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]
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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.
Corporate Responsibilities in 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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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?
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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),
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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,
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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.
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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,
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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.
[Insert Table 2 about here]
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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.
[Insert Table 3 about here]
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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.
[Insert Table 4 about here]
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,
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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.
[Insert Table 5 about here]
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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.
[Insert Table 6 about here]
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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.
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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:
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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,
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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,
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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’,
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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.
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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:
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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,
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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.
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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).
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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.
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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)
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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.
Corporate Responsibilities in Europe
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.
Top Related