) [START_REF] Pless | In pursuit of dignity and social justice: Changing lives through 100% inclusion[END_REF], driven by the CEO of the company, can be understood as a second-order innovation. The program provides villages with the necessary support (knowledge, consulting and resources) to build their own water and sanitation facilities to ensure sustained and independent access to clean water. Apart from substantial reductions of water-borne diseases, participating villages experience profound social change leading to more inclusive communities with empowerment of women and integration of Dalits (traditionally called Untouchables).

In most cases, the generation of a second-order innovation is complex, does not happen by accident, and requires CEO commitment (as in the case of GV), profound attention, focus and effort, substantial investment of organizational resources as well as on-going collaboration with different stakeholders, often across sectors.

Leadership plays an important role in the generation of innovation in general [START_REF] Finkelstein | Strategic leadership[END_REF], and social innovation in particular [START_REF] Bansal | Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness[END_REF][START_REF] Szekely | Incremental, radical and game-changing: Strategic innovation for sustainability[END_REF][START_REF] Voegtlin | Responsible leadership in global business: A new approach to leadership an its multi-level outcomes[END_REF]. However, we argue here that the quality of social innovations (first-order/second-order) is related to the leadership style. In the following we will discuss why and how these different responsible leadership styles are related to these two forms of social innovation.

For the same reason that instrumental leaders will not engage in high-involvement MSI, they will also refrain from investing in second-order social innovation. The perceived fiduciary duty to shareholders, which is a major driver of instrumental leadership, prohibits those leaders to invest resources in alleviating societal problems. These are regarded to be governmental responsibilities [START_REF] Scherer | The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy[END_REF]. Instrumental leaders might push first-order innovation if their company is pressured to develop solutions to a social problem by powerful stakeholders. However, their economic cost-benefit logic will prohibit them to make substantial long-term investments that would be needed to develop and implement second-order innovations that address more than just the immediate symptoms of the problem.

In contrast, integrative leaders who are driven by a social welfare orientation can be expected to see social innovation as a way to contribute meaningfully to society and will more likely promote the development of second-order innovation. A socialized vision, especially when voiced by the CEO helps to inspire and mobilize others to engage in social innovative behavior. Through the enabling of dialogue, integrative responsible leaders foster strong ties among internal and external stakeholders and provide the grounds for collaboration. They facilitate processes that allow the sharing of knowledge and expertise between and among organizational stakeholders [START_REF] Gao | Instrumental and integrative logics in business sustainability[END_REF][START_REF] Szekely | Incremental, radical and game-changing: Strategic innovation for sustainability[END_REF]. This is seen as being essential for the creation of innovation [START_REF] Doh | Responsible leadership and stakeholder management: Influence pathways and organizational outcomes[END_REF]. Their interaction with a broad range of stakeholders also comprises marginal ones-often those who are affected most by the societal problems for which solutions need to be developed [START_REF] Pless | Responsible leaders as agents of world benefit: Learnings from Project Ulysses[END_REF]. Enabling of dialogue and facilitation of inclusive knowledge sharing processes with and among stakeholders inside and outside the organization help integrative leaders to foster out-of-the-box thinking and to unleash creativity [START_REF] Miller | Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship[END_REF] and ultimately generating second-order social innovations.

We argue that integrative responsible leaders, rather than instrumental responsible leaders, will positively affect the propensity of their organization to develop second-order social innovations, thereby contributing to filling the void of weak governments and exercising an active role in contributing to the production of global public goods.

Proposition 4: A CEO's integrative leadership style is positively related to the development and implementation of second-order social innovations.

MULTILEVEL CONTINGENCIES OF CEO RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP

In the previous section, we have demonstrated that political CSR pursued by an organization is related to individual-level CEO characteristics, i.e. their value orientation and subsequent behavior. We argued that CEOs with a social welfare orientation are likely to display an integrative responsible leadership style and motivate their organizations to engage in substantive political CSR (high-involvement MSI, second-order social innovation), while CEOs with a strong sense of fiduciary duty are more likely to practice an instrumental responsible leadership style and pursue incremental political CSR (low-involvement MSI, first-order social innovation). We will examine in the following factors at the individual, organizational and societal level that moderate the expected relationships between value orientations and leadership styles, emphasizing the relationship between social welfare orientation and an integrative responsible leadership style.

Against the backdrop of political CSR we discuss exemplary, multilevel contingencies: at the individual level, the ability of CEOs to cope with complexity is a precondition to be able to respond to the complex institutional and relational environment of global business; at the organizational level, corporate governance is the primary means of aligning CEO behavior with beliefs on how to create and distribute profit and these beliefs in turn are strongly dependent on the companies' home country economic and political system; and at the societal level, power distance mirrors societal expectations within a given culture on how to view and engage with authority figures, including business leaders (see Figure 2).

- --------------------------------------------INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE ---------------------------------------------

Individual-Level Moderators

In the following, we use leader complexity theory to identify and understand those individuallevel factors that strengthen the link between the inherent intention to act responsibly and the espoused CEO responsible leadership style. According to upper echelon research, CEOs operate at the boundary between the firm and the external environment. They represent the company in dealings with external stakeholders and navigate a dynamic and demanding web of relations around their organization, between individuals and to other organizations, the environment, and ultimately the communities in which they live and operate [START_REF] Finkelstein | Strategic leadership[END_REF]Regine and Lewin, 2000). That is to say, leaders at the upper echelon of organizations need to link the societal-leadership level (and thus the linkages to emergent political structures in the organizational environment) with individual-level leadership in the organization to ensure organizational fitness and legitimacy (Marion and Uhl-Bien, 2001, p. 391). CEOs must foster conditions that enable these future states and therefore require cognitive and relational capacities to "adjust their behavioral responses to meet diverse role demands" (Hannah et al., 2013, p. 393). [START_REF] Hooijberg | Leadership complexity and development of the leaderplex model[END_REF] have introduced a "leaderplex model" that integrates cognitive, social, and behavioral complexity. We discuss these capacities as requirements for CEOs who seek to meet the demands of the dynamic and complex context of political CSR and examine how the ability to cope with high levels of complexity influences the relationship between perceived moral obligations and responsible leader behavior.

Cognitive complexity

When interacting with diverse stakeholders across sectors and cultures, leaders need the cognitive ability to recognize, comprehend, and reflect stakeholders' interests, needs, values, and demands in a connected, complex, integrated, and balanced manner [START_REF] Stahl | Responsible global leadership[END_REF]. In short, they need the ability to deal with cognitive complexity, which Streufert and Streufert (1978, p. 17) define as "the degree to which the entire and/or subsegment of cognitive semantic space is differentiated and integrated." Differentiation refers to the number of dimensions in the leadership environment, as perceived and used by the CEO; integration refers to the CEO's systematic work and cognitive performance in linking these dimensions to produce joint outcomes that reflect the demands of the complex multi-stakeholder environment [START_REF] Hooijberg | Leadership complexity and development of the leaderplex model[END_REF].

We argue that cognitive complexity is specifically relevant for those responsible leaders who pursue high-impact political CSR. Even CEOs with a social welfare orientation will struggle to engage in integrative leadership behaviors if they lack the ability to deal with cognitive complexity. Greater cognitive complexity enables leaders to be aware of and differentiate among interests, demands and needs at different dimensions and levels (self, organization, and others in business and society), and to be more receptive to diverse information from a broad range of stakeholders by paying attention to information about others' perspectives and trying to understand issues from their point of view [START_REF] De Dreu | Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making[END_REF][START_REF] Miller | Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship[END_REF]. This is specifically relevant for those leaders with a broader stakeholder focus. Cognitive complexity is positively related to integrative thinking [START_REF] Martin | The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking[END_REF], which consists of the abilities to (1) go beyond framing issues or choices as either/or and instead allows for a more holistic and flexible understanding of problems and solutions (Miller et al., 2012, p. 625), (2) synthesize and reconcile seemingly competing interests and demands [START_REF] Maak | Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society: A relational perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Miller | Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship[END_REF]) such as compliance with global norms, laws and standards while being responsive to local customs and norms [START_REF] Donaldson | The epistemic fault line in corporate governance[END_REF]Dunfee, 1999, Stahl et al., 2012), and(3) integrate this new information into problem solving and dilemma reconciliation [START_REF] Hannah | Moral maturation and moral conation: A capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action[END_REF]. We therefore propose that:

Social complexity

Leadership research suggests that leaders need social and interpersonal skills, such as emotional intelligence and cultural sensitivity (Kets de Vries et al. 2004, Pless and[START_REF] Pless | Relational intelligence for leading responsibly in a connected world[END_REF], but little attention focuses on the social setting in which such skills are used [START_REF] Hooijberg | Behavioral complexity and social intelligence: How executive leaders use stakeholders to form a systems perspective[END_REF]. Social complexity connotes the social demands and interpersonal skills required from leaders when acting in complex situations, defining the leader's ability to perceive the differentiated personal and relational aspects of the social situation [START_REF] Van Dierendonck | Servant leadership: A review and synthesis[END_REF][START_REF] Hooijberg | Leadership complexity and development of the leaderplex model[END_REF]. In a practical sense, extensive external stakeholder engagement requires CEOs to balance decisions that affect multiple constituencies. CEOs who want to integrate diverse stakeholder demands successfully require the ability to coordinate action, communicate, and negotiate with different groups to achieve legitimate decisions. It is not always possible to satisfy all groups, yet successful leaders exercise their influence in stakeholder networks to achieve general consent or at least a modus vivendi (i.e. active support among some groups and neutralization of critics). This requires a sophisticated form of social complexity that is called political skill [START_REF] Ferris | Development and validation of the political skill inventory[END_REF][START_REF] Mintzberg | Power in and Around Organizations[END_REF][START_REF] Pfeffer | Power in Organizations[END_REF]. That is, leaders who want to engage with different stakeholders need to be versatile enough to adjust their behavior to diverse expectations and social situations in a way that is perceived as genuine, authentic, and sincere-and this generates support and trust [START_REF] Ferris | Development and validation of the political skill inventory[END_REF]. [START_REF] Ferris | Development and validation of the political skill inventory[END_REF] suggest four dimensions of political skill: (1) social astuteness, which implies being sensitive to others and accurately understanding not only diverse social situations but also the interpersonal interactions that mark such settings; (2) interpersonal influence that is subtle and convincing, as well as flexible and adaptable, to generate desired responses; (3) networking ability to build, use, and nurture relationships, networks, alliances, and coalitions with diverse people; and (4) apparent sincerity, such that they appear genuine and possessed of virtuous intentions, with no ulterior motives.

29

For instance, in 2001 Lars Rebien Sørensen, then newly appointed CEO of Novo Nordisk was faced with a critical situation that required such political skills to build legitimacy for Novo Nordisk's position on patent rights and trust in his leadership. He was invited to give a public speech and soon realized that there was a group of critical stakeholders (representing NGOs) in the audience protesting against Novo Nordisk's involvement in a court case in South Africa. The case was against the South African government that wanted to produce HIV/AIDS medicine. And while Novo Nordisk did not offer HIV/AIDS products, the company was strongly in favor of patent rights. Even though Novo Nordisk as a company is at the forefront of providing better access to health, they were challenged on their position and the CEO, who is internationally known for his social welfare orientation [START_REF] Ignatius | Lars Sorensen in what propelled him to the top[END_REF] had to explain their principled decision on patent rights. This delicate situation required political skills and an immediate response. He instantly decided to adapt to this situation and instead of giving a well-prepared speech he engaged in direct interaction and personal communication with stakeholders by listening to their concerns. This subtle approach helped him to secure trust and establish a basis for an ongoing stakeholder dialogue that contributed to gaining legitimacy for Novo's position on the complex and controversial issue of patent rights.

The case also indicates that the mere presence of a social welfare orientation may not be enough for a leader to respond competently to such a complex situation; required is social complexity in the form of political skills to interact adequately with diverse stakeholders and to adapt behavior and actions quickly and competently to complex environments and situations. Such political skills moderate the effect of a social welfare orientation on the likelihood to developing a situationally appropriate response. Thus, we propose: Proposition 6: Social complexity strengthens the relationship between a social welfare orientation and an integrative responsible leadership style.

The challenges of political CSR, whether they relate to patent rights, human rights issues or the quasi-public role of companies in contributing to civic infrastructure and social services, often require executives with the appropriate skills. Cognitive complexity and appropriate political skills [START_REF] Ferris | Development and validation of the political skill inventory[END_REF][START_REF] Jones | Interpersonal Perception[END_REF]) will also help integrative leaders to exercise interpersonal influence and mobilize different stakeholders to achieve various objectives [START_REF] Kacmar | Ethical leadership and subordinate outcomes: The mediating role of organizational politics and the moderating role of political skill[END_REF], and specifically to engage in political CSR activities.

Organizational-Level Moderator

Corporate governance relates to the structure of rights and responsibilities among the parties with a stake in the firm [START_REF] Filatotchev | Corporate governance, responsible managerial behavior, and CSR: Organizational efficiency versus organizational legitimacy?[END_REF]. Corporate governance systems are thereby strongly dependent on home country expectations and regulations [START_REF] Filatotchev | Corporate governance, responsible managerial behavior, and CSR: Organizational efficiency versus organizational legitimacy?[END_REF] and reflect political considerations about who is to participate in strategic decision-making processes concerning the purpose and direction of an organization (e.g. employee participation in boards) and how the wealth created by the business should be distributed.

One prominent and widely dispersed model of corporate governance is derived from agency theory [START_REF] Jensen | Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure[END_REF][START_REF] Shleifer | A survey of corporate governance[END_REF] and focuses on the principleagent problem of how to control and incentivize top managers to commit their efforts to the best interest of the firm so that suppliers of finance to corporations assure themselves of getting a return on their investment [START_REF] Shleifer | A survey of corporate governance[END_REF]. Corporate governance mechanisms-including checks and balances instituted by a board of directors, specified levels of discretion for management in reporting and decision-making, codes of conduct, and incentives and compensation schemes for top managers [START_REF] Colley | Corporate Governance[END_REF][START_REF] Scherer | Democratizing corporate governance: Compensating for the democratic deficit of corporate political activity and corporate citizenship[END_REF]-follow from these implications of a separation of ownership and control. We can assume that corporate governance systems based on agency theory seek to align CEOs' interests with shareholder demands through a centralized, hierarchical system of accountability and reporting (Filatotchev and Nakajima, 2014, p. 295), and that such an investor-or shareholder-oriented governance approach strengthens the relationship between a perceived fiduciary duty to shareholders and an instrumental responsible leadership style.

More recent stakeholder and stewardship models of corporate governance (e.g., [START_REF] Donaldson | The epistemic fault line in corporate governance[END_REF][START_REF] Scherer | Democratizing corporate governance: Compensating for the democratic deficit of corporate political activity and corporate citizenship[END_REF] and the prominence of CSR on corporate agendas may foster explicit recognition of stakeholder concerns instead. [START_REF] Filatotchev | Corporate governance, responsible managerial behavior, and CSR: Organizational efficiency versus organizational legitimacy?[END_REF] distinguish between corporate governance based on financial and strategic controls. Whereas the former resembles ownership structures, incentive and control mechanisms derived from the agency model, the latter is oriented towards the stewardship model. More specifically, governance based on strategic control is characterized by large block shareholding, often from long-term institutional investors, including socially responsible investors, who not only value short-term profits, but look for long-term sustainable performance and value creation for business and society [START_REF] Filatotchev | Corporate governance, responsible managerial behavior, and CSR: Organizational efficiency versus organizational legitimacy?[END_REF]. Overall, governance arrangements based on stewardship and strategic control may provide long-term incentive schemes that promote a more nuanced approach to value creation, which should encourage the translation of a social welfare orientation into an integrative responsible leadership style. We propose: Proposition 7: A strong focus of the corporate governance system on aligning CEO behavior with broader stakeholder interests strengthens the relationship between a social welfare orientation and an integrative responsible leadership style.

Societal-Level Moderator

Finally, factors in the cultural context can affect values and behavior of leaders. We focus here on power distance [START_REF] Pless | Relational intelligence for leading responsibly in a connected world[END_REF][START_REF] Van Dierendonck | Servant leadership: A review and synthesis[END_REF] as a widely studied cultural factor which has been researched from multiple disciplines [START_REF] Waldman | Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries[END_REF], for instance in international management research [START_REF] Van Der Vegt | Location-level links between diversity and innovative climate depend on national power distance[END_REF] and leadership studies [START_REF] Van Dierendonck | Servant leadership: A review and synthesis[END_REF]. We specifically draw on results from the GLOBE study [START_REF] House | Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The Globe Study of 62 societies[END_REF], which has demonstrated the influence of the cultural context, and specifically, power distance on leadership.

Power distance becomes especially relevant in the context of political CSR, as it is indicative of what kind of political engagement is perceived as acceptable within a national culture (e.g., with regard to the provision of public goods or political infrastructure), and to what extent government officials are regarded as authority figures and government opposition is tolerated.

According to [START_REF] Carl | Power distance[END_REF], power distance reflects the extent to which a community accepts and endorses authority, power differences, and status privileges. In cultures with high power distance (e.g. China, Romania, Russia), members are expected to obey authority figures and differences in power, hierarchy and status are expected and accepted, such that organizations tend to be structured accordingly. In contrast, in cultures with low power distance (e.g. Scandinavian countries), decision-making is more decentralized, with less emphasis on status or formal respect [START_REF] Van Dierendonck | Servant leadership: A review and synthesis[END_REF].

Research shows that a cultural context of high power distance can influence leadership behavior and induce power holders to become self-centered, devalue CSR and potentially misuse their power in the pursuit of personal benefits and even tolerate corrupt practices [START_REF] Carl | Power distance[END_REF][START_REF] Waldman | Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries[END_REF]. Such a context often provides less discretion to executives to follow their own beliefs and value orientation and fosters executives to unreflectively follow directions, expectations and signs of powerful stakeholders (e.g. government authorities) neglecting the interests of other legitimate constituencies with less power. Often they show less responsibility for the well-being of the communities in which they operate [START_REF] Waldman | Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries[END_REF].

The 2009 baby milk powder scandal of Sanlu Fonterra in China exemplifies the influence of high power distance on leadership decision making. When faced with the question on how to handle the discovery of contamination of their baby milk powder, Sanlu Fonterra's leadership (consisting of local and Western executives) decided against a recall of the contaminated products and instead bowed to government pressure to keep quiet to avoid social unrest and a potential public scandal during the Olympics. Thereby they risked the health and life of almost 300,000 babies (The Daily Telegraph, 2009)-legitimate, but powerless stakeholders.

In contrast, a culture with low power distance tends to encourage power holders to overcome their self-interest and be accountable for the interests and demands of internal and external stakeholders. With its emphasis on equality among actors (van Dierendonck 2011), a low power distance culture encourages proactive stakeholder inclusion and dialogue, as well as a reciprocal relationship among leader and stakeholders. It also provides more discretion to executives to follow their own beliefs and value orientation. In this sense a low power distance context supports leaders with a social welfare orientation to translate their values into an integrative responsible leadership style. We therefore propose: Proposition 8: Low power distance strengthens the relationship between a social welfare orientation and an integrative responsible leadership style.

DISCUSSION

In this article, we have proposed a multi-level model of CEO leadership, explaining the relationship between responsible leadership styles and their implication for political CSR. In response to the call for research to investigate micro-foundations of CSR (e.g., [START_REF] Aguinis | What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility[END_REF][START_REF] Bies | Corporations as social change agents: Individual, interpersonal, institutional, and environmental dynamics[END_REF][START_REF] Scherer | The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy[END_REF], our analysis advances theory on CEO responsible leadership. We assert that most CEOs espouse one of two responsible leadership styles: instrumental, which shows behavior that (1) is focused on performance management and leading by objectives, (2) practices a low degree of stakeholder interaction and exclusive decision making that considers only powerful constituencies, and (3) applies a business case rationale with limited response to CSR; or integrative, which implies behavior that (1) mobilizes stakeholders, (2) comes with a high degree of stakeholder interaction (including the integration of legitimate but powerless constituencies) and inclusive decision making, (3) considers strategic choices beyond the business case rationale, and (4) shows a proactive approach towards CSR. We explain that the adoption of these leadership styles is highly dependent on a CEO's value orientation-the degree of their perceived fiduciary duty or social welfare orientation. In addition, our model theorizes on contingency factors that moderate the relationship between a CEO's value orientation and the observable responsible leadership style.

The paper makes several contributions: first, it expands research on responsible leadership by defining CEO responsible leadership styles, providing a more nuanced understanding of the characteristics of both styles, offering explanations for the prevalence of a certain style over another and its impact on firm-level political CSR. While responsible leadership research has identified the CEO as the uniquely situated locus for investigating responsible leadership (e.g., [START_REF] Waldman | Moving forward with the concept of responsible leadership: Three caveats to guide theory and research[END_REF], our paper is, to the best of our knowledge, the first to address this area explicitly and to provide explanations for the link between CEO responsible leadership and political CSR. More specifically, our paper fleshes out in detail the integrative approach to CEO responsible leadership, contributing to a better understanding of this under-researched leadership style. Second, the proposed model of CEO responsible leadership contributes to upper echelons research [START_REF] Hambrick | Toward more accurate contextualization of the CEO effect on firm performance[END_REF] by theorizing on political CSR as an outcome of CEO influence. It introduces responsible leadership styles as patterns of behavior and decision-making specific to a CEO and their potential effects on the organization's social responsibility agenda. The third contribution is to research on political CSR. Our framework provides a more nuanced understanding of different forms of political CSR engagement (incremental versus substantive) and reasons why some firms are more likely to engage in one form instead of the other. It thereby contributes to a better understanding of the microfoundations of political CSR [START_REF] Aguinis | What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility[END_REF][START_REF] Scherer | The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy[END_REF] by explaining how the propensity of an organization to contribute to a specific form of political CSR is influenced by the leadership style of a CEO. Fourth, we also contribute to research on CSR and stakeholder engagement. While this research derives stakeholder salience primarily from the different characteristics of the stakeholders (e.g. their power, urgency or legitimacy; [START_REF] Mitchell | Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts[END_REF], or from organizational characteristics like the organizational culture [START_REF] Jones | Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture[END_REF], we theorized on the CEO's value orientation and leadership style as additional and decisive factors in determining stakeholder salience [START_REF] Agle | Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values[END_REF].

Overall, our model of CEO responsible leadership styles indicates that while an instrumental style can have considerable advantages for CEOs, e.g. reducing the relational burden of interacting with many different constituencies, which is time consuming and may not yield concrete results, or enabling CEOs to make decisions more quickly and coherently without much consideration of external contingencies, it also creates some organizational and societal disadvantages. Regarding the former, ignoring complex CSR challenges means that CEOs with an instrumental style cannot effectively predict unforeseen events or environmental developments that may harm the organization, leaving them little time to react to new or surprising developments. In this sense, the organization may become an easy target for stakeholder activism posing a risk to organizational viability and success. It also limits the potential for developing mutually beneficial and sustainable relationships towards a broader range of stakeholders necessary to build legitimacy and trust [START_REF] Maak | Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society: A relational perspective[END_REF]. This approach also has limits from a societal perspective. The exclusive and boundary-setting approach and the instrumental use of CSR for enhancing a company's interests [START_REF] Crane | Contesting the value of 'creating shared value[END_REF]Pless et al., 2012) rather hinders the leverage of stakeholder diversity and knowledge exchange, which is essential for unleashing the creativity and innovation important for impactful political CSR. Furthermore, in their pursuit of profit maximization, instrumental responsible leaders are likely to adopt approaches like "creating shared value" as a way of generating new profit sources by identifying such societal issues that are close to the organizational strategy and potent for creating win-win outcomes (Porter andKramer, 2006, 2011). As Crane and colleagues (2014) point out, this logic not only over-simplifies the complexity of societal issues, but can drive executives to invest in "easy" problems rather than in solving broader societal problems. It also can seduce executives to misinterpret societal investments and outcomes for image purposescreating the impression that issues have been resolved for the benefit of all, "while in reality problems of systemic injustice have not been solved and the poverty of marginalized stakeholders might even have increased because of the engagement of the corporation" (Crane et al., 2014, p. 137). This approach can even lead to the deliberate investment in the development of products that treat (but do not cure the root of) the problem to allow for continued return on investment. In contrast, the other-oriented and purpose-driven character of an integrative responsible leadership style makes it more likely that leaders address the complex and more difficult challenges of corporate responsibility, benefitting society and marginalized stakeholders.

From an organizational perspective, an integrative responsible leadership style CEO comes with the advantage of pursuing an authentic (purpose-based) political CSR approach that builds on and reinforces trustful, mutually beneficial stakeholder relations. Interaction with a broad range of stakeholders, including fringe ones, allows integrative leaders to perceive risks in a timely manner and deal more effectively with contextual pressures or potential threats to organizational legitimacy by tapping into their social capital reserves [START_REF] Maak | Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital[END_REF]). An integrative approach allows for better informed strategic choices (e.g. by anticipating the consequences of important decisions) and for creating value with and for stakeholders, thereby delivering more effectively on the double-bottom-line. As a consequence of such an approach, organizational legitimacy is build and public trust is earned.

The disadvantages associated with an integrative style are greater levels of cognitive complexity and more relational challenges. These CEOs must deal with increasing amounts of news, knowledge, and information. Moreover, prioritizing different ethical and political issues enhances perceived tension and dilemmas. The presence of stakeholders from multiple backgrounds and spheres also further increases complexity, which demands a socially intelligent and versatile leader. In political terms, a CEO could choose to become both an activist and a business statesman, in which case she or he would need to manage that tension carefully. The model of CEO responsible leadership discusses complexity skills that enable CEOs to deal more competently with these challenges of integrative responsible leadership.

With regard to the general effectiveness of each style in a complex environment we conclude that an instrumental leadership style will be less effective due to its tendency to reduce complexity by focusing on shareholder interests, a single bottom-line (profit), powerful stakeholders and strategically beneficial CSR issues. However, it may be effective in relatively stable settings with strong institutional arrangements. In contrast, an integrative responsible leadership style can be expected to be more effective within a complex environment, for instance in the unstable context of a post-national constellation with weak institutions. To conclude, the greater the complexity and the need to balance conflicting interests and the more profound the societal challenges are, the more important becomes an integrative responsible leadership style and the need for leaders who are able to act as responsible citizen and business statesman instead of shareholder advocates increases. This has implications for future research and practice. Business practice implications concern for instance the selection and development of CEOs. For business practice this could mean to select CEOs with a social welfare orientation, as this will result more likely in an integrative leadership style. Future research could investigate the implications of an integrative approach for selection processes (e.g. identifying relevant criteria like values, competencies, kind of experiences). Moreover, a longer-term approach needs to focus on training and development for integrative responsible leadership. Recent studies in leadership development (Pless et al., 2011) show that service learning can be an effective methodology due to the leverage of important learning mechanisms such as coping with adversity, resolving tensions and paradoxes, which are often inherent to political CSR challenges. However, such programs are often resource intensive in terms of cost and time. Future research should therefore investigate methods that are equally suited for developing an integrative responsible leadership style.

Finally, research on talent management and performance management systems is needed to develop practically relevant knowledge on fostering integrative responsible leadership styles in organizations.

Our research also has limitations. We discussed multi-level factors that influence the relationship between value orientation and leadership styles. However, we only discussed a number of exemplary factors at different levels. Future research should study additional factors that moderate this relationship and influence the responsible leadership style. Furthermore, some of the factors discussed (e.g. the stewardship model of corporate governance) may also influence the relationship between CEO's responsible leadership behavior and political CSR. These and other factorslike isomorphic pressures from the industry [START_REF] Campbell | Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility[END_REF], regulatory uncertainty [START_REF] Doh | Advancing nonmarket strategy research: Institutional perspectives in a changing world[END_REF], organizational culture [START_REF] Jones | Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture[END_REF], institutional ownership (e.g. [START_REF] Johnson | The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance[END_REF], CEO incentives and pay structure [START_REF] Deckop | The effects of CEO pay structure on corporate social performance[END_REF][START_REF] Mcguire | CEO incentives and corporate social performance[END_REF], and composition of and processes in top management teams [START_REF] Hambrick | Upper echelons theory: an update[END_REF][START_REF] Peterson | Examining the relationships between top management team psychological characteristics, transformational leadership, and business unit performance[END_REF], should be further examined in their mediating and moderating role across various levels of analysis.

Proposition 5 :

 5 Cognitive complexity strengthens the relationship between a social welfare orientation and an integrative responsible leadership style.

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Individual antecedents and political CSR outcomes of responsible leadership

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: Multi-level contingency model of responsible leadership styles

Table 1 :

 1 Behavioral characteristics of different leadership styles

		Instrumental	Integrative
	Vision	 Personalized	 Socialized
	Focus of business	 Leading business with a	 Leading business with a
	leadership / value	focus on the financial-	focus on a dual-bottom-line
	creation	bottom-line
	Approach to leading	 Leading by objective	 Leading by mobilizing
	people	setting	stakeholders
	Stakeholder relations
	Scope of interaction	 Low degree of	 High degree of
		interconnectedness	interconnectedness
		 Boundary setting	 Boundary spanning
	Characteristic of	 Reactive	 Proactive
	interaction	 Narrow focus on powerful	 Broad focus on all
		and urgent stakeholders	legitimate stakeholders
	Decision Making
	Process	 Exclusive	 Inclusive
	Applied Logic	 Economic cost-benefit	 Pro-social cost-benefit
		logic	logic
	Justification of choices	 Business case justification	 Logic of appropriateness

We encourage empirical research in this regard to identify the "responsible CEO effect" on political CSR outcomes.

Another limitation of our model relates to the causal influences and thus the interplay between the responsible leadership style and the political CSR agenda of an organization. Not only may both mutually influence each other, but in addition to CEOs' strategic choices it might also be that a firm's political CSR agenda attracts a certain type of CEO. For instance, instrumental CEOs might choose to work for firms that are predominantly focusing on making profit, while integrative CEOs might put more emphasis on how an organization is viewed by stakeholders. Overall, we emphasize that CEOs have enhanced possibilities to promote organizational change, as they can draw on a variety of organizational resources and act as role models that "set the tone at the top" [START_REF] Hambrick | Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers[END_REF].

To further advance research on responsible leadership future research should empirically investigate the relationships proposed in this model. The development and application of scales to measure responsible leadership [START_REF] Pless | Development of a measure of responsible leadership[END_REF][START_REF] Voegtlin | Development of a scale measuring discursive responsible leadership[END_REF] is an important step. Multilevel research on responsible leadership that sheds light on the interactions among personal values, CEO competencies and influences, and macro-level factors such as industry and culture is needed. The propositions forwarded in this article offer opportunities for empirical research to dig deeper into these areas and hopefully inspire future research.