Examining social responsibilityorientation gaps between society

and industry executivesDerek W. Thompson

Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA

Rajat PanwarNorthland College, Ashland, Wisconsin, USA, and

Eric N. HansenOregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to examine the social responsibility orientation (SRO) gapsbetween the forest industry executives and societal members in the US Pacific Northwest.

Design/methodology/approach – Using mail survey responses to pre-existing SRO scales, the twosamples are grouped into distinct social orientation clusters and compared based on demographic andfirm characteristic variables.

Findings – The forest industry executives were found to have a significantly lower SRO than societalmembers, indicating a more individualistic social orientation. Demographic analyses suggested thatindividualistic beliefs were more prominent in males and rural residents among general societyrespondents. However, SRO among business executives showed no significant differences based ondemographics or firm characteristics.

Research limitations/implications – The research was conducted within a specific region of theUSA and as such these findings may not be generalized to other regions. The paper argues that one’sSRO may have an impact on one’s corporate social responsibility orientation; however, this remains anarea that must be empirically investigated, both within and beyond the geographic and industrialcontext presented here.

Practical implications – Previous research has shown that executives with more egalitarianorientations can be more successful and inclusive problem-solvers and negotiators. As businessescontinue to face the challenge of balancing multiple stakeholders’ demands, an understanding of gapsin SRO between business executives and general society provides a preliminary basis for companies tounderstand their misalignment with societal values and to find appropriate ways to narrow thesegaps, wherever feasible.

Originality/value – The study represents the first region-specific assessment of SRO. Additionally,the originality of the study lies in examining the SRO gap between industry executives and generalsociety. Results prompt discussion surrounding the influence of social responsibility orientation gapson an executive’s ability to balance the demands of the firm and stakeholders.

Keywords Social responsibility, Demographics, Corporate image, Forest products,United States of America

Paper type General review

1. IntroductionThe intrinsic values derived from both publicly and privately held natural resourcescreate a complex dynamic between those that control the commercial utilization ofthese resources and those that do not (Merchant, 1992; Stern and Dietz, 1994; Rudzitis,

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

MD48,1

156

Management DecisionVol. 48 No. 1, 2010pp. 156-171q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0025-1747DOI 10.1108/00251741011014508

1999; Wiebe et al., 1999). Following this and embracing a resource-based view of thefirm, one can also argue that owners of business firms and the general public maylikely differ in their respective opinions regarding the use of natural resources since thelong term advantage that each group may secure using available finite resources mightentail different and often conflicting resource use strategies. This dynamic is especiallyvisible in sectors such as mining, agriculture, and forestry which are highly dependenton natural resource usage. In the forest sector, despite widespread improvement insustainable forest practices in developed countries (Gullison, 2003), there still remains agap between what forest industry managers do and what general society believes“ought’ to be done (Panwar et al., 2009). This legitimacy gap (Sethi, 1975; Sethi, 1979)may be seen as society’s discontent (latent or apparent) regarding the best possible useof these resources in line with the changing societal values and norms. Industry maynot necessarily parallel contemporary societal values, and the resulting discordancemay well be considered a social dilemma regarding natural resource use. Dawes (1980)suggests that overall cooperation in social dilemmas can result in a superior outcomeas compared to when individuals act in their own self-interest. As conveyed in Hardin’s“Tragedy of the Commons,” opposing views generate disagreement and, in the contextof any natural resource, create conflict between self-interest and the interest of thecollective (Hardin, 1968). Sociological literature suggests that cooperation in socialdilemmas depends, in part, on the social orientation or social values held by individualmembers of the group (Messick and McClintock, 1968; McClintock, 1978; Liebrand,1984; Van Lange and Liebrand, 1989; Bobo, 1991; Van Lange et al., 1997).

The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) rests on a cooperative paradigmin which businesses remain responsive to a variety of social and environmental issues,transcending their own self-interest. Academic research in the field suggests thatindividual managers wield significant influence (Desai and Rittenburg, 1997;MacLagan, 1998) on CSR decisions within companies and their overall value systemplays an important part in companies’ CSR programs and policies. As part of an overallvalue system, social responsibility orientation (SRO), or one’s egalitarian beliefs ortendencies, may play a particularly important role since it may reveal an individual’sfundamental belief in social responsibility—whether of business or of some othersocietal entity. It may, thus, be argued that the difference in SRO between businessexecutives and general society may also provide some basis for any potentialdifference in their respective perceptions regarding CSR. SRO, as measured by Bobo’s(1991) scale, is widely applied and cited in the sociological and public policy literature.

While there are several studies that have examined SRO on a demographic basis(e.g. Bobo, 1991; Feldman and Steenbergen, 2001), examining the difference betweenthe SRO of managers and general society is relatively unstudied, particularly in naturalresource sectors such as the forest products industry. The present research aims to fillthis gap by providing empirical findings from a survey separately conducted on forestproducts industry executives (referred to as industry executives throughout this paper)and societal members within the Pacific Northwest United States (US). These empiricalfindings may further the understanding of the CSR phenomenon, and the underlyingdecision making process as the concept of social responsibility orientation may beunderstood to have some bearing on the social responsibility of business. Current CSRliterature provides little reference to this and as such the present paper opens up afurther line of research for examining potential linkage between SRO and CSRperceptions of business executives and societal members.

Examining socialresponsibility

157

Given that understanding the CSR phenomenon has remained as one of the leadingacademic pursuits in the US (e.g. Maignan and Ralston, 2002; Kolk, 2005; Matten andMoon, 2008), and also given the significance of the forest sector in the US, findingsfrom this study may reveal novel approaches to examining various CSR underpinningsin general and to CSR in the US forest products sector, in particular.

The primary objective of this research is to examine the difference of socialresponsibility orientation (SRO) between forest industry executives and societalmembers located in the Pacific Northwest US. Additional objectives include ademographic and firm characteristic examination of SRO as it relates to the industryand societal respondents, respectively.

The paper begins with a theoretical background discussing theory and measures ofsocial responsibility orientation within the context of both industry executives andsocietal members. The methods section outlines sampling design, development of thesocial responsibility orientation construct, demographic and firm characteristicvariables used in the questionnaire, and data analyses. Finally, results and discussionof findings are presented.

1.1 Research context and rationale: the USA, the Pacific Northwest, CSR, and the forestsectorThe CSR literature provides evidence to suggest that US firms have traditionally beenglobal leaders in CSR expenditure and promotion (Maignan and Ralston, 2002; Brammerand Pavelin, 2005; Kolk, 2005; Matten and Moon, 2008). Likewise, CSR as a research topichas remained at the forefront of management scholarship in the USA for several years.International studies in the field, primarily conducted to understand the universal natureof CSR and to propose its theoretical explanation, have revealed cross-national differences.Such differences have been attributed to a variety of contextual factors including culture(Axinn et al., 2004; Phau and Kea, 2007) and value systems (Lodge and Vogel, 1987;Maignan and Ferrell, 2003). Others (e.g. Singhapakdi et al., 2001; Hemingway, 2005) havealso concluded that differences in culture and value systems are the fundamentaldeterminants of cross-national CSR differences. Past research (e.g. Lodge and Vogel, 1987;Maignan and Ferrell, 2003) suggests that individualism is the dominant social value basein North America, wherein each social actor strives to seek his/her own survival andwell-being (Maignan and Ferrell, 2003). There are scholarly references that suggest thatthe social values in the US significantly differ from even seemingly comparable societiesof Europe (Lodge and Vogel, 1987; Schwartz, 1992), let alone Asia and other parts of theworld. As such, the US presents a unique case in which further examining social valuesystem, especially social responsibility orientation of individuals, may provide usefulknowledge for developing more insights into the CSR phenomenon.

The USA does not, however, provide a homogenous context. Lieske (1993) developeda measure of American regional subcultures using measures of racial origin, ethnicity,religious beliefs, and social structure and concluded that the US can be partitioned intoten distinct regional subcultures based on these measures. The Pacific Northwest(Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana) was one such sub-cultural region with aninternally homogenous cultural context distinct from other regions. Among others, oneof the features of the Pacific Northwest states is the strong presence of forestry and forestproducts industries. While some other regions of the USA also have a comparable forestsector, predominance of publicly held forest land in the Pacific Northwest (Council ofAmerican States in Europe (CASE), 2009) makes this region particularly suitable forconducting social responsibility research related to forest sector.

MD48,1

158

Extraction industries have had a special place in CSR discussion globally. Of theseindustries, forestry is especially important in the US context both from an economic aswell as socio-environmental viewpoint. Nationwide, over 300 million hectares of forestsexist in the US, approximately 33 percent of all US land. The manufacture of forestproducts from these lands accounted for approximately US$39 billion in 2006, makingit an important sector in the US economy. Additionally, the public scrutiny of forestproducts companies has intensified in recent years (Nasi et al., 1997) as the concern forenvironmental degradation and deforestation has been mainstreaming. Panwar et al.(2009) suggest that the forest industry’s dependence on forests has led to increasedsocietal expectations about its performance throughout the world. The increasingimportance of understanding CSR in the forest industry is evident by increasing CSRresearch focused on forest sector industries (e.g. Halme, 1997; Karna, 2003; Mikkila,2005, Vidal and Kozak, 2008; Panwar and Hansen, 2008). Also, the forest productsindustry is expected to have parallels with other US industries (Sonnenfield, 1981).

In summary, forest industry executives and societal members within the PacificNorthwest US represent an important group that deserves investigation related withtheir social responsibility orientations.

2. Theoretical background2.1 Social value orientation (SVO)Kinder (1983) has proposed that in formation of our cognitive and belief systems,values play a central role. According to Rokeach (1973), an important characteristic ofvalues is that they are relatively stable and enduring, and they may predispose peopleto take certain positions on various issues (Shen and Edwards, 2005). Therefore, socialvalues that people hold may shape their beliefs related to ideas such as inequality,social responsibility, etc. Social Value Orientation (SVO), developed by Messick andMcClintock (1968) for assessing people’s social values, is categorized into threeorientations:

(1) cooperative;

(2) individualistic; and

(3) competitive.

The competitive and individualistic orientations are often grouped together into oneorientation called proself (individualistic). The cooperative orientation is often referredto as prosocial (egalitarian). De Cremer and Van Lange (2001) concluded that prosocialsshow greater feelings of social responsibility and these feelings influenced decisionmaking.

Previous studies have attempted to determine the effects of demographic variables onSVO with somewhat inconsistent results. While older individuals were reported to bemore prosocial (Van Lange et al., 1997, Eisenberg et al., 2001), gender related studies didnot provide unequivocal results. While, Van Lange et al. (1997) found mixed results intheir studies, others (Cameron et al., 1998; Eisenberg et al., 2001) found males to be moreprosocial. Van Lange et al. (1997) found no significant effects of education level on SVO.

2.2 Social responsibility orientation (SRO)SRO can be defined as the priority one attaches to egalitarian or individualistic beliefs.Simply stated, SRO embodies individuals’ beliefs in equality amongst people in society,or “a cluster of beliefs that endorse limitations to economic inequality” (Bobo, 1991).

Examining socialresponsibility

159

Others define SRO as a basic element in an individual’s helping personality that can beempirically linked with measures of prosocial behavior (Rushton, 1981; Batson et al.,1986). Regardless of the definitional perspective held, studies (Kinder, 1983; Jackmanand Muha, 1984; McCloskey and Zaller, 1984; Bobo, 1991) conducted to examine theAmerican culture commonly conclude that the American culture is predominantlyindividualistic (as opposed to egalitarian). Others (Feldman and Steenbergen, 2001) inthe same vein have concluded that Americans would rather avoid an expandinggovernmental presence in favor of economic self-reliance. At the same time, somepublic opinion surveys reveal that Americans voice substantial support for socialwelfare programs (Free and Cantril, 1968; Shapiro and Young, 1989). These conflictingcharacteristics of American society create a complex social dynamic which includesdiverse concepts such as democracy, freedom, achievement, humanitarianism,progress, moralism, efficiency, and nationalism (Williams, 1979). These oftencontradictory notions, thusly, create a paradoxical culture of individualistic andegalitarian values (Bobo, 1991) and prompt further research to measure thesecharacteristics and how they are developed.

Currently, there is little consensus regarding the state of social orientation withinthe U.S., other than to say that it exists. Bobo (1991) suggested that althoughindividuals may project egalitarian beliefs, these beliefs occur concurrently withindividualistic tendencies. While this psychological duality may create difficulty inmeasuring the effect of various characteristics on one’s SRO, nonetheless, numerousstudies have attempted to identify and measure these characteristics. For example,higher SRO (egalitarianism) tends to be found in those individuals that are of lowereconomic means (Bobo, 1991; Feldman and Steenbergen, 2001), younger (Bobo, 1991;Feldman and Steenbergen, 2001), female (Shopler and Bateson, 1965; Sampson, 1975;Feldman and Steenbergen, 2001), and urban dwellers (Van Liere and Dunlap, 1981;Samdahl and Robertson, 1989; Freudenburg, 1991). Race (Bobo, 1991), occupationalprestige (Hodge et al., 1964), and location in the USA (south vs non-south) (Bobo, 1991)were not found to influence SRO. Bobo (1991) found that less educated people showedhigher SRO while Feldman and Steenbergen (2001) found no difference based oneducation. It should also be noted that Bobo (1991) and Witt (1990) found no genderdifferences in SRO. Similarly, Arcury and Christianson (1993) and Harmon andAdelman (2007) found no differences based on residency (urban vs rural).

2.3 Industry executives, general society, and SROSpecific attention in the literature is given to determinants of SRO and perceived socialobligations in corporate managers. Quazi (2003) suggests that factors such aseducation, training and religiosity positively influence SRO more so thancharacteristics beyond the control of respondents (e.g. age). Uncovering reliablepredictors of managerial SRO is increasingly valuable as studies have found that thepersonal values of managers are drivers of corporate social responsibility (CSR), moreso than the commercial imperative (Hemingway and MacLagan, 2004). Gray et al.(1995) suggest that the inclusion of stakeholders in corporate affairs is integral to theongoing demonstration of corporate social responsibility. On the surface, this seems areasonable and attainable objective. However, studies have shown that industrymanagers view issues (risks) related to the environment very differently (often withless concern) than society (Flynn et al., 1993). Otway and von Winterfeldt (1992)suggest that these differences arise simply due to the stake that managers have in the

MD48,1

160

company responsible for the “risk”. Further, this stake is expected to increase overtime.

While there are no previous empirical findings suggesting that industry executivesand general society differ in their social responsibility orientation, the foregoingtheoretical discussion suggests that it is reasonable to hypothesize that:

H1. Industry executives will report lower SRO scores than societal members.

Similarly,

H2. When separated into individualistic and egalitarian “clusters”, industryexecutive clusters will report lower SRO scores than society clusters.

3. Methods3.1 Sampling designData for this study were collected from two distinct groups located in Washington,Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. First, a random sample of 2,000 residents age 18 andabove was purchased from USA Data. The sample size for each state was proportionalto its population. In total, 171 addresses were undeliverable and a total of 278 usableresponses were received (adjusted response rate ¼ 15.1 percent). Item-response rateranged from 12.8 percent to 14.1 percent.

Prior to commencing the mail survey, the questionnaire was pre-tested on fiveindividuals. Minimal changes were required based on the feedback provided. The totaldesign method (Dillman, 1978) was used for data collection. Non-respondents were senta follow-up questionnaire (second wave) two and a half weeks after the first wave. Anonline version of the questionnaire was also prepared and the web-link was provided inthe cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. In total eight individuals respondedonline representing 2.8 percent of all respondents.

For the industry sample, all forest products companies having 50 or moreemployees (within the four states of interest) were selected. Top executives from 430companies were contacted. A total of 94 usable responses were received (adjustedresponse rate ¼ 21.8 percent).

Non-response bias was assessed by comparing early versus late respondents assuggested by Armstrong and Overton (1977). No significant differences were foundbetween early and late respondents with regards to any of the compared variables,suggesting that non-response is not of significant concern in this study.

3.2 Variable of interestA single SRO (dependent) variable was created based on the factor analysis of fivequestionnaire items (shown below) adapted from Bobo (1991). These statementsaddress egalitarian issues related to government, employment, price-setting, and socialclasses. Consistent with Bobo (1991), respondents were asked to indicate their level ofagreement with each statement based on a five-point-scale (1 ¼ Strongly disagree;5 ¼ Strongly agree). A reliability analysis indicated an overall Cronbach’s alpha of0.78 (greater than each alpha if deleted):

(1) “It is the responsibility of government to meet everyone’s needs, even in case ofsickness, poverty, unemployment, and old age.”

(2) “The government must see to it that everyone has a job and that prices arestable, even if the rights of businessmen have to be restricted.”

Examining socialresponsibility

161

(3) “Personal income should not be determined solely by one’s work. Rather,everybody should get what he/she needs to provide a decent life for his/herfamily.”

(4) “What one gets in life hardly depends at all on one’s own efforts, but rather onthe economic situation, job opportunities, union agreements, and the socialservices provided by government.”

(5) “In the United States there are still great differences between social levels, andwhat one can achieve in life depends mainly upon one’s family background.”

3.3 Demographic and firm characteristic variablesThe theoretical background indicates that demographic variables and firmcharacteristics have been shown to influence social orientation as well associal/environmental performance. However, predictive use of these variables tendsto yield inconsistent and unreliable results. Nevertheless, this paper will present theresults of analyses in which demographic variables (age, education, gender, experienceand residence) and firm characteristics (company type, company sector and number ofemployees) are used to compare social orientations between groups.

Separate questionnaires were prepared for industry executive and societal members.While the SRO items (outlined in section 3.2) were same for both sets of questionnaire,background variables (demographics and firm characteristics) were different.

For the society questionnaire, age was asked as a continuous variable, gender as adichotomous, and both education and residence as categorical variables. Respondentscould choose from five education categories (some high school, high school, some college,college, and graduate) and three residency categories (urban, rural, and suburban).

The questionnaire for industry executives also treated age as a continuous variableand education as a categorical variable (as outlined above). Executive experience wasalso treated as a continuous variable. Company type (family owned or corporation),sector (primary or secondary) and size (500 or less employees, or greater than 500employees) were all treated as dichotomous variables. Firm sizes of 500 or lessemployees and greater than 500 employees were used in accordance with the US SmallBusiness Association which defines a small business as a firm with 500 or feweremployees (SBA, 2009).

3.4 Data analysisAll statistical analyses of the data were performed using SPSS 15.0 statistical software.Mean values of the single SRO measure were compared between the two groups(industry executives and society) using a t-test. Within both the industry and societysamples, two clusters (one having lower SRO and other having higher SRO) werecreated and were labeled as “individualistic” and “egalitarian”, respectively. For bothindustry executives and society samples, separate K-means cluster analyses wereconducted to group the respondents within individualistic and egalitarian clusters.When comparing clusters, differences between observed and expected values werefound to be significant based on cross-tabulations ( p ,0.001).

Using t-tests (continuous independent variables) and chi-square tests (categoricalindependent variables), clusters were compared based on demographic and firmcharacteristic variables for society and industry executive samples. Findings wereconsidered significant at p , 0.05. However, marginal significance was noted in therange 0.10 . p . 0.05.

MD48,1

162

4. Results4.1 Social responsibility orientation gapsAn initial comparison of mean SRO scores between societal respondents and forestindustry executives showed a significant difference in social orientation between the twogroups (p , 0.001) (Table I). The mean SRO score for the societal members was 2.33which indicates that, overall, public response to the SRO scale questions outlined byBobo (1991) ranges from “somewhat disagree” to “neutral”. The mean SRO score forindustry executives was 1.57 which translates into “strongly disagree” to “somewhatdisagree” with regards to the SRO scale. Point biserial (rpb) correlations of approximately0.371 are considered substantial. Therefore, the rpb effect size for both comparisons(-.362) can also be considered substantial. This finding is in agreement with H1.

Using mean SRO scores, cluster analyses derived two clusters (subgroups) for eachgroup (societal respondents and forest industry executives). Cluster centers andsubgroup sizes are listed in Table II.

Differences in cluster centers were statistically significant ( p , 0.001). In this study,subgroups are referred to as individualistic (denoting a lower SRO score) andegalitarian (denoting a higher SRO score). For general society, the individualisticsubgroup (56 percent of societal respondents; n ¼ 155) cluster center was 1.64(strongly to somewhat disagree) and the egalitarian subgroup (44 percent of societalrespondents; n ¼ 122) cluster center was 3.22 (neutral to somewhat agree). Forindustry executives, the individualistic subgroup (74 percent of executive respondents;n ¼ 70) cluster center was 1.30 (strongly disagree) and the egalitarian subgroup (36percent of executive respondents; n ¼ 25) cluster center was 2.33 (somewhat disagreeto neutral) (Figure 1). In agreement with H2, both industry executives clusters showedlower SRO values than the corresponding society clusters. It was also observed that thegap between industry clusters was narrower than the gap between the societal clustersindicating that SRO is more homogeneous within industry executives.

4.2 Demographic and firm characteristicsSocietal and executive clusters were compared based on demographic information and,in the case of executives, firm characteristics (Table III). For societal respondents, the

Group n Mean SRO t-value p-value rpb

Society 277 2.33 9.54 ,0.001 20.362 *

Industry 95 1.57

Note: *Significant (substantial effect size)

Table I.Comparison of SRObetween society and

forest industry executives

Cluster center n t-value p-value

Society 25.85 ,0.001Cluster 1: Individualistic 1.64 155Cluster 2: Egalitarian 3.22 122industry executives 14.50 ,0.001Cluster 1: Individualistic 1.30 70Cluster 2: Egalitarian 2.33 25

Table II.Cluster analysis based on

SRO scores

Examining socialresponsibility

163

individualistic cluster was slightly older and less educated, but neither finding wasstatistically significant ( p ¼ 0.63 and 0.33, respectively). Males were morepredominant in the individualistic cluster (n ¼ 108; 70 percent) as compared to theegalitarian cluster (n ¼ 69; 57 percent; p ¼ 0.03; Cramer’s V ¼ 0.131 – small tomedium effect size). Place of residence was found to be marginally significant( p ¼ 0.06; Cramer’s V ¼ 0.142 – small to medium effect size). Urban residents wereless frequent in the individualistic cluster (n ¼ 33; 21 percent) than the egalitariancluster (n ¼ 69; 57 percent). The opposite was found for rural residents, appearing

Figure 1.Groups (societalrespondents and industryexecutives), clusteranalysis subgroups(individualistic andegalitarian) and SRO scaleagreement scores

SRO cluster meansIndividualistic (n ¼ 155) Egalitarian (n ¼ 122)

Societal survey (n ¼ 278) t-test p-valueAge 54.3 53.4 0.49 0.63Educationa 3.7 3.8 0.97 0.33

Chi-square p-valueGender Male: 108 (70%) Male: 69 (57%) 4.73 0.03 * *

Female: 47 (30%) Female: 52 (43%)Residence Urban: 33 (21%) Urban: 38 (32%) 5.53 0.06 *

Rural: 80 (52%) Rural: 46 (39%)Suburban 42 (27%) Suburban: 35 (29%)Individualistic (n ¼ 70) Egalitarian (n ¼ 25)

Executive survey (n ¼ 94) t-test p-valueAge 54.8 54.0 0.39 0.70Educationa 2.9 3.0 0.69 0.50Experience 29.3 28.1 0.42 0.68

Chi-square p-valueCompany type Family-owned: 57 (83%) Family-owned: 20 (83%) 0.01 0.94

Corporation: 12 (17%) Corporation: 4 (17%)Sector Primary: 39 (57%) Primary: 10 (40%) 2.01 0.16

Secondary: 30 (43%) Secondary: 15 (60%)Employees ¼ ,500: 46 (66%) ¼ ,500: 15 (60%) 0.26 0.61

.500: 24 (34%) .500: 10 (40%)

Notes: * Marginally significant; * * significant; a based on 1 to 5 scale (1 ¼ Some high-school;5 ¼ Graduate school)

Table III.Comparison ofdemographic meansbetween SRO clusters

MD48,1

164

more in the individualistic cluster (n ¼ 80; 52 percent) than in the egalitarian cluster(n ¼ 46; 39 percent). Suburban residents were less frequent in the individualisticcluster (n ¼ 42; 27 percent) as compared to the egalitarian cluster (n ¼ 35; 29 percent).

Overall, comparisons of industry executive clusters based on demographics andfirm characteristics yielded insignificant results. Nevertheless, differences in clustermeans are discussed here. Executives in the individualistic cluster were found to beslightly older, less educated, and more experienced ( p ¼ 0.70, 0.50. and 0.68,respectively). Company type (family owned/corporation) was stable across the twoclusters. Executives from larger companies tended to be more egalitarian ( p ¼ 0.61).Executives from companies in the primary sector were more frequent in theindividualistic cluster (n ¼ 39; 57 percent) as compared to the egalitarian cluster(n ¼ 10; 40 percent) ( p ¼ 0.16).

5. Discussion and conclusionsThis research identifies key differences in social responsibility orientation betweenforest industry executives and societal members. Results indicate that industryexecutives tend to be more individualistic (proself) while societal members tend to bemore egalitarian (prosocial). The SRO of executives also tends to be more homogeneousthan societal members.

Essential to a successful manager’s arsenal is the ability to successfully negotiatewith parties, both within and outside of his/her organization. Research has shown thatindividuals with a more egalitarian orientation can be more successful and inclusiveproblem-solvers and negotiators (Olekalns and Smith, 1999; De Cremer and Van Lange,2001; Nauta et al., 2002) and may show more concern for the goals of others (Nauta et al.,2002). Today, businesses face a challenge of balancing multiple stakeholders’ demandsand therefore executives with higher egalitarian orientation may be better suited toprovide, at least, a cognitive context for more inclusive decision making. Additionally,as shown in this research, egalitarian executives share a similar social responsibilityorientation with societal members which might result in a coordinated effort to createwin-win scenarios, especially in contemporary world where societal scrutiny ofbusiness actions is increasing. A significant difference in the SRO of society andindustry executives in the wake of importance of egalitarian values may have severalpractical implications. First, different companies in the US forest products sector mayconsider having more egalitarian-leaning members on their boards. This does notmean that a company must essentially make all its decisions exhibiting egalitarianideals, but rather having an egalitarian voice on the board will bring an importantperspective, considering that our results suggest that executives tend towardindividualistic ideals. This is especially important since forest industry executives areresponsible for a resource with many inherent public values (Vining and Tyler, 1999).

As previously argued, the social orientation of an individual manager cansignificantly impact the development of the corporate climate and policies that promoteCSR. Murray and Vogel (1997) have gone as far as referring to CSR as prosocialcorporate endeavors, indicating a potentially increased suitability of prosocialexecutives for embracing CSR. The role of CEO values on their CSR decision makinghas been addressed in previous studies (Drumwright, 1994; Fineman and Clarke, 1996)and a key value dimension considered is the level of self-interest versus“other-regarding” interest (Agle et al., 1999). Several scholars (Bonsignore, 1989;Wood, 1991; Logsdon and Yuthas, 1997) have argued that given the variation among

Examining socialresponsibility

165

individuals, industry executives are likely to vary widely on self-interest dimension.Perhaps those with social responsibility orientations similar to societal members maybe more effective in developing CSR objectives that align with societal values andnorms. These considerations are even more important in cross-cultural CSRmanagement, where host countries may have very different social orientations thanthe executives of multi-national companies. While change in one’s social orientationmay not be an easy proposition, it is important to recognize that such values may affectthose business decisions that require better alignment with societal values.

Also, as an intrinsic aspect of American culture, individualism helps explain thepredominance of independent entrepreneurial activity in the US (Birch, 1981; Peterson,1988). However, in a world with changing socio-economic dynamics and a globalizedeconomic system, such a culturally driven aspect of entrepreneurship may not producethe best business models. Reich (1987) suggested that if the US were to remain globallycompetitive, entrepreneurial teams must replace the lone entrepreneurial hero. While itis not established through research whether individualistic values and one’scollaborative capabilities are inherently contradictory to each other, it is safe tosuggest that in a world where both inter and intra industry collaborations areimperatives for growth, and where social considerations are becoming more importantfor business than ever before, the US forest products industry may likely benefit byhaving more people with higher “others regarding” values in its top management.Perhaps, the male-dominated nature of the forest sector could benefit from increasedexecutive representation by females, shown to have a more prosocial orientation in thisand other research.

Finally, comparisons of social orientation clusters based on demographics and firmcharacteristics yielded generally insignificant results. Society clusters showedsignificant differences based on only gender and residence, in general agreementwith the previous literature. However, demographics and firm characteristics did notsignificantly contrast industry executive clusters. These findings support a broadarray of literature suggesting that this particular type of comparison provides littleevidence regarding the key drivers of social orientation.

In closing, this research suggests that the social values of forest sector executivesare more individualistic than those of general society. This disparity creates potentialchallenges for industry executives as they attempt to manage public assets withperceived intrinsic values, while being responsive to diverse societal claims. Ascooperation and partnerships are becoming more important in a globalized andconsolidating forest products industry, gaps in social orientation between industryexecutives and society may hinder the ability to form and maintain cooperativepartnerships over time.

6. Limitations and future researchThis research is conducted within the four Pacific Northwest states of the US and assuch these findings may not be generalized beyond respective samples. Some samplesizes (e.g. the egalitarian executive cluster) were small and therefore findingsassociated with such groups may only be considered anecdotal.

This research opens doors for many questions that business scholars could address.First of all, while we have argued that one’s social responsibility orientation (SRO) mayhave an impact on one’s corporate social responsibility orientation (CSRO), thisremains an area that must be empirically investigated. Additionally, SRO views of the

MD48,1

166

executives may vary across industries and therefore a cross-industry examinationwould be an interesting line of exploration. As such, this research limits itself toexamining the forest products executives and findings may be different withexecutives from other industries. Another limitation of this work relates with the factthat industry executives are also part of society and may, therefore, represent a specificsub-set within the larger society rather than a separate population. While it remainsdifficult to ascertain whether one’s occupational association affects such values orvice-versa, it is important to recognize that such differences may not be as stable asthey otherwise might appear. Finally, it would be worthwhile to empirically examinethe association between SRO and CSRO in comparative cultural contexts. Suchresearch may provide important insights into differing perceptions regarding CSRacross cultures.

References

Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K. and Sonnenfeld, J.A. (1999), “Who matters to CEOs? An investigation ofstakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 507-25.

Arcury, T.A. and Christianson, E.H. (1993), “Rural-urban differences in environmentalknowledge and actions”, Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 19-25.

Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.

Axinn, C.N., Blair, M.E., Heorhialdi, A. and Thach, S.V. (2004), “Comparing ethical ideologiesacross cultures”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 54, pp. 103-19.

Batson, C.D., Bolen, M.H., Cross, J.A. and Neuringer-Benefiel, H. (1986), “Where is the altruism inthe altruistic personality?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 212-20.

Birch, D.L. (1981), “Who creates jobs?”, The Public Interest, Vol. 65, pp. 65-82.

Bobo, L. (1991), “Social responsibility, individualism, and redistributive policies”, SociologicalForum, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 71-91.

Bonsignore, F.N. (1989), “Be bold in leading through values”, Directors and Boards, Vol. 13 No. 4,pp. 11-14.

Brammer, S. and Pavelin, S. (2005), “Corporate community contributions in the United Kingdomand the United States”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 56, pp. 15-26.

Cameron, L.D., Brown, P.M. and Chapman, J.G. (1998), “Social value orientations and decisions totake proenvironmental action”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 8,pp. 675-97.

Council of American States in Europe (CASE) (2007), Woodworking and Forestry, available at:www.case-europe.com (accessed 8 August 2009).

Dawes, R.M. (1980), “Social dilemmas”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 169-93.

De Cremer, D. and Van Lange, P.A.M. (2001), “Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation thanproselfs: the roles of social responsibility and reciprocity”, European Journal ofPersonality, Vol. 15, pp. S5-S18.

Desai, A.B. and Rittenburg, T. (1997), “Global ethics: an integrated framework for MNEs”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 791-800.

Dillman, D.A. (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method, John Wiley & Sons,New York, NY.

Examining socialresponsibility

167

Drumwright, M.E. (1994), “Socially responsible organizational buying: environmental concernsas a noneconomic buying criterion”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 1-19.

Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q. and Koller, S. (2001), “Brazilian adolescents’ prosocial moral judgmentand behavior: relations to sympathy, perspective taking, gender-role orientation, anddemographic characteristics”, Child Development, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 518-34.

Feldman, S. and Steenbergen, M.R. (2001), “The humanitarian foundation of public support forsocial welfare”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 658-77.

Fineman, S. and Clarke, K. (1996), “Green stakeholders: industry interpretations and response”,Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 715-31.

Flynn, J., Slovic, P. and Mertz, C.K. (1993), “Decidedly different: expert and public views of risksfrom a radioactive waste repository”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 13, pp. 643-8.

Free, L.A. and Cantril, H. (1968), The Political Beliefs of Americans: A Study of Public Opinion,Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.

Freudenburg, W.R. (1991), “Rural-urban differences in environmental concern: a closer look”,Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 167-98.

Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), “Corporate social and environmental reporting: a reviewof the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure”, Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 47-77.

Gullison, R.E. (2003), “Does forest certification conserve biodiversity?”, Oryx, Vol. 37 No. 2,pp. 153-65.

Halme, M. (1997), “Environmental management paradigm shifts business enterprises”, ActaUniversitas Tamperensis, No. 542, University of Tampere, Tampere.

Hardin, G. (1968), “The tragedy of the commons”, Science, Vol. 162, pp. 1243-8.

Harmon, M. and Adelman, R. (2007), “Environmental attitudes and residential location: are theredifferences across urban, suburban, and rural residents?”, paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American Sociological Association, New York, NY, 11 August.

Hemingway, C.A. (2005), “Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 60, pp. 233-49.

Hemingway, C.A. and MacLagan, P.W. (2004), “Managers’ personal values as drivers ofcorporate social responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 50, pp. 33-44.

Hodge, R.W., Siegel, P.M. and Rossi, P.H. (1964), “Occupational prestige in the United States,1925-63”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 286-302.

Jackman, M.R. and Muha, M.J. (1984), “Education and intergroup attitudes: moral enlightenment,superficial tolerance, or ideological refinement?”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 49,pp. 751-69.

Karna, J. (2003), “Environmental marketing strategies and its implementation in forestindustries”, academic dissertation, Department of Forest Economics, University ofHelsinki, Helsinki.

Kinder, D.R. (1983), “Diversity and complexity in American public opinion”, in Finifter, A. (Ed.),Political Science: The State of the Discipline, American Political Science Association,Washington, DC, pp. 389-425.

Kolk, A. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility in the coffee sector: the dynamics of MNCresponses and code development”, European Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 228-36.

Liebrand, W. (1984), “The effects of social motives, communication, and group size on behaviorin an N-person multi-stage mixed-motive-game”, European Journal of Social Psychology,Vol. 14, pp. 239-64.

MD48,1

168

Lieske, J. (1993), “Regional subcultures of the United States”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 55 No. 4,pp. 888-913.

Lodge, G.C. and Vogel, E.F. (1987), Ideology and National Competitiveness. An Analysis of NineCountries, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, p. 350.

Logsdon, J.M. and Yuthas, K. (1997), “Corporate social performance, stakeholder orientation, andorganizational moral development”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16, pp. 1213-26.

McClintock, C.G. (1978), “Social values: their definition, measurement, and development”, Journalof Research and Development in Education, Vol. 12, pp. 121-37.

McCloskey, H. and Zaller, J. (1984), The American Ethos, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,MA.

MacLagan, P.W. (1998), Management and Morality, Sage Publications, London.

Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O.C. (2003), “Nature of corporate responsibilities: perspectives fromAmerican, French and German consumers”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56,pp. 55-67.

Maignan, I. and Ralston, D.A. (2002), “Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US:insights from businesses’ self-presentations”, Journal of International Business Studies,Vol. 33, pp. 497-515.

Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2008), “Implicit and explicit CSR: a conceptual framework for acomparative understanding of corporate social responsibility”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 404-24.

Merchant, C. (1992), Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World, Routledge, New York, NY.

Messick, D.M. and McClintock, C.G. (1968), “Motivational bias of choice in experimental games”,Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 1-25.

Mikkila, M. (2005), “Observing corporate social performance empirically through theacceptability concept: a global study”, Corporate Social Responsibility andEnvironmental Management, Vol. 12, pp. 183-96.

Murray, K.B. and Vogel, C.M. (1997), “Using a hierarchy of effects approach to gauge theeffectiveness of CSR to generate goodwill towards the firm: financial versus nonfinancialimpacts”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 141-59.

Nasi, J., Nasi, S. and Zyglidopoulos, S. (1997), “The evolution of corporate social responsiveness:an exploratory study of Finnish and Canadian forestry companies”, Business and Society,Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 296-321.

Nauta, A., De Dreu, C.K.W. and Van der Vaart, T. (2002), “Social value orientation, organizationalgoal concerns and interdepartmental problem-solving behavior”, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 23, pp. 199-213.

Olekalns, M. and Smith, P.L. (1999), “Social value orientation and strategy choices in competitivenegotiations”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 25, pp. 657-68.

Otway, H. and von Winterfeldt, D. (1992), “Expert judgement in risk analysis and management:process, context, and pitfalls”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 12, pp. 83-93.

Panwar, R. and Hansen, E. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility in forestry”, Unasylva, Vol. 230No. 59, pp. 45-8.

Panwar, R., Hansen, E. and Kozak, R. (2009), “A framework evaluating social and environmentalissues for organizational response: conceptual refinement and empirical testing”, paperpresented at the 2009 Annual Conference of the International Association for Business andSociety, Aspen, CO, 18-21 June.

Examining socialresponsibility

169

Peterson, R. (1988), “Understanding and encouraging entrepreneurship internationally”, Journalof Small Business Management, April, pp. 1-7.

Phau, I. and Kea, G. (2007), “Attitudes of university students toward business ethics:a cross-national investigation of Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 72, pp. 61-75.

Quazi, A.M. (2003), “Identifying the determinants of corporate managers’ perceived socialobligations”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 9, pp. 822-31.

Reich, R.B. (1987), “Entrepreneurship reconsidered: the team as hero”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 65, May-June, pp. 77-83.

Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, John Wiley, New York, NY.

Rudzitis, G. (1999), “Amenities increasingly draw people to the rural West”, Rural DevelopmentPerspect, Vol. 14, pp. 9-13.

Rushton, J.P. (1981), “The altruistic personality”, in Rushton, J.P. and Sorrentino, R.M. (Eds),Altruism and Helping Behavior: Social, Personality, and Developmental Perspectives,Erlbaum, Hillside, NJ, pp. 251-66.

Samdahl, D.M. and Robertson, R. (1989), “Social determinants of environmental concern:specification and test of the model”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 57-81.

Sampson, E.E. (1975), “On justice as equality”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 31, pp. 45-64.

SBA (2009), Small Business Association: Office of Advocacy Frequently Asked Questions,Washington, DC, available at: www.sba.gov (accessed 3 September 2009).

Schwartz, S. (1992), “Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances andempirical tests in 20 countries”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25,pp. 1-65.

Sethi, S.P. (1975), “Dimensions of corporate social performance: an analytical framework”,California Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 58-65.

Sethi, S.P. (1979), “A conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social issues andevaluation of business response patterns”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 1,pp. 63-74.

Shapiro, R.Y. and Young, J.T. (1989), “Public opinion and the welfare state: the United States incomparative perspective”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 104, pp. 59-89.

Shen, F. and Edwards, H.H. (2005), “Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfarereform: a value-based account of framing effects”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 55 No. 4,pp. 795-809.

Shopler, J. and Bateson, N. (1965), “The power of dependency”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 2, pp. 247-54.

Singhapakdi, A., Karande, K., Rao, P. and Vitell, S.J. (2001), “How important are ethics and socialresponsibility? A multinational study of marketing professionals”, European Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 35 Nos 1-2, pp. 133-53.

Sonnenfield, J.A. (1981), Corporate Views of the Public Interest: Perceptions of the Forest ProductsIndustry, Auburn House, Boston, MA.

Stern, P.C. and Dietz, T. (1994), “The value basis of environmental concern”, Journal of SocialIssues, Vol. 50, pp. 65-84.

Van Lange, P.A.M. and Liebrand, W.B.G. (1989), “On perceiving morality and potency: socialvalues and the effects of person perception in a give-some dilemma”, European Journal ofSocial Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 209-25.

MD48,1

170

Van Lange, P.A.M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E.M.N. and Joireman, J.A. (1997), “Development ofprosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: theory and preliminary evidence”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 733-46.

Van Liere, K.D. and Dunlap, R.E. (1981), “Environmental concern”, Environment and Behavior,Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 651-70.

Vidal, N. and Kozak, R. (2008), “The recent evolution of corporate responsibility practices in theforestry sector”, International Forestry Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-13.

Vining, J. and Tyler, E. (1999), “Values, emotions and desired outcomes reflected in publicresponses to forest management plans”, Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 21-34.

Wiebe, K., Tegene, A. and Kuhn, B. (1999), “Finding common ground on Western lands”, RuralDevelopment Perspectives, Vol. 14, pp. 52-6.

Williams, R.M. (1979), “Change and stability in values and value systems: a sociologicalperspective”, in Rokeach, M. (Ed.), Understanding Human Values, Free Press, New York,NY, pp. 15-46.

Witt, A.L. (1990), “Person-situation effect and gender differences in the prediction of socialresponsibility”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 130 No. 4, pp. 543-53.

Wood, D.J. (1991), “Corporate social performance revisited”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 16, pp. 691-718.

Further reading

Elazar, D.J. (1984), American Federalism, 3rd ed., Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Moon, J. (2001), “Business social responsibility: a source of social capital”, Reason in Practice,Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 35-45.

Moon, J. (2002), “The social responsibility of business and new governance”, Government andOpposition, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 385-408.

About the authorsDerek Thompson is a PhD candidate in forest products marketing at Oregon State University.His dissertation examines barriers that may deter forest landowners from participating in forestcarbon trading. His academic history includes a BS and MS in forestry from the University ofBritish Columbia. Derek Thompson is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:derek.thompson@oregonstate.edu

Rajat Panwar is an Assistant Professor of Business and Social Responsibility, and ChappleChair of Business and Social Responsibility, at Northland College. He completed a PhD at OregonState University following an MBA and BS in India. As Chapple Chair Professor, his primaryresearch lies at the intersection of corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship. Hisother research interests include carbon marketing, especially from a strategy and governanceperspective.

Eric Hansen is a Professor of forest products marketing at Oregon State University. Hisacademic background includes a BS from the University of Idaho and a PhD from Virginia Tech.Much of his recent research and extension work has been on the topics of innovation, newproduct development, and environmental marketing. Through his extension role he worksclosely with the Oregon Wood Innovation Center to improve the competitiveness of Oregon’swood products industry.

Examining socialresponsibility

171

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints