Attitudes toward Corporate Responsibilities in Western Europe and in Central and East Europe

Corporate Responsibilities in Europe

ATTITUDES TOWARD CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITIES IN

WESTERN EUROPE AND IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

Olivier Furrer* Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Carolyn P. Egri Simon Fraser University, Canada

David A. Ralston University of Oklahoma, USA

Wade Danis Georgia State University, USA

Emmanuelle Reynaud IAE d'Aix-en-Provence, France

Irina Naoumova University of Tennessee, USA

Mario Molteni Catholic University of Milan, Italy

Arunas Starkus CIBER-Vilnius, Lithuania

Fidel León Darder University of Valencia, Spain

Marina Dabic University of Osijek, Croatia

Amandine Perrinjaquet University of Lausanne, Switzerland

* Corresponding author: Olivier Furrer Radboud University Nijmegen Nijmegen School of Management Thomas van Aquinostraat 1, P.O. Box 9108 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)24 361 30 79, Fax: +31 (0)24 361 19 33 e-mail: [email protected]


ATTITUDES TOWARD CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITIES IN

WESTERN EUROPE AND IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

Abstract

This study investigated the attitudes toward social, economic, and environmental corporate

responsibilities of 3,064 managers and business students in 8 European countries. Participants in

Western European countries hade significantly different perspectives on the importance of these

corporate responsibilities than those in Central and Eastern European countries. Work experience

(managers vs. business students) influences social and environmental orientations more than the

economic orientation for only some countries. Implications for future research and organizations

in Europe are discussed.

Keywords: environmental responsibilities, corporate social responsibilities, Europe.


3.

In spite of the pressure from the European Union (EU) to achieve European-wide corporate

social and environmental responsibilities (CSER) standards by encouraging companies to

voluntarily assume responsibilities beyond their legal obligations and by requiring national

governments to enforce the use of internationally agreed standards, there are significant

differences across European countries in the implementation of CSER policies and practices

(European Commission, 2001, 2002; Habisch, Jonker, Wegner and Schmidpeter, 2005). Indeed,

CSER in Europe has different national characteristics resulting from diverse cultural traditions as

well as heterogeneous social and economic backgrounds. Ethical concerns play a dominant role

in Anglo-Saxon countries, while environmental preoccupations rule the CSER agenda in

Northern Europe, and CSER is perceived as a means to advance social issues in Southern Europe

(Habisch et al., 2005; Lenssen and Vorobey, 2005; Perrini, Pogutz and Tencati, 2006; Pinkston

and Carroll, 1994; Schlegelmilch and Robertson, 1995). In Eastern Europe, the perception of the

importance of CSER has been less tangible so far. Therefore, the accession of ten Central and

Eastern European (CEE) countries to the EU in 2004 and two more in January 2007 has raised

significant issues regarding corporate responsibilities (CR) in these transition economies.

The convergence of CSER norms and practices as well as related attitudes and values within

Europe is important for several reasons. First, as multinational corporations become more

integrated across national boundaries within Europe, there is an increased impetus for

convergence in CSER practices and programs. However, if this is not supported by an attitudinal

convergence on CSER priorities, then one result will be an uneven, and perhaps contradictory,

implementation of CSER programs. Furthermore, lower CSER performance by new EU entrants

may be perceived as a threat by established EU countries which have been CSER leaders to date.

Indeed, CSER differences within the EU may lead to destabilizing movements of corporations


4.

and persons. Opportunistic corporations with poor CSER performance may transfer their

activities to countries where CSER is perceived as less important and CSER regulations are less

stringent thereby creating economic problems in countries with stricter CSER norms. Further, the

free movement of persons within the EU may mean that workers from countries with lower

social CR performance may decide to migrate to countries with better social welfare protection

thereby destabilizing job markets in those countries. Finally, in terms of environmental practices,

environmental pollution does not respect political boundaries or national borders as

demonstrated by the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. Therefore, people in neighboring

countries are rightly concerned about environmental protection in adjacent countries.

Despite the recognized importance of understanding CSER in general and country

differences in CSER performance (e.g., CSR Europe, 2002; European Commission, 2001;

Habisch et al., 2005), there has been relatively little large-scale cross-national empirical research

investigating the differences in attitudes toward CSER. To address this gap, we conducted a

study that included both country- and individual-level influences on the attitudes toward

corporate responsibilities of 3,064 managers and business students in 8 European countries (4

Western European and 4 CEE countries). We focused on managers and business students given

their decision-making roles and future roles in determining corporate strategy and practices

(Agle, Mitchell and Sonnenfeld, 1999; Hood, 2003). Further, we examine the extent to which the

‘generation gap’ in corporate responsibility attitudes between current managers and future

business leaders identified in U.S.-based studies (e.g., Ibrahim, Angelidis and Howard, 2006) is

evident in the European context.

We sought answers to three research questions: (1) Are there country differences in the

importance that European managers and business students attribute to social, economic, and


5.

environmental corporate responsibilities? (2) Is the importance that managers and business

students attribute to social, economic, and environmental corporate responsibilities in CEE

countries that recently joined the EU closer to those attributed by their Western European

counterparts than those of managers and business students from European countries that have not

yet joined the EU? (3) Do business students attribute a different level of importance to corporate

responsibilities than experienced managers?

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we review the

literature on institutions and economic development to develop hypotheses regarding societal

influences on attitudes toward social, environmental, and economic corporate responsibilities.

We then present the research methods and results of the study. We conclude with a discussion of

results and the implications of this study’s findings for future research and managerial practice.

CORPORATE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Carroll (1979, 1991) identified four types of corporate social responsibilities: economic,

legal, ethical, and philanthropic (or discretionary). Economic responsibilities are concerned with

business’s financial performance and the provision of goods and services. Legal responsibilities

are concerned with compliance with societal laws and regulations. Ethical responsibilities relate

to following societal moral codes of conduct, and philanthropic responsibilities relate to

voluntary involvement and support of wider societal entities. Previous research on perceptions of

corporate social responsibility has yielded mixed results regarding the extent to which this

conceptualization of corporate social responsibilities is one-dimensional or multi-dimensional.

Aupperle, Carroll and Hatfield (1985) developed a survey instrument to measure Carroll’s four

dimensions of corporate social responsibilities and found, using exploratory factor analysis, that


6.

a three-factor solution fit their data best. The first factor contained both highly negative

economic loadings and highly positive ethical loadings which supported the existence of four

distinct, but related components. However, for the purpose of later analysis, they rearranged the

four CSR components into two categories: “a concern for society” consisting of the three non-

economic components (legal, ethical, and philanthropic) and “a concern for economic

performance.” In a study of U.S. marketing managers, Maignan, Ferrell and Hult (1999) found

that economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities reflected one underlying

construct of corporate citizenship. However, Maignan and Ferrell’s (2003) cross-cultural study

found that French, German, and U.S. consumers perceive corporate social responsibility as

comprised of legal, ethical, and philanthropic duties and not economic duties as originally

conceptualized by Carroll (1979). Using Maignan and Ferrell’s (2003) instrument, a recent

multi-national study by Egri and colleagues (2004) found two distinct factors with configural

invariance across 22 countries. One factor consisted of items pertaining to ethical, legal, and

philanthropic responsibilities, whereas the second factor consisted of items pertaining to

economic responsibilities.

While Carroll (1979) also identified the environment as one of the social issues that were of

concern to businesses, the stakeholder view of organizations (Freeman, 1984; Mitchell, Agle,

and Wood, 1997) identifies corporate environment responsibility as distinct. Thus, following

Egri et al. (2004), we treat corporate environmental responsibility as a separate concept that

focuses on the responsibilities of organizations to have ecologically sustainable relationships

with both biophysical and societal environments (Shrivastava, 1996; Starik and Rands, 1995).

Corporate environmental responsibilities include minimizing the ecological impact of

organizational activities (reduced use of nonrenewable resources, preventing environmental


7.

degradation caused by pollution, and the depletion of natural resources), voluntarily exceeding

government environmental regulations, and devoting resources to environmental protection

(Branzei and Vertinsky, 2002; DesJardins, 1998; Shrivastava, 1996; Starik and Rands, 1995).

The three social, environmental, and economic CRs may not be perceived to have the same

importance. Carroll’s (1979: 499) graphical representation of the four types of CRs suggests a

weighting of 4-3-2-1, respectively for economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities.

Using a forced-choice scale, Aupperle et al. (1985) empirically measured the relative importance

of the four CRs for a sample of U.S. CEOs and confirmed Carroll’s (1979) ranking of different

types of CR with participants clearly placing more emphasis on economic responsibilities.

However, they also found that taken together, non-economic responsibilities were of much

greater weight than economic responsibilities. Pinkston and Carroll (1994) later replicated

Aupperle et al.’s (1985) study with a sample of managers from multinational chemical

subsidiaries located in the U.S. but with headquarters in France, Germany, Japan, Sweden,

Switzerland, the U.K., and the U.S. They found a similarity ranking of the four CRs across

countries (in descending order, economic, legal, ethical, philanthropic), with the exceptions of

Germany and Sweden which accorded a similar priority to legal and economic responsibilities. If

during the ten years separating these two studies, the different CRs appear to have the same

priority regardless of the firm’s country-of-origin (but all located in developed Western

countries), the gap between economic and legal responsibilities appears to have become smaller

(Pinkston and Carroll, 1996). This suggests that overall, the importance of social (i.e., non-

economic) responsibilities has been increasing and/or the importance of economic

responsibilities has been decreasing.

More recently, Maignan et al. (1999) found that among U.S. marketing managers and


8.

executive MBA students, legal and ethical responsibilities were perceived as more important

than economic responsibilities such that (in descending order): legal, ethical, economic, and

philanthropic. In a cross-national study of consumers, Maignan and Ferrell (2003) found that

U.S. consumers ranked the importance of CRs in the following decreasing order of importance:

(1) economic and legal, (2) ethical, and (3) philanthropic. This ranking was significantly

different than the ranking of French consumers: (1) legal, (2) ethical, (3) philanthropic, and (4)

economic; and of German consumers: (1) legal and ethical, (2) philanthropic, and (3) economic.

In respect to attitudes toward corporate environmental responsibilities, a few studies support

the idea that their relative importance may also vary. Dunlap et al. (1993) found that respondents

in industrialized countries were more likely to indicate that business and industry should have

primary responsibility for solving environmental problems than respondents in developing

countries. These results are supported by Schnaiberg and Gould’s (1994) study which found a

higher level of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors in advanced industrialized countries.

Taken together, these studies indicate that perspectives on the relative importance of the

different types of corporate responsibilities varies across countries as well as across respondent

groups (for example, managers vs. students) within countries, and that these perspectives evolve

over time. In Western developed country studies, it appears that the importance of non-economic

(social and environmental) responsibilities is increasing while the importance of economic

responsibilities is decreasing. However, with the exception of environmental attitude studies by

Dunlap et al. (1993) and Schnaiberg and Gould (1994), previous research has been limited to

Western and developed countries. This raises the question: Is the ranking of the different types of

corporate responsibilities likely to be the same in CEE transition economies as in Western

European countries?


9.

THEORIES AND HYPOTHESES

Previous research has identified societal institutions (e.g., legal and political systems) as

antecedents of CR practices (e.g., Aguilera and Cuervo-Cazurra, 2004; Pinkston and Carroll,

1994; Schlegelmilch and Robertson, 1995). In their study of corporate citizenship perspectives,

Pinkston and Carroll (1994) found no significant differences between subsidiaries from different

countries located in the U.S. and explained this result by the fact that foreign affiliates conform

to the expectations and needs of the market or society in which they are located. Schlegelmilch

and Robertson (1995) found a country influence on the ethical perception of senior executives in

the U.S. and Europe. Specifically, U.S. managers were much more likely to perceive personnel

issues as ethical issues whereas German and Austrian managers were more likely to consider

political and local involvement as ethical issues of concern. Aguilera and Cuervo-Cazurra (2004)

found that the adoption of corporate codes of good governance is triggered by exogenous

institutional pressure. Government liberalization was positively related to the adoption of

corporate codes of conduct, thereby suggesting that the withdrawal of government presence in

the economy creates the conditions necessary for an increase in corporate responsibility for

newly privatized firms. Moreover, they found that the presence of foreign institutional investors

was positively related to the adoption of socially responsible codes of governance.

These findings can be explained by the influence of national and international institutions on

firms as well as managers’ attitudes and behaviors. North (1990: 3) argued that institutions serve

as constraints to regulate economic activities by providing the rules of the game. An institutional

framework is a “set of fundamental political, social, and legal ground rules that establishes the

basis for production, exchange and distribution” (Davis and North, 1971: 6). Institutions interact

with both individuals and organizations (North, 1990; Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Scott, 1995),


10.

and influence individuals’ decision-making by signaling which norms, behaviors, and choices

are acceptable and which are unacceptable (Peng and Heath, 1996). By providing limits to the set

of behaviors and choices of individuals and organizations, institutions provide a stable structure

for economic exchanges, thereby reducing uncertainty (North, 1990). The institutional

framework is comprised of both formal and informal constraints on individual and organizational

behavior (North, 1990). Formal constraints include political, judicial, and economic rules and

contracts, whereas informal constraints include the codes of conduct, norms of behavior, and

conventions that are embedded in culture and ideology. Institutions are the crystallizations of

culture, and culture is the substratum of institutional arrangements (Hofstede, Van Deusen,

Mueller, Charles et al., 2002).

CEE countries’ institutional frameworks primarily differ from the institutional frameworks

of Western European countries on two important and interrelated dimensions: the socialist

legacy, and economic development level and growth rate. CEE countries are transition

economies with a rapid pace of economic development as well as rapid institutional changes as

they move from planned economies to economic liberalization and the adoption of free-market

systems (Arnold and Quelch, 1998; Hoskisson, Eden, Lau and Wright, 2000). Compared to

Western European economies, CEE countries are characterized by fundamental and

comprehensive changes in the formal and informal rules of the game which affect firms and

managers (Peng, 2003). Furthermore, their rapid economic development is associated with these

systematic changes in legal, political, and cultural institutions (e.g., Inglehart, 1997; Kaufmann

and Kraay, 2002). These institutional differences between Western Europe and Central and

Eastern Europe are likely to influence the perceived relative importance of the different CRs.

The Socialist Legacy. The socialist legacy and the recent transformations in CEE countries


11.

present an institutional environment that is immensely different from what a typical Western

manager would encounter (Ericson, 1991; Kornai, 1992; Peng and Heath, 1996). Historically,

planned economies in CEE countries were ruled by hierarchical power relations and bureaucratic

controls. The state curbed opportunism and allocated resources so there was less need for formal

laws to define exchange relationships among economic actors. Property rights were held and

protected by the state; individuals could use assets but did not own them (Hoskisson et al., 2000).

In such an institutional system, the onus for social, economic, and environmental responsibilities

was in the hands of the state rather than business managers.

Institutional changes in transitional economies have included liberalization of prices and

other market activities, privatization of production, restructuring of inefficient factories, and

reform of the banking and legal systems (Olson, Frieze, Wall, Zdaniuk et al., 2006). However,

the main institutional change has been a change in ownership rights accompanied by the

emergence of new and complex contractual relationships (Bohata, 2005). Freedom of choice for

new economic actors, such as entrepreneurs and managers, to enter contractual relationships with

other actors is replacing the previous enforced hierarchical direction which limited managerial

choice and responsibilities.

After the collapse of Communism in 1989, CEE countries committed themselves to

strengthening their market mechanisms through economic liberalization, stabilization, and the

encouragement of private enterprise. While many of the new economic actors (e.g.,

entrepreneurs and managers) accept their newly acquired economic rights and seek to enforce

their financial interests, they have been more reluctant to accept the social and environmental

responsibilities stemming from these rights (Bohata, 2005). Furthermore, during this transition

toward a market economy, a lack of strong legal frameworks allows for substantial opportunism,


12.

rent shifting, bribery, and corruption (Nelson, Tilley and Walker, 1998).

Economic Development. One of the major objectives of economic reform in CEE countries

has also been to increase the productive efficiency of the formerly planned enterprises in order to

be more competitive in world markets (Filatotchev, Buck and Zhukov, 2000). Economic

development is associated with greater material prosperity (e.g., higher per capita income,

productivity growth, technological advancement, expanding markets) and enhanced human

capital (e.g., education and knowledge, population health) (e.g., Georgas, van de Vijver and

Berry, 2004). As a result, individuals in high-income countries have greater economic and

human capital to address their social and environmental corporate responsibilities (Jones, 1999;

Kemmelmeier, Krol and Kim, 2002). This is consistent with slack resources theory which argues

that firms with slack resources may have greater freedom to invest in their corporate social and

environmental responsibilities, whereas firms that are in financial trouble may have less

resources to invest in those responsibilities (McGuire, Sundgren and Schneeweis, 1988;

Waddock and Graves, 1997). Moreover, economic development level has been found to be

negatively related to corruption and the acceptability of unethical business practices (Getz and

Volkema, 2001; Husted, 1999). For the countries in this study, an analysis of the data presented

in Table 1 shows that the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is highly positively correlated

with noncorruption as indicated by Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index

scores (r = .95, p < .001).

[Insert Table 1 about here]

Within Country Differences in CR Attitudes

In respect to individual-level values and attitudes, Inglehart (1997) posits that industrial

economies such as CEE transitional economies still have a modernist values system that


13.

emphasizes individual achievement, materialism, deference to rational-legal authority, and

maximization of economic growth goals. In advanced industrial economies, such as in Western

Europe, high levels of economic security, technological development, and education result in the

adoption of postmaterialist values that emphasize subjective well-being, self-expression, quality

of life, as well as concern for the environment and others. In sum, these institutional and

economic differences between Western European countries and CEE countries are likely to result

in societal differences in perspectives on the relative importance of the social, economic, and

environmental corporate responsibilities.

The economic liberalization in Central and Eastern Europe and the dismantling of central

planning mechanisms have been accompanied by a sharp decline in production output and

investment in major industrial sectors resulting in a prolonged structural crisis (Filatotchev et al.,

2000). Therefore, we may expect that corporate environmental responsibilities are perceived as

relatively less important in CEE countries than in Western European countries. In CEE countries,

individuals are likely to be more concerned with their personal economic situation and may be

less willing to sacrifice their newly acquired wealth for the environment (Kemmelmeier et al.,

2002). In richer and more stable countries such as those in Western Europe, individuals are more

likely to have adapted to their current material level with the result being that other

considerations, such as environmental sustainability, may be relatively more salient than their

personal material resources.

Managers and business students in economically developed Western European countries

should attribute higher importance to ethical and social responsibility given the legal and

political institutions in these countries which aim to elicit responsible corporate behaviors

(European Commission, 2001, 2002). Previous research shows that social responsibilities are


14.

evaluated as more important than economic responsibilities in Western developed countries (e.g.,

Aupperle et al., 1985; Maignan et al., 1999; Pinkston and Carroll, 1994, 1996). In contrast, the

business regulatory and legal systems in CEE countries are less developed and organizational

financial performance considerations take higher precedence over environmental and social

responsibility activities (Filatotchev et al., 2000). For instance, the lower ethical sensitivity of

Ukrainian professionals compared to U.S. professionals has been attributed to the deterioration

of business ethics in the more turbulent business environment of transitional economies

(Vynoslavska, McKinney, Moore and Longenecker, 2005). Hence, we propose:

Hypothesis 1a: In Western European countries, managers and business students attribute

higher importance to social CR and environmental CR than to economic CR.

Hypothesis 1b: In CEE countries, managers and business students attribute higher

importance to economic CR than to social CR and environmental CR.

Between Country Differences in CR Attitudes

Consistent with Inglehart’s (1997) theory of modernization and cultural change, both

national and individual level studies have found that economic development is positively related

to the perceived importance of social responsibilities (e.g., Getz and Volkema, 2001; Husted,

1999; Kaufmann and Kraay, 2002; Singhapakdi, Karande, Rao and Vitell, 2001), and

environmental concern (e.g., Diekmann and Franzen, 1999: Kemmelmeier et al., 2002;

Schnaiberg and Gould, 1994). Economic development level has been shown to be associated

with more effective economic, political, and regulatory institutions to control corruption and

ensure ethical business conduct (Glaeser, La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes and Shleifer, 2004;

Kaufmann and Kraay, 2002).

Country-level ratings such as the World Economic Forum’s (2003) Environmental


15.

Sustainability Index also show that a country’s environmental performance rating is positively

related to per capita income and level of economic development (see Table 1). At the individual-

level, Schnaiberg and Gould (1994) found higher levels of pro-environmental attitudes and

behaviors in advanced industrialized countries. Furthermore, Kemmelmeier et al. (2002) found

that economic growth has a positive effect on proenvironmental attitudes. Specifically, they

proposed that in countries where economic conditions are rapidly changing, such as in CEE

countries in transition, there would be greater concern with personal economic well-being than

with the natural environment.

Consistent with slack resources theory, previous research has found that corporate social and

environmental performance is positively associated with prior financial performance (McGuire,

Sundgreen and Schneeweis, 1988; Orlitzky, Schmidt and Rynes, 2003; Waddock and Graves,

1997). Waddock and Graves (1997) argued that firms in financial trouble, as is more often the

case in CEE countries, may be less able to make discretionary investments in corporate social

and environmental activities (e.g., philanthropy), while those doing well financially have surplus

resources to improve their social and environmental performance.

The lower economic development level and relative lack of available slack resources in CEE

countries compared to Western European countries form the basis for our hypotheses regarding

differences between Western European countries and CEE countries in respect to the relative

importance of social, economic, and environmental corporate responsibilities.

Hypothesis 2a: Managers and business students in Western European countries attribute

higher importance to social CR than those in CEE countries.

Hypothesis 2b: Managers and business students in CEE countries attribute higher

importance to economic CR than those in Western European countries.


16.

Hypothesis 2c: Managers and business students in Western European countries attribute

higher importance to environmental CR than those in CEE countries.

Generational Differences in CR Attitudes

Moral development theory (Kohlberg, 1981) suggests that individuals become more ethical

with age and experience and thus, older individuals would attribute higher importance to ethical

conduct and social responsibility. Even so, empirical research examining the relationship

between age and sensitivity to unethical business practices has yielded mixed results with some

studies finding age to be positively related to ethical sensitivity (e.g., Dawson, 1997; Deshpandé,

1997; Longenecker, McKinney and Moore, 1989; Weeks, Moore, McKinney and Longenecker,

1999) and other studies not finding age to be a significant factor (Mitchell, Lewis and Reinsch,

1992; Singhapakdi et al., 2001). Comparative studies of business managers/professionals and

business students have also yielded mixed results. Consistent with moral development theory

predictions, some studies have found business managers/professionals to be more sensitive to

unethical practices than business students (Hollon and Ulrich, 1979; Sparks and Hunt, 1998;

Wood, Longenecker, McKinney and Moore, 1988). However, other studies have found the

obverse with business students having higher ethical sensitivity (e.g., Ibrahim and Angelidis,

1993; Smith, Skalnik and Skalnik, 1999) and attributing higher importance to corporate ethical

and discretionary responsibilities (Ibrahim et al., 2006) than business managers and

professionals. As proposed by Ibrahim et al. (2006), the current generation of business students

may have more ethical predispositions as a result of recent corporate scandals about unethical

business practices. However, the extent to which these U.S.-based results are generalizable to the

European context remains to be established.

Because the role of managers has been traditionally defined in economic terms, it is likely


17.

that managers will place a high priority on corporate economic issues (Sharfman, Pinkston, and

Sigerstad, 2000). One explanation for the higher importance that business managers and

professionals have accorded corporate economic responsibilities compared to business students

is that managers’ maturity and experience provide them with a greater appreciation of the

“business world’s economic realities” (Ibrahim and Angelidis, 1993; Ibrahim, Angelidis and

Howard, 2006).

In contrast, empirical studies have consistently found that younger respondents have higher

levels of environmental concern than older respondents (Arcury, Scollary and Johnson, 1986;

Diamantopoulos, Schlegelmilch, Sinkovics and Bohlen, 2003; Jones and Dunlap, 1992). One

explanation is that youth is associated with higher levels of postmaterialistic values (Inglehart,

1997). Hence, we propose that across our sample of European countries:

Hypothesis 3a: Managers attribute higher importance to social CR than business students.

Hypothesis 3b: Managers attribute higher importance to economic CR than business

students.

Hypothesis 3c: Business students attribute higher importance to environmental CR than

managers.

Effect of Transition on Generational Differences in CR Attitudes

CEE countries are transition economies with a rapid pace of economic development and

rapid changes in institutions and government policies (Arnold and Quelch, 1998; Hoskisson et

al., 2000; Peng, 2003). The potential convergence of CR values and attitudes due to the impact of

these institutional changes could take years, decades, or even generations (Egri and Ralston,

2004; Ralston, Egri, Stewart, Terpstra and Kaicheng, 1999). Since there is general agreement

that individuals form most of their value system by adolescence (e.g., Inglehart, 1997; Keith,


18.

1990), it may be the next generation of managers whose attitudes toward CR have been most

affected by recent developments regarding views of corporate responsibilities. Therefore, in this

cross-sectional study of attitudes toward CR, we examine the attitudes of present managers

compared to those of future managers (i.e., business students). The present generation of

managers in CEE countries developed their careers in an institutional environment where both

they and their principals in centrally planned economies considered output and organizational

growth as major features of managerial success (Filatotchev et al., 2000). Alternatively, students

in CEE countries grew up during the post-socialist transition toward a market economy, which is

characterized by economic turbulence and uncertainty (Hoskisson et al., 2000). In contrast, the

relative economic stability over the past few decades in Western European countries suggests

that there would be less generational differences in business-related attitudes in these contexts.

This is consistent with Inglehart’s (1997) finding that there were larger inter-generational values

differences in transitional countries which had experienced rapid economic change than in richer

and more stable countries. Therefore, we expect that significant differences in CSER attitudes

between managers and business students are more prevalent in CEE countries than in Western

European countries. Hence, we propose:

Hypothesis 4: In CEE countries there are more significant differences between managers

and business students in the importance attributed to social CR, economic CR, and

environmental CR than there are in Western European countries.

METHOD

Sample

Participants in this study were 3,064 managers and business students from 8 European


19.

countries (4 from Western Europe – France, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland; and 4 from Central

and Eastern Europe – Croatia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Russia). The Czech Republic and

Lithuania are two CEE countries which recently joined the European Union, whereas Croatia is a

EU candidate country. In that different countries have different interrelated institutions (e.g.,

government and political systems, laws and legal systems, school systems, etc.) which are

homogeneous within countries (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005), thus countries are an appropriate

level of analysis to study the impact of institutions on individuals’ attitudes.

The period of data collection was 2002-2005. A cross-sectional sampling design was used in

a mail survey to collect the manager data. The average response rate for the managers was 23%,

with all countries exceeding a 15% rate and 43% being the highest rate. The business student

data was obtained in the classroom. In respect to demographic characteristics, participants were

asked to provide their age, gender (1 = male, 2 = female), and education level (1 = 4 or fewer

years completed; 2 = 5-8 years completed; 3 = 9-12 years completed, 4 = Bachelors degree, 5 =

Masters degree, and 6 = Doctorate degree). See Table 2 for sample demographic characteristics.


Instrument

The survey questionnaire was translated from English into each of the native languages of

the cultures represented in the study. Standard translation-back-translation procedures (Craig and

Douglas, 2000) were used with one individual translating the questionnaire from English to the

other language, and a second individual back-translating the questionnaire into English.

Translation differences were resolved between the two translators, and a third party was

employed to assist when necessary. In order to reduce social desirability responses (Anastasi and

Urbina, 1996), participants were instructed that there were no right or wrong answers, and that it


20.

was their perceptions that were important.

To measure social and economic corporate responsibilities, we used Maignan and Ferrell’s

(2003) 16-item measure of consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities. This

cross-culturally validated instrument consists of 4 subscales that measure perceptions of

economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary corporate responsibilities. Although Maignan and

Ferrell (2003) had found that these subscales loaded onto 4 separate factors, exploratory factor

analysis showed that this was a two-factor measure (after retaining items with factor loadings

greater than .50). One factor consisted of 4 items that included two ethical responsibility items

(“give priority to ethical principles over economic benefits,” “be committed to well-defined

ethics principles”) and two discretionary responsibility items (“contribute actively to the welfare

of our community,” “help solve social problems”). The second factor consisted of 2 economic

responsibility items (“worry first and foremost about maximizing profits”, “always be concerned

first about economic performance”). Based on a review of previous measures of proactive

corporate environmental management (Branzei and Vertinsky, 2002; Egri and Hornal, 2002;

Sharma, 2000), we developed a 9-item measure of environmental corporate responsibility. The

exploratory factor analysis showed a 3-item environmental CR scale (“prevent environmental

degradation caused by the pollution and depletion of natural resources”, “adopt formal programs

to minimize the harmful impact of organizational activities on the environment”, “minimize the

environmental impact of all organizational activities”). In the survey, participants were asked to

indicate the degree to which they agreed (using a 9-point Likert-type scale, 1 = strongly disagree

to 9 = strongly agree) that it was the duty of businesses to engage in corporate social, economic,

and environmental responsibility activities.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine the configural invariance of this


21.

three-factor social, economic, and environmental CR model (Steenkamp and Baumgartner,

1998). The CFA analyses for the individual country samples showed configural invariance for

the three CR scales (range of RMSEA = .04 to .08, GFI = .93 to .97, CFI = .92 to .97).

For the total sample, the internal reliability of the 4-item social CR scale was Cronbach

alpha = .64 (ranging from .50 to .74 for the individual country alphas). While the total sample

Cronbach alpha for the 2-item economic CR scale was .68 (ranging from.41 to .69 for individual

countries) and .71 for the 3-item environmental CR scale (ranging from .60 to .80 for individual

countries). However, the Cronbach alphas for the 2-item economic CR scale was below .60 for 3

countries in the sample (Croatia, Russia, and Spain) and the Cronbach alphas for the 4-item

social CR scale was .50 for Russia. Although some alphas were below the optimal level, internal

consistency seemed adequate for this study. Fu, Kennedy, Tata, Yukl et al. (2004) argue that for

cross-cultural studies for which social beliefs should be measured across cultures, such as in this

study, low Cronbach’s alphas are likely to occur due to small numbers of items available with

cross-cultural equivalence. Culture-specific items could be added to increase the reliability of the

scales when measuring beliefs within a cultural group, however in our study, this is not desirable

because it reduces the cross-cultural comparability of the scales (Leung and Bond, 2004).

Full measurement invariance was not attained in the confirmatory factor analyses, therefore

standardized scores for the three CR scales were used to test hypotheses (e.g., Sin, Cheung and

Lee, 1999; Leung and Bond, 1989). The resulting standardized scores represent the relative

importance of each type of corporate responsibility. Table 3 presents the means and standard

deviations of the three CR scales for the countries (including scale reliabilities), and for the

managers and student samples for each country.



22.

RESULTS

Within Country Differences in Ranking of Corporate Responsibilities

Paired-sample t-tests were conducted to test Hypothesis 1 regarding country differences in

the relative importance of social, economic, and environmental corporate responsibilities (see

Table 4). For both managers and students in the four Western European countries (France, Italy,

Spain, and Switzerland), environmental CR is perceived to be relatively more important than

social CR, which in turn are perceived to be relatively more important than economic CR.

Therefore, Hypothesis 1a was fully supported given that social CR and environmental CR were

viewed as more important than economic CR.

For the four CEE countries, there was mixed results. Consistent with Hypothesis 1b,

economic CR was viewed as relatively more important than social CR and environmental CR for

managers and students in Croatia and the Czech Republic. Consistent with Hypothesis 1b,

economic CR was viewed as relatively more important than social CR for managers and students

in Lithuania and Russia. Inconsistent with Hypothesis 1b, there were no significant differences in

the perceived importance of economic CR and environmental CR in these two countries. Hence,

Hypothesis 1b was partially supported.


Between Country Differences in CR Attitudes

A MANCOVA was conducted to test Hypotheses 2 and 3 regarding influences on

perspectives of social, economic, and environmental corporate responsibilities across countries.

In the MANCOVA, the dependent variables were the three CR scale scores, the independent

variables were country, manager/student, and the country-by-manager/student interaction term,


23.

and the covariates, were gender and education level. Given a high correlation between

participant age and the manager/student variable (r = .67, p < .001), age was not used in the

analysis.

The MANCOVA results showed a significant effect for country (Wilks’ λ =.83, F = 27.98,

p < .001), for manager/student (λ =.99, F = 5.26, p < .001), as well as for gender (λ =.98, F =

19.71, p < .001). In addition, there was a significant interaction effect between country and

manager/student (λ =.98, F = 2.28, p < .001). Education level was not significant and there were

no other significant interactions effects. The MANCOVA results are reported in Table 5.


Hypothesis 2 proposed that managers and students in Western European countries would

attribute relatively higher importance to social CR (Hypothesis 2a) and environmental CR

(Hypothesis 2c), and lower importance to economic CR (Hypothesis 2b) than would managers

and students in CEE countries. There were significant country differences for social CR (F =

19.58, p < .001), economic CR (F = 73.05, p < .001), and environmental CR (F = 35.49, p <

.001). The results of post-hoc group comparisons are presented in Table 6. Consistent with

Hypothesis 2a, participants in Italy and Switzerland attributed higher importance to social CR

than participants in the four CEE countries. Also consistent with Hypothesis 2a, participants in

France attributed higher importance to social CR than did participants in Lithuania, the Czech

Republic, and Russia. Inconsistent with Hypothesis 2a, French participants did not have higher

social CR scores than Croatian participants. However, in sum, strong support was found for

Hypothesis 2a.

Hypothesis 2b was fully supported in that CEE participants attributed higher importance to

economic CR than did Western Europe participants. Consistent with Hypothesis 2c, Western


24.

Europe participants attributed higher importance to environmental CR than participants in

Croatia, Lithuania, and Russia. Further, participants in Spain attributed higher importance to

environmental CR than Czech Republic participants. Inconsistent with Hypothesis 2c, there were

no significant differences in this regard between France, Switzerland, Italy, and the Czech

Republic participants.


Generational Differences in CR Attitudes

Hypothesis 3 proposed that across countries, managers would attribute higher importance to

social CR (Hypothesis 3a) and economic CR (Hypothesis 3b), and lower importance to

environmental CR (Hypothesis 3c) than would business students. Hypothesis 3a was supported

in that managers attributed significantly higher importance to social CR than students (F = 13.42,

p < .001). In addition, there was a significant country-by-manager/student interaction (F = 3.65,

p < .001). Subsequent t-tests showed that managers had higher social CR scores than students

only in the Czech Republic (t = -3.58, p < .001) and Italy (t = -3.48, p < .001). Hence, partial

support was found for Hypothesis 3a.

Hypothesis 3b was not supported in that there was no significant difference between

managers and students for economic CR (F = .94). In respect to Hypothesis 3c,students

attributed significantly higher importance to environmental CR than managers (F = 9.25, p <

.01). However, there was a significant country-by-manager/student interaction (F = 3.31, p < .01)

such that students had higher environmental CR scores than managers only in the Czech

Republic (t = 4.71, p < .001) and Italy (t = 2.46, p < .05). Hence, Hypothesis 3c was partially

supported.

Hypothesis 4 proposed that there would be more significant manager/student differences in


25.

perspectives regarding corporate responsibilities for participants in CEE countries than for

participants in Western European countries. Examination of the number of significant

manager/student differences in CR perspectives for individual countries shows that there were

two significant differences for the Czech Republic and Italy (social CR and environmental CR),

and no significant differences for Croatia, France, Lithuania, Russia, Spain, and Switzerland. In

sum, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.

In respect to the gender control variable, female participants attributed relatively higher

importance to social CR (F = 36.13, p < .001) and relatively lower importance to economic CR

(F = 49.84, p < .001) than did male participants. No significant gender differences were found in

respect to environmental CR.

DISCUSSION

In general, we found substantive differences in European managers’ and business students’

perspectives on the relative importance of social, economic, and environmental corporate

responsibilities. Within each country, participants attributed relatively higher importance to

environmental corporate responsibilities than to the other two types of corporate responsibilities.

Contrary to cross-cultural studies of general population samples (Dunlap et al., 1998; Inglehart,

1997), we found that managers and business students in Central and Eastern Europe, despite their

economic transition status, also attributed higher importance to environmental corporate

responsibilities. However, our finding that participants in Western Europe (especially those from

higher GDP countries) attributed higher importance to environmental corporate responsibilities is

consistent with Inglehart’s (1997) observation that postmaterialist values which include

environmental concern are more prevalent in advanced industrialized societies. As expected,

managers and business students in Russia and Lithuania attributed lower importance to social


26.

corporate responsibilities than to the other two corporate responsibilities. These findings are

consistent with previous research that has found Lithuanian employees and firms accord higher

priority to profits over the social responsibility in business (Vasiljeviene and Vasiljev, 2005), and

that the social role of companies in society is perceived to be low in Russia (Litovchenko and

Korsakov, 2003).

Across countries, the primary difference was between Western European and CEE countries.

As predicted by Inglehart’s (1997) postmaterialist hypothesis, managers and business students in

Western European countries accord relatively higher importance to social corporate

responsibilities and relatively lower importance to economic corporate responsibilities than do

managers and business students in CEE countries. These findings are also consistent with

previous country-level business ethics research that has found a positive relationship between

economic development and ethical business practices (e.g., Getz and Volkema, 2001; Husted,

1999; Kaufmann and Kraay, 2002; Singhapakdi et al., 2001; Vynoslavska et al., 2005) and

between economic development and pro-environmental attitudes (e.g., Dirkmann and Franzen,

1999; Kemmelmeier et al., 2002). Our findings are also consistent with predictions of slack

resources theory which posits that firms that do not have slack financial resources, such as in

most CEE transition countries, may have less freedom to invest in their social and environmental

corporate responsibilities (McGuire et al., 1988; Orlitzky et al., 2003; Waddock and Graves,

1997).

However, even though CEE transition economies had a common starting point, these

countries have pursued different transition paths and have achieved different degrees of progress

(Hoskisson et al., 2000; Svejnar, 2002). Several transition economies have not performed as well

as expected and economic performance has also widely varied across CEE countries. Central


27.

European countries such as the Czech Republic have generally performed better than the Baltic

states, including Lithuania, which in turn have performed better than Russia (Svejnar, 2002).

Furthermore, some CEE countries such as the Czech Republic and Lithuania have accelerated

their transition to meet Western social, economic, and environmental standards to join the

European Union in 2004. This external pressure may have triggered the adoption of attitudes in

line with EU expectations regarding corporate responsibilities (Aguilera and Cuervo-Cazurra,

2004). Consistent with this argument, our study found respondents in the Czech Republic to have

attitudes close to those in the other EU member countries. The rapidity of this forced transition

could also explain why the manager/student differences in the importance attributed to social and

environmental corporate responsibilities is the largest for Czech Republic participants. However,

joining the EU appears not to have had a similar effect in Lithuania. This could be attributed to

Lithuania still having a relatively low level of economic performance and a very strong

recurrence of communist ideology in the mass consciousness (Svejnar, 2002; Vasiljeviene and

Vasiljev, 2005). Indeed, Vasiljeviene and Vasiljev (2005) found that in Lithuania, companies

still regard all social problems as entirely a concern and responsibility only for the Ministry of

Social Security and Labor.

One contribution of this study was our examination of the cross-cultural generalizability of

differences between practicing business managers and future managers (i.e., business students) in

attitudes towards social, economic, and environmental responsibilities. Contrary to previous

U.S.-based research (e.g., Ibrahim and Angelidis, 1993; Ibrahim et al., 2006), we did not find

significant differences between European managers and business students in the importance

attributed to economic responsibilities. Neither did we find differences between managers and

business students in attitudes towards social and environmental attitudes for six of the eight


28.

European countries in this study (i.e., Croatia, France, Lithuania, Russia, Spain, and

Switzerland). However, for the Czech Republic and Italy, our findings were consistent with

previous research in that business students attributed higher importance to corporate

environmental responsibilities than their managerial counterparts (e.g., Diamantopoulos et al.,

2003; Jones and Dunlap, 1992). That managers in the Czech Republic and Italy attributed higher

importance to corporate social responsibilities than business students is also consistent with

moral development theory (Kohlberg, 1981; Sparks and Hunt, 1998; Wood et al., 1988) rather

than with more recent U.S.-based research suggesting that current business students have more

ethical dispositions than practicing managers (e.g., Ibrahim et al., 2006).

In this study, we found that female participants attributed higher importance to social

corporate responsibilities and lower importance to economic responsibilities than did male

participants. These findings are consistent with previous studies which found that women are

more socially sensitive than men (e.g., Akaah, 1989; Dawson, 1997; Marz, Powers and Queisser,

2003), whereas men have a stronger economic sensitivity (Ibrahim and Angelidis, 1994). We did

not find gender differences in attitudes toward environmental corporate responsibilities, contrary

to previous research which has found that women have higher levels of environmental concern

than men (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Jones and Dunlap, 1992).

Limitations and Further Research

Although this study of social, economic, and environmental corporate responsibilities

included samples from eight different European countries, additional countries may be needed to

confirm our findings regarding country and demographic influences on these attitudes. Transition

economies are by definition rapidly evolving, therefore it is particularly important to replicate

this study to monitor changes in managers’ and business students’ attitudes toward CR. Future


29.

replications are needed given the EU impetus to achieve a European-wide standard of CR

policies and practices with particular attention on its new members from Central and Eastern

Europe quickly reaching the level of their Western counterparts.

Another limitation of this study is that we were concerned with the relative importance of

different types of corporate responsibilities. While the strong linkage between attitudes and

behaviors has been well established (Ajzen, 1996), further multi-country research of managers

and business students is needed regarding the linkage between attitudes toward corporate

responsibilities and managerial actions.

CONCLUSION

Our study findings have important implications for multinational corporations operating

across European national borders, national governments, and the EU as a supranational

institution. As attitudes toward CSER have not yet converged, especially between Western

European and CEE countries, multinational corporations (MNCs) may be faced with an ethical

dilemma as to whether to adapt their CSER practices to local conditions or to maintain and

implement similar (i.e., Western) CSER practices across countries (Boisot and Child, 1999;

Hoskisson et al. 2000; Peng, 2003). One strategy would reflect a form of ethical relativism

whereas the second strategy would reflect a form of ethical imperialism (Donaldson, 1996).

As operations across European countries become more integrated, MNCs may choose to

advance similar CSER practices in order to develop a coherent corporate culture. However, those

MNCs are likely to encounter implementation problems when seeking to integrate their CSER

practices because of differences in managers’ attitudes. Such integrated practices may be faced

with strong institutional resistance in CEE countries. However, MNCs may benefit from the


30.

support of Western European governments as well as the EU which favor consistency in CSER

practices across EU countries. Lower CSER performance in CEE countries may be perceived as

a threat by Western European countries, as CSER differences within an integrated Europe may

create a destabilizing movement of corporations and persons. Indeed, MNCs with poor CSER

performance may opportunistically transfer some of their activities into countries where CSER is

perceived as less important and CSER regulations less costly thereby creating economic turmoil

in countries with stricter CSER norms. Labor intensive activities may be transferred to countries

where social responsibilities are perceived as less important and polluting activities may be

transferred to countries where environmental responsibilities are perceived as less important.

Furthermore, the free movement of persons within EU boundaries means that employees and

workers from countries with lower social CR performance may be more likely to migrate to

countries where there is better social protection. Such movements between EU countries may

destabilize Western European countries’ job markets and social welfare institutions. Reducing

country differences in managers and business students’ attitudes toward social, economic, and

environmental corporate responsibilities is therefore a critical challenge for the EU and the

governments of the EU members. Our findings suggest that a convergence in economic

development and institutional frameworks within Europe is important to reduce these

differences.


31.

REFERENCES

Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K. and Sonnenfeld, J.A. (1999) ‘Who matters to CEOs? An investigation

of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values’, Academy of

Management Journal, 42(5): 507-525.

Aguilera, R.V. and Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004) ‘Codes of good governance worldwide: What is

the trigger?’, Organization Studies, 25(3): 415-443.

Akaah, I.P. (1989) ‘Differences in research ethics judgments between male and female

marketing professionals’, Journal of Business Ethics, 8(5): 375-381.

Anastasi, N. and Urbina, S. (1996) Psychological Testing, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ):

Prentice Hall.

Arcury, T.A., Scollay, S.J. and Johnson, T.P. (1987) ‘Sex differences in environmental concern

and knowledge: The case of acid rain’, Sex Roles, 16(May): 463-472.

Arnold, D.J. and Quelch, J.A. (1998) ‘New strategies in emerging markets’, Sloan Management

Review, 40(Fall): 7-20.

Aupperle, K.E., Carroll, A.B. and Hatfield, J.D. (1985) ‘An empirical examination of the

relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability’, Academic of

Management Journal, 28(2): 446-463.

Boisot, M. and Child, J. (1999) ‘Organizations as adaptive systems in complex environments:

The case of China’, Organization Science, 10(3): 237-252.

Bohata, M. (2005) ‘Czech Republic: Discovering a new concept of authority’, in A. Habisch, J.

Jonker, M. Wegner and R. Schmidpeter (eds.) Corporate Social Responsibility Across

Europe, Springer: Berlin, pp. 151-166.

Branzei, O. and Vertinsky, I. (2002) ‘Eco-sustainability orientation in China and Japan:


32.

Differences between proactive and reactive firms’, in S. Sharma and M. Starik (eds.) Research

in Corporate Sustainability: The Evolving Theory and Practice of Organizations in the

Natural Environment, Edward Elgar: Northhampton, MA, pp. 85-122.

Carroll, A.B. (1979) ‘A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance’,

Academy of Management Review, 4(4): 497-505.

Carroll, A.B. (1991) ‘The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral

management of organizational stakeholders’, Business Horizons, 34(July-August): 39-48.

Craig, S.C. and Douglas, S.P. (2000) International Marketing Research, Second Edition, John

Wiley and Sons: Chichester.

Davis, L.E. and North, D.C. (1971) Institutional Change and American Economic Growth,

Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Dawson, L.M. (1997) ‘Ethical differences between men and women in the sales profession’,

Journal of Business Ethics, 16(11): 1143-1152.

Deshpandé, S.P. (1997) ‘Managers’ perception of proper ethical conduct: The effect of sex, age,

and level of education’, Journal of Business Ethics, 16(1): 79-85.

DesJardins, J. (1998) ‘Corporate environmental responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics,

17(8): 825-838.

Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Sinkovics, R.R. and Bohlen, G.M. (2003) ‘Can socio-

demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and

an empirical investigation’, Journal of Business Research, 56(6): 465-480.

Diekmann, A. and Franzen, A. (1999) ‘The wealth of nations and environmental concern’,

Environment and Behavior, 31(4): 540-549.

Donaldson, T. (1996) ‘Values in tension: Ethics away from home’, Harvard Business Review,


33.

September-October: 4-11.

Dunlap, R.E., Gallup Jr., G.H., and Gallup, A.M. (1993) ‘Of global concern: Results of the

health of the planet survey’, Environment, 35(9): 6-14, 33-40.

Egri, C.P. and Hornal, R.C. (2002) ‘Strategic environmental human resource management and

perceived organizational performance: An exploratory study of the Canadian manufacturing

sector’, in S. Sharma and M. Starik (eds.) Research in Corporate Sustainability: The

Evolving Theory and Practice of Organizations in the Natural Environment, Edward Elgar:

Northhampton, MA, pp. 205-236.

Egri, C.P. and Ralston, D.A. (2004) ‘Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of

China and the United States’, Organization Science, 15(2): 210-220.

Egri, C.P., Ralston, D.A., Milton, L., Naoumova, I., Palmer, I., Ramburuth, P., Wangenheim, F.,

Fu, P., Kuo, M.H., Ansari, M., de la Garza Carranza, M.T., Riddle, L. Girson, I. Elenkov,

D., Dabic, M., Butt, A., Srinivasan, N., Potocan, V.V., Furrer, O., Hallinger, P., Dalagic, T.,

Thanh, H.V., Richards, M. and Rossi, A.M. (2004) ‘Managerial perspectives on corporate

environmental and social responsibilities in 22 Countries’, in K.M. Weaver (ed.) Best

Papers Proceedings of the Academy of Management Meeting, New Orleans, pp. C1-C6.

Ericson, R.E. (1991) ‘The classical soviet-type economy: Nature of the system and implications

for reform’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(4): 11-27.

European Commission. (2001) ‘Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social

Responsibility: Green Paper’, http://ec.europa.eu (accessed 9 January 2007).

European Commission. (2002) ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Business Contribution to

Sustainable Development’, http://ec.europa.eu (accessed 9 January 2007).

Filatotchev, I., Buck, T. and Zhukov, V. (2000) ‘Downsizing in privatized firms in Russia,


34.

Ukraine, and Belarus’, Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 286-304.

Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman: Boston.

Fu, P.P., Kennedy, J., Tata, J., Yukl, G., Bond, M.H., Peng, T.-K., Srinivas, E.S., Howell, J.P.,

Prieto, L., Koopman, P., Boonstra, J.J., Pasa, S., Lacassagne, M.-F., Higashide, H. and

Cheosakul, A. (2004) ‘The impact of societal cultural values and individual social beliefs on

the perceived effectiveness of managerial influence strategies: A meso approach’, Journal of

International Business Studies, 35(4): 284-305.

Fu, P.P. and Yukl, G. (2000) ‘Perceived effectiveness and use of influence tactics in the US and

China’, Leadership Quarterly, 11: 251-266.

Getz, K.A. and Volkema, R.J. (2001) ‘Culture, perceived corruption, and economics: A model of

predictors and outcomes’, Business and Society, 40(1): 7-30.

Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M. and Schmidpeter R. (eds.) (2005) Corporate Social

Responsibility across Europe, Springer: Berlin.

Hofstede, G, and Hofstede, G.J. (2005) Cultures and Organizations Software of the Mind:

Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival, McGraw-Hill: New York.

Hofstede, G., Van Deusen, C.A., Mueller, C.B., Charles, T.A. and the Business Goals Network

(2002) ‘What goals do business leaders pursue? A study in fifteen countries’, Journal of

International Business Studies, 33(4): 785-803.

Hollon, C. and Ulrich, T. (1979) ‘Personal business ethics: Managers vs. managers-to-be’,

Southern Business Review, 5: 17-22.

Hood, J.N. (2003) ‘The relationship of leadership style and CEO values to ethical practices in

organizations’, Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4): 263-273.

Hoskisson, R.E., Eden, L., Lau, C.M. and Wright, M. (2000) ‘Strategy in emerging economies’,


35.

Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 249-267.

Husted, B.W. (1999) ‘Wealth, culture, and corruption’, Journal of International Business

Studies, 30(2): 339-360.

Ibrahim, N.A. and Angelidis, J.A. (1993) ‘Corporate social responsibility: A comparative

analysis of perceptions of top executives and business students’, The Mid-Atlantic Journal of

Business, 29(3): 303-313.

Ibrahim, N.A. and Angelidis, J.A. (1994) ‘Effect of board members’ gender on corporate social

responsiveness orientation’, Journal of Applied Business Research, 10(1): 35-40.

Ibrahim, N., Angelidis, J. and Howard, D. (2006) ‘Corporate social responsibility: A

comparative analysis of perceptions of practicing accountants and accounting students’,

Journal of Business Ethics, 66(2/3): 157-167.

Inglehart, R. (1997) Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political

Change in 43 Societies, Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

Jones, R.E. and Dunlap, R.E. (1992) ‘The social bases of environmental concern: Have they

changed over time?’, Rural Sociology, 57(1): 28-47.

Kaufmann, D. and Kraay, A. (2002) ‘Growth without governance’, Economia, 3(1): 169-229.

Keith, J. (1990) ‘Age in social and cultural context: Anthropological perspectives’, in R. Binstock

and L. George (eds.) Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, 3rd ed., Academic Press:

San-Diego, CA, pp. 91-111.

Kemmelmeier, M., Krol, G. and Kim, Y.H. (2002) ‘Values, economic, and proenvironmental

attitudes in 22 societies’, Cross-Cultural Research, 26(3): 256-285.

Kohlberg, L. (1981) The Meaning and Measurement of Moral Development, Clark University

Press: Worcester, MA.


36.

Kornai, J. (1992) The socialist system: The political economy of communism, Princeton

University Press: Princeton, NJ.

Kostjuk, K. (2005) ‘Russia: The thin line between small business and big politics’, in A.

Habisch, J. Jonker, M. Wegner and R. Schmidpeter (eds.) Corporate Social Responsibility

Across Europe, Springer: Berlin, pp. 209-217.

Lessen, G. and Vorobey, V. (2005) ‘The role of business in society in Europe’, in A. Habisch, J.

Jonker, M. Wegner and R. Schmidpeter (eds.) Corporate Social Responsibility Across

Europe, Springer: Berlin, pp. 357-375.

Leung, K. and Bond, M.H. (1989) ‘On the empirical identification of dimensions for cross-

cultural comparison’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(2): 133-151.

Leung, K. and Bond, M.H. (2004) ‘Social axioms: a model for social beliefs in multi-cultural

perspective’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 122-199.

Litovchenko, S. and Korsakov, M. (ed.) (2003) Corporate Social Responsibility: Public

Expectations, Moscow, Russia (cited in Kostjuk, 2005).

Longenecker, J.G., McKinney, J.A. and Moore, C.W. (1989) ‘The generation gap in business

ethics’, Business Horizons, 32(5): 9-14.

McGuire, J.B., Sundgren, A. and Schneeweis, T. (1988) ‘Corporate social responsibility and firm

financial performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 31(4): 854-872.

Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Hult, G.T.M. (1999) ‘Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents

and business benefits’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4): 455-469.

Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O.C. (2003) ‘Nature of corporate responsibilities: Perspectives from

American, French, and German consumers’, Journal of Business Research, 56(1): 55-67.

Marz, J.W., Powers, T.L. and Queisser, T. (2003) ‘Corporate and individual influences on


37.

managers’ social orientation’, Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1): 1-11.

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997) ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification

and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts’, Academy of

Management Review, 22(4): 853-886.

Mitchell, W.J., Lewis, P.V. and Reinsch, Jr., N.L. (1992) ‘Bank ethics: An exploratory study of

ethical behaviors and perceptions in small, local banks’, Journal of Business Ethics, 11(3):

197-205.

Nelson, J.M., Tilley, C. and Walker, L. (eds.) (1998) Transforming Post-Communist Political

Economies: Task Force on Economies in Transition, National Research Council, National

Academy Press: Washington, DC.

North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Harvard

University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Olson, J.E., Frieze, I.H., Wall, S., Zdaniuk, B., Telpuchovskaya, N., Ferligoj, A., Kogov ek, T.,

Horvat, J., arlija, N., Jaro ová, E., Pauknerová, D., Luu, L.A.N., Kovacs, M., Miluska, J.,

Orgocka, A., Erokhina, L., Mitina, O.V., Popova, L.V., Petkevi iu-te, N., Pejic-Bach, M.

and Makovec, M.R. (2006) ‘Economic influences on ideals about future jobs in young adults

in formerly socialist countries and the United States’, Cross-Cultural Research, 40(4): 352-

376.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L. and Rynes, S.L. (2003) ‘Corporate social and financial performance:

A meta-analysis’, Organization Studies, 24(3): 403-441.

Peng, M.W. (2003) ‘Institutional transitions and strategic choices,’ Academy of Management

Review, 28(2): 275-296.

Peng, M.W. and Heath, P.S. (1996) ‘The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition:


38.

Institutions, organizations, and strategic choice’, Academy of Management Review, 21(2):

492-528.

Perrini, F., Pogutz, S. and Tencati, A. (2006) ‘Corporate social responsibility in Italy: State of the

art’, Journal of Business Strategies, 23(1): 65-91.

Pinkston, T.S. and Carroll, A.B. (1994) ‘Corporate Citizenship Perspectives and Foreign Direct

Investments in the U.S.’, Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3): 157-169.

Pinkston, T.S. and Carroll, A.B. (1996) ‘A Retrospective Examination of CSR Orientations:

Have They Changed?’, Journal of Business Ethics, 15(2): 199-206.

Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds.) (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational

Analysis, University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Ralston. D.A., Egri, C.P., Stewart, S., Terpstra, R.H. and Kaicheng, Y. (1999) ‘Doing business in

the 21st century with the new generation of Chinese managers: A study of generational

shifts in work values in China’, Journal of International Business Studies, 30(2): 415-428.

Schlegelmilch, B.B. and Robertson, D.C. (1995) ‘The influence of country and industry on

ethical perceptions of senior executives in the U.S. and Europe’, Journal of International

Business Studies, 26(4): 859-881.

Schnaiberg, A. and Gould, K. (1994) Environment and Society: The Enduring Conflict, St.

Martin’s Press: New York.

Scott, W.R. (1987) ‘The adolescence of institutional theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly,

32(4): 593-611.

Scott, W.R. (1995) Institutions and Organizations, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Sin, L.Y.M., Cheung, G.W.E. and Lee, R. (1999) ‘Methodology in cross-cultural consumer

research: A review and critical assessment’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,


39.

11(4): 75-96.

Sharfman, M.P., Pinkston, T.S. and Sigerstad, T.D. (2000) ‘The effects of managerial values of

social issues evaluation: An empirical examination’, Business and Society, 39(2): 144-182.

Sharma, S. (2000) ‘Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of

corporate choice of environmental strategy’, Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 681-

697.

Shrivastava, P. (1996) Greening Business: Profiting the Corporation and the Environment,

Thompson Executive Press: Cincinnati, OH.

Singhapakdi, A., Karande, K., Rao, C.P. and Vitell, S.J. (2001) ‘How important are ethics and

social responsibility? A multinational study of marketing professionals’, European Journal

of Marketing, 35(1/2): 133-145.

Smith, D., Skalnik, J. and Skalnik, P. (1999) ‘Ethical behavior of marketing managers and MBA

students’, Teaching Business Ethics, 3(4): 321-335.

Sparks, J.R. and Hunt, S.D. (1998) ‘Marketing researcher ethical sensitivity: Conceptualization,

measurement, and exploratory investigation’, Journal of Marketing, 62(April): 92-109.

Starik, M. and Rands, G.P. (1995) ‘Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem

perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations’, Academy of Management Review,

20(4): 908-935.

Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1998) ‘Assessing measurement invariance in cross-

national consumer research’, Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1): 78-90.

Svejnar, J. (2002) ‘Transition economies: Performance and Challenges’, Journal of Economic

Perspectives, 16(1): 3-28.

Thomas, D.C. and Au, K. (2002) ‘The effect of cultural differences on behavioral responses to


40.

low job satisfaction’, Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2): 309-326.

Vasijeviene, N. and Vasiljev, A. (2005) ‘Lithuania: The roadmap: From confrontation to

Consensus’, in A. Habisch, J. Jonker, M. Wegner and R. Schmidpeter (eds.) Corporate

Social Responsibility Across Europe, Springer: Berlin, pp. 183-193.

Vynoslavska, O., McKinney, J. A., Moore, C. W. and Longenecker, J. G. (2005) ‘Transition

Ethics: A Comparison of Ukrainian and United States Business Professionals’, Journal of

Business Ethics, 61(3): 283-299.

Waddock, S.A. and Graves, S.B. (1997) ‘The corporate social performance-financial

performance link,’ Strategic Management Journal, 18(4): 303-319.

Weeks, W.A., Moore, C.W., McKinney, J.A. and Longenecker, J.G. (1999) ‘The effects of

gender and career stage on ethical judgment’, Journal of Business Ethics, 20(4): 301-313.

Wood, J.A., Longenecker, J.G., McKinney, J.A. and Moore, C.W. (1988) ‘Ethical attitudes of

students and business professionals: A study of moral reasoning’, Journal of Business

Ethics, 7(4): 249-257

World Economic Forum. (2002) 2002 Environmental Sustainability Index, Global Leaders of

Tomorrow Environment Task Force, World Economic Forum: Geneva.


41.

Table 1

Country Economic Development, Noncorruption Perceptions,

and Environmental Performance

GDP per capita 2003

CPI 2003

ESI 2002

Croatia 6398 3.7 62.5 Czech Rep. 8834 3.9 50.2

France 27500 6.3 55.5 Italy 25527 5.3 47.2

Lithuania 5203 4.7 57.2 Russia 3026 2.7 49.1

Spain 22000 6.9 54.1 Switzerland 43486 8.8 66.5

Sources: GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita from the United Nations Statistical Division (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/default.htm); CPI = Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi); ESI = Environmental Sustainability Index (http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/esi/archive.html).


42.

Table 2

Demographic Characteristics of Country Samples

Age Gender Educationa

N Mean (s.d.) % male Mean (s.d.)

Croatia Manager 282 38.6 (9.4) 45.4 3.8 (0.6) Student 74 20.0 (1.6) 74.3 3.9 (0.3) Czech Rep. Manager 311 38.9 (10.8) 44.2 3.8 (1.0) Student 103 22.1 (1.8) 35.0 3.4 (0.5) France Manager 207 37.3 (11.1) 59.7 4.9 (0.1) Student 91 23.3 (0.9) 61.8 4.9 (0.7) Italy Manager 297 43.2 (10.6) 77.3 4.6 (0.9) Student 100 22.1 (3.5) 55.0 3.0 (0.0) Lithuania Manager 315 43.7 (11.4) 55.7 4.2 (1.0) Student 121 20.3 (1.4) 21.1 3.0 (0.0) Russia Manager 110 31.7 (4.6) 70.0 5.1 (0.2) Student 150 19.5 (1.2) 33.3 4.0 (0.0) Spain Manager 106 39.2 (10.5) 81.0 3.2 (1.1) Student 118 23.3 (3.8) 45.7 3.0 (0.0) Switzerland Manager 368 40.9 (13.6) 76.2 4.1 (0.8) Student 311 23.3 (2.5) 61.7 3.5 (0.5) Total Manager 1996 40.1 (11.4) 62.0 4.2 (1.0) Student 1068 22.0 (2.8) 49.0 3.5 (0.6)

a Education level coded as follows: 1 = 4 or fewer years completed, 2 = 5 to 8 years, 3 = 9 to 12 years; 4 = Bachelor degree; 5 = Masters degree, 6 = Doctorate.


43.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics: Managers’ and Students’ Attitudes Toward Social, Economic, and

Environmental Corporate Responsibilities

Social CR Economic CR Environmental CR

N Mean (sd) α Mean (sd) α Mean (sd) α

Croatia Total 356 -.07 (.45) .63 -.32 (.81) .48 .31 (.53) .70 Manager 282 -.08 (.45) -.31 (.82) .31 (.52) Student 74 -.05 (.44) -.34 (.74) .30 (.56) Czech Rep. Total 414 -.15 (.42) .62 -.38 (.88) .69 .45 (.51) .60 Manager 311 -.11 (.40) -.36 (.89) .39 (.52) Student 103 -.28 (.44) -.43 (.87) .66 (.43) France Total 298 -.05 (.42) .74 -.66 (.85) .67 .51 (.44) .72 Manager 207 -.03 (.42) -.67 (.86) .50 (.44) Student 91 -.09 (.43) -.61 (.83) .53 (.44) Italy Total 397 .06 (.42) .71 -.78 (.84) .68 .43 (.48) .79 Manager 297 .10 (.42) -.81 (.85) .40 (.47) Student 100 -.06 (.41) -.67 (.82) .53 (.49) Lithuania Total 436 -.12 (.45) .64 .07 (.84) .65 .11 (.56) .69 Manager 315 -.10 (.45) .05 (.83) .10 (.57) Student 121 -.18 (.43) .12 (.86) .16 (.52) Russia Total 260 -.15 (.36) .50 .14 (.67) .57 .10 (.53) .80 Manager 110 -.14 (.35) .07 (.64) .14 (.51) Student 150 -.15 (.37) .19 (.70) .08 (.54) Spain Total 224 -.08 (.42) .69 -.64 (.79) .41 .53 (.46) .80 Manager 106 -.09 (.44) -.53 (.84) .47 (.51) Student 118 -.07 (.41) -.74 (.73) .59 (.41) Switzerland Total 679 .05 (.43) .67 -.78 (.79) .66 .45 (.49) .70 Manager 368 .03 (.43) -.76 (.77) .45 (.52) Student 311 .06 (.44) -.81 (.81) .45 (.46) Total Total 3064 -.05 (.42) .64 -.45 (.88) .68 .37 (.53) .71 Manager 1996 -.03 (.43) -.44 (.88) .35 (.53) Student 1068 -.07 (.43) -.45 (.89) .40 (.51)


44.

Table 4

Paired Sample t-test Differences among Corporate Responsibilities

Country Group Corporate Responsibilities

Croatia Manager Environmental > Social > Economic Student Environmental > Social > Economic Czech Rep. Manager Environmental > Social > Economic Student Environmental > (Social, Economic) France Manager Environmental > Social > Economic Student Environmental > Social > Economic Italy Manager Environmental > Social > Economic Student Environmental > Social > Economic Lithuania Manager (Environmental, Economic) > Social Student (Environmental, Economic) > Social Russia Manager (Economic, Environmental) > Social Student (Environmental, Economic) > Social Spain Manager Environmental > Social > Economic Student Environmental > Social > Economic Switzerland Manager Environmental > Social > Economic Student Environmental > Social > Economic Total Manager Environmental > Social > Economic Student Environmental > Social > Economic


45.

Table 5

MANCOVA Results 1

Social

CR

Economic

CR

Environmental

CR

Wilks λ (F)

Country 19.56*** 73.05*** 35.49*** .83 (27.98***)

Manager/Student 13.42*** .94 9.25** .99 (5.26***)

Gender 36.13*** 49.84*** .87 .98 (19.71***) Country x Manager/Student 3.65*** 1.73 3.31** .98 (2.28***)

1 No significant main effect for education. No significant 2-way interactions for country x gender, manager/student x gender, country x education.

* p < .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001.


46.

Table 6

One-Way ANOVA Results: Country Differences in Attitudes toward Social, Economic, and

Environmental Corporate Responsibilities 1

Social CR

Italy

Switzerland France * * Croatia * * Spain * * Lithuania * * * Czech Rep. * * * * Russia * * * * Italy Switz France Croatia Spain Lithuania Czech Economic CR

Russia Lithuania Croatia * * Czech Rep. * * Spain * * * * France * * * * Italy * * * * * Switzerland * * * * * * Russia Lithuania Croatia Czech Spain France Italy

Environmental CR

Spain

France Switzerland * Czech Rep. * Italy * * Croatia * * * * * Lithuania * * * * * * Russia * * * * * * Spain France Switzerland Czech Italy Croatia Lithuania

1 Group differences sig. at p < .05 level.

Attitudes toward Corporate Responsibilities in Western Europe and in Central and East Europe

Documents

Transcript of Attitudes toward Corporate Responsibilities in Western Europe and in Central and East Europe