Nature of corporate responsibilities

8/7/2019 Nature of corporate responsibilities

1/13

Nature of corporate responsibilities

Perspectives from American, French, and German consumers

Isabelle Maignana,*, O.C. Ferrellb

aVrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Department of Information Management,

Marketing and Logistics, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlandsb

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Abstract

More and more businesses adopt socially responsible initiatives based on the assumption that consumers actively support responsible

organizations. Yet, little is known about the meaning and importance of corporate responsibilities for consumers in different countries. This

study compares how consumers in the US, France, and Germany evaluate corporate responsibilities both toward society in general and

toward organizational stakeholders. The findings reveal significant differences between the US and the two European nations and provide

guidance to build the image of a responsible organization internationally.

D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Corporate social responsibility; Stakeholders; Responsible consumption; Ethics

1. Introduction

We believe that our company has a responsibility to

respect our natural resources; we can have a positive

effect on our environment. We believe that its important

for our company to give back to our communities; we

can influence the world we live in. We believe that

how our company conducts business should be the

guiding principles for those who conduct business

with us; we can set the standards. (Saks Incorporated,

www.saksincorporated.com, 11/2000)

As illustrated in the corporate statement above, businesses

are increasingly eager to present themselves as good corpor-

ate citizens concerned with a variety of social issues such as

fairness, the well-being of employees, or the welfare ofsociety at large. This enthusiasm for corporate responsibility

is often based on the assumption that customers are willing to

support actively good corporate citizens (e.g., Jones, 1997;

Lorge, 1999). Yet, only limited research evidence is available

to support this claim (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Handelman

and Arnold, 1999; Maignan et al., 1999). In particular, past

studies have not examined which corporate activities and

behaviors are representative of responsible corporate behav-

ior according to consumers. As a result, businesses have little

knowledge about the concrete responsibility initiatives that

they ought to adopt to appeal to their customers. Most of the

past investigations into the nature and benefits of corporate

responsibility have been conducted in the US. Consequently,

international managers are left in doubt about the nature and

potential returns of corporate responsibility programs in

various regions of the world.

The present research intends to shed some light into the

nature of corporate responsibility as perceived by consumers

from different countries. In particular, the assessments

provided by consumers in Germany, France, and the US

will be compared and contrasted. The paper is structured

around five main sections: (1) an overview of past con-ceptualizations of corporate responsibility, (2) the devel-

opment of research hypotheses, (3) the presentation of the

research methodology, (4) the analysis of study results, and

(5) a discussion of findings.

2. Nature of corporate responsibilities

Two distinct research streams have examined the nature

of corporate responsibilities. One focuses on corporate

social responsibilities (e.g., Carroll, 1979; Davis, 1973;

Eellis and Walton, 1961; Eilbert and Parket, 1973; Freder-

0148-2963/03/$ see front matterD 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 1 4 8 - 2 9 6 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 2 2 - 3

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-20-444-6002; fax: +31-20-444-

6005.

E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Maignan).

Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 5567
http://%20www.saksincorporated.com/http://%20www.saksincorporated.com/http://%20www.saksincorporated.com/http://%20www.saksincorporated.com/http://%20www.saksincorporated.com/


2/13

ick, 1978; Robin and Reidenbach, 1987; Strand, 1983;

Wartick and Cochran, 1985) while the second considers

corporate stakeholder responsibilities (e.g., Clarkson, 1988,

1991, 1995; Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Goodpaster,

1991; Jones, 1997). These two perspectives are briefly

reviewed below.

2.1. Corporate social responsibilities

A variety of definitions of corporate responsibilities were

proposed starting in the 1950s throughout the 1970s (e.g.,

Bowen, 1953; Davis, 1973; Eellis and Walton, 1961; Mason,

1960; McGuire, 1963). Carroll (1979) attempted to integrate

previous conceptualizations in a classification that high-

lighted four types of responsibilities: economic, legal, ethical,

and philanthropic. Economic responsibilities require that

businesses be profitable and produce goods and services

which are desirable in society. Controlling employees pro-

ductivity or monitoring customer complaints are examples ofactivities signifying economic responsibility. Legal respons-

ibilities correspond to societys expectation to see businesses

meet their economic duties within the framework of the law.

Training programs about sexual harassment and fairness in

the workplace represent initiatives aimed at fostering legal

responsibility. Ethical responsibilities require that businesses

follow the modes of conduct considered as morally right.

Codes of conduct or ethics training programs help businesses

meet their ethical responsibilities. Finally, philanthropic

responsibilities reflect the common desire to see businesses

get actively involved in the betterment of society beyond their

economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities. Work-family

programs, corporate volunteerism, and donations to cultural

organizations are examples of philanthropic initiatives.

Carrolls categorization has been widely adopted in later

research (e.g., Lewin et al., 1995; Swanson, 1995; Wartick

and Cochran, 1985; Wood, 1991). Yet, this classification

like other less established frameworks has not been

brought to the scrutiny of social actors and consumers.

Therefore, while the notion of corporate social responsibility

is concerned with bringing corporate behavior up to a level

where it is in congruence with currently prevailing social

norms, values, and performance expectations (Sethi, 1979,

p. 66), past research has not formally surveyed societys

understanding of corporate responsibilities. Even thoughsome empirical studies have used Carrolls (1979) clas-

sification in the context of managerial surveys (e.g., Aup-

perle et al., 1985; Maignan et al., 1999; Pinkston and

Carroll, 1994), no research has examined whether this

framework depicts appropriately consumers perceptions

of corporate responsibilities. Accordingly, the managerial

relevance of Carrolls work remains questionable.

2.2. Corporate stakeholder responsibilities

The advocates of the stakeholder management approach

have discussed additional weaknesses of the corporate social

responsibility framework. For example, Clarkson (1995)

argued that Carrolls (1979) classification provides answers

to the question What are businesses responsible for? but

fails to address the question: To whom are businesses

socially responsible? Clarkson (1995) along with Donald-

son and Preston (1995) suggested that businesses are not

responsible to society as a whole, but only to corporatestakeholders, those actors who can affect or be affected by

corporate activities.

In a series of case studies, Clarkson (1988, 1991)

examined the performance of Canadian businesses in meet-

ing an inventory of 50 stakeholder demands. Clarksons

(1995) inventory of typical corporate and stakeholder

issues (p. 101) was generated based on interviews for each

stakeholder groups representatives the informants described

how their own specific demands could best be met by

businesses. For example, Clarkson obtained information

about customers depiction of corporate responsibilities

toward customers. However, this study did not explainhow consumers characterize the behavior of a responsible

firm toward other stakeholder groups (employees, share-

holders, or the community for example). Consequently,

similarly to past literature on corporate social responsibil-

ities, research on stakeholder management does not provide

insights into consumers definition of corporate responsibil-

ities. Thus, the stakeholder approach provides little practical

guidance for managers to select the corporate responsibility

initiatives most likely to generate consumers enthusiasm

and support.

Against this backdrop, the first objective of the present

study was to examine how consumers evaluate: (1) the four

types of corporate social responsibilities defined by Carroll

(1979) and (2) the responsibilities of businesses toward

four stakeholder groups the community, customers,

employees, and shareholders. The second study objective

was to gain some preliminary insights into potential cross-

cultural differences in consumers evaluations of corporate

responsibilities. Comparing consumers definition of cor-

porate responsibilities in the US, France, and Germany

promised to be fruitful since these three nations share

common defining features such as democratic institu-

tions and a similar level of economic development

while differing significantly in terms of core characteristics

such as businessgovernment or businessemployee rela-tionships (Enriquez, 1992; Lodge, 1990; Thurow, 1992;

Wever, 1995).

3. Hypotheses development

In this section, arguments are introduced to predict the

relative importance level allocated by US, French, and

German consumers to each social and stakeholder respons-

ibility. This discussion assumes that consumers in each

country can differentiate between each type of social and

stakeholder responsibility.

I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 556756


3/13

3.1. Consumers evaluation of corporate social

responsibilities

Carroll (1979) stated that: The first and foremost social

responsibility of businesses is economic in nature. Before

anything else, the business institution is the basic economic

unit in our society (p. 500). One may wonder whetherCarrolls assessment is shared by US, French, and German

consumers. Lodges (1990) comparative analysis of busi-

nessgovernment regulations in the US and Europe yields

relevant insights to address this question. Lodge (1990)

suggested that underlying national ideologies encourage

firms in each country to pursue a specific primary strategic

objective; this position received empirical support in a study

by Katz, Werner, and Brouthers (1999). Lodges (1990)

discussion of national ideologies is especially relevant for

the present research since consumers depiction of corporate

responsibilities can be expected to reflect underlying

national ideologies.Lodge (1990) differentiated between individualist and

communitarian ideologies. Individualism values the short-

term betterment of the individual, whereas communitarian-

ism emphasizes the needs of the community and the benefits

of consensus. Lodge described the US national ideology as

individualist, whereas he depicted the French and German

ideologies as mainly communitarian. Assuming that indi-

vidualist and communitarian national ideologies are associ-

ated, respectively, with individualist and collectivist values,

Lodges description of the US, France, and Germany con-

fers with the empirical analyses of national values con-

ducted by Hofstede (1980, 1983) and Schwartz (1992).

3.1.1. Within country analysis

Since the US is characterized as probably the best

example of the individualist ideology (Lodge, 1990), its

different social actors are likely to consider that both

themselves and other social agents should strive to serve

mainly their short term self-interests. Each social actor is

expected to take care of its own survival and well-being.

Accordingly, US consumers may assume that businesses

main duty is to remain profitable and productive in order

to both survive and prosper. US consumers may deem

that the main responsibility of the firm is economic.

Subsequently, the following hypothesis (Hypothesis 1ato c) is advanced:

Hypothesis 1: Consumers in the US will allocate more

importance to corporate economic responsibilities than to

corporate (a) legal, (b) ethical, and (c) philanthropic

responsibilities, respectively.

Given that Germany and France are characterized mainly

by a communitarian ideology, the members of these two

societies are unlikely to perceive the pursuit of ones self-

interest as an appropriate overriding goal for any social

agent. Accordingly, French and German consumers may not

view economic achievements as the primary social duty of

businesses. Instead, these consumers may sense that busi-

nesses should use their economic resources to contribute to

the well-being of society in general. Hence, corporate

economic responsibilities may be viewed by French and

German consumers as secondary to other corporate social

responsibilities. Thus, the following hypothesis (Hypothesis

2a to c) is advanced:

Hypothesis 2: Consumers in France and Germany will

allocate less importance to corporate economic responsi-

bilities than to corporate (a) legal, (b) ethical, and (c)

philanthropic responsibilities.

3.1.2. Between countries comparison

US consumers are likely to view economic duties as the

most important corporate responsibilities whereas French

and German consumers are not expected to view economic

achievements as the overriding goal of corporations. Con-

sequently, as stated in the following hypothesis (Hypothesis

3a to b), corporate economic responsibilities are likely to be

granted more importance by US consumers than by their

French and German counterparts:


importance to corporate economic responsibilities than

consumers in (a) France and (b) Germany.

Given the communitarian ideology prevalent in France

and Germany, consumers in these two nations are likely to

expect businesses to conform to the social norms defining

appropriate behavior. Thus, French and German consumers

may allocate more importance to businesses meeting their

legal and ethical responsibilities than US consumers. Inaddition, French and German consumers may expect a more

active corporate involvement in the betterment of society as

a whole. Accordingly, the following hypotheses (Hypothesis

4a to c) is proposed:

Hypothesis 4: Consumers in France and Germany

will allocate more importance to corporate (a) legal,

(b) ethical, and (c) philanthropic responsibilities than

US consumers.

3.2. Consumers evaluation of stakeholder responsibilities

3.2.1. Within country analysisAccording to Lodge (1990), the idea that the fundamental

purpose of the corporation is the satisfaction of shareholders

has prevailed for a long time in the US. However, following

the 1980s wave of consolidations, this well-established

assumption has been increasingly challenged. Lodge

(1990) concludes: In America, there is doubt and even

conflict about corporate purpose (p. 25). This observation

suggests first that corporate duties toward investors still

remain an essential responsibility of businesses in the eyes

of the US public opinion. Lodges analysis further entails

that other stakeholders may also be considered as essential

in the US. Given that the present study surveys consumers

I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 5567 57


4/13

and that the US ideology has been depicted as individu-

alistic, US consumers are likely to expect companies to pay

much attention to customers demands. Therefore, we

suggest that US consumers may value most corporate

responsibilities toward both investors and customers.

Accordingly, the following hypotheses (Hypotheses 5a,b

and 6a,b) are proposed:


importance to corporate investor responsibilities than to

(a) corporate employee responsibilities and (b) corporate

community responsibilities.


importance to corporate customer responsibilities than to

(a) corporate employee responsibilities and (b) corporate

community responsibilities.

Lodge (1990) further explained that in Europe corporate

purpose springs from a combination of the demands put

forth by equity holders, banks, employees, and the com-

munity. This is confirmed by Thurow (1992, cf. p. 36) whoclaimed that European societies broaden the rank of corpor-

ate stakeholders beyond the traditional owners to include

workers and the community. Following these analyses, we

can expect French and German customers to view busi-

nesses as being equally responsible toward each of their

stakeholder groups. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 7: Consumers in France and Germany will

allocate the same level of importance to corporate

employee, customer, investor, and community responsi-

bilities.


Traditional US ideology has viewed businesses as being

responsible mainly toward their equity holders, whereas the

French and German ideologies do not privilege the interest

of any group of corporate stakeholders. It can therefore be

expected that the importance allocated to responsibilities

toward investors is greater in the US than in France and

Germany. Hence, the following hypothesis (Hypothesis 8a

and b) is advanced:


importance to corporate investor responsibilities than

consumers in (a) France and (b) Germany.Both Lodge (1990) and Thurow (1992) explained that

French and German businesses most commonly have to

adopt the strategic options that are accepted by trade unions

or employee representatives. This assessment needs to be

qualified since trade union membership and power have

been declining throughout Europe over the past few years

(Economist, 2000a). Yet, labor movements or negotiations

whether they are organized under the umbrella of trade

unions or not remain a strong determinant of corporate

and public policies (Economist, 2000a,b,c). The underlying

French and German ideologies still hold businesses

responsible mainly for offering employment and for pro-

viding a work environment that is protective of ones

personal life, that facilitates personal development, and

that creates a social network for employees (Centres des

Jeunes Dirigeants dEntreprise, 1996; DeBeer and Col-

leagues, 1995; Langlois and Schlegelmich, 1990). Signific-

ant of this ideology in France is the legal requirement for

businesses to establish a bilan social (social balancesheet) that accompanies the traditional yearly accounting

balance sheet. This bilan social consists essentially in

recording the efforts undertaken by the organization to

manage its relations to its employees and to offer a quality

work environment(Capron and Leseul, 1996). In Germany,

the involvement of employee representatives at all levels of

the organizational decision-making process along with

generous employee benefits remain prevalent today (Eco-

nomist, 2000d) and illustrate the importance attributed to

workers welfare in that country (Addison, 1999; Wachter,

1997; Wever, 1995). Given the traditional importance

allocated to employees by the French and German ideo-logies and by corporate practices in those two nations, we

can expect French and German consumers to allocate more

importance to corporate responsibilities toward employees

than US consumers. Hence:

Hypothesis 9: Consumers in (a) France, and (b) Germany

will allocate more importance to corporate employee

responsibilities than US consumers.

As discussed earlier, given the communitarian ideology

prevalent in France and Germany, consumers in those two

countries may be especially eager to see businesses get

actively involved in the betterment of society. Thus, French

and German consumers may deem corporate communityresponsibilities as especially important. The duties of busi-

nesses to the community may not be granted as much

importance in the US where businesses are expected to seek

mainly their self-interest. Hence, the following hypothesis

(Hypothesis 10a and b) is advanced:

Hypothesis 10: Consumers in (a) France and (b)

Germany will allocate more importance to corporate

community responsibilities than consumers in the US.

Based on Lodges (1990) conceptualization of national

ideologies, it is difficult to compare a priori the import-

ance levels attributed to corporate customer responsibil-

ities by consumers in the US and Europe. Given this lackof supporting argument, the following null hypothesis

is proposed:

Hypothesis 11: Consumers in the US, France, and

Germany will allocate the same level of importance to

corporate responsibilities toward customers.

4. Methodology

The lack of existing measurement instruments that

assess consumers evaluation of social and stakeholder



5/13

responsibilities constituted one of the main challenges

of the hypothesis testing process. The discussion below

first presents the steps adopted to generate adequate

measures, and then details the features of the data gath-

ering process.

4.1. Instrument development

Even though no scale could be found to assess con-

sumers evaluation of social and stakeholder responsibil-

ities, three related instruments proposed, respectively, by

Aupperle et al. (1985), Clarksons (1988, 1995), and

Maignan and Ferrell (1999) were useful in constructing

new measures. Based on these instruments, an initial

battery of items was generated in order to gauge consum-

ers evaluations of each social responsibility economic,

legal, ethical, or philanthropic , and each stakeholder

responsibility toward employees, customers, investors,

and the community.In accordance with the recommendations of Churchill

(1979), three pretests were employed to assess the quality,

face validity, and content validity of the items. First, the

items were submitted to six scholars with an expertise in

the field of business and society. These scholars had to

pinpoint any ambiguous item and had to rate each item in

terms of representativeness and consistency. Based on the

comments thereby obtained, items were modified and

rephrased. In a second pretest, the resulting items were

submitted to university employees excluding professors

in each country. These informants were asked to

participate in a survey about shopping. Respectively 53,

45, and 42 usable questionnaires were obtained in the US,

France, and Germany. The items descriptive statistics,

inter-item along with item-to-total correlations, and reli-

ability estimates were examined and helped further refine

the instrument. At this stage, potential wording and

formulation consistency issues became apparent and were

solved. Finally, the resulting items were submitted again

to the six experts in the field of business and society.

Their suggestions led to only some minor modifications in

the wording and presentation of the items.

The resulting instrument included four items for each

social responsibility and five items for each stakeholder

responsibility. Respondents had to rate on a 7-point scalea list of statements such as: I believe that businesses must

(a) maximize profits (economic responsibility), (b) refrain

from bending the law even if this helps improve per-

formance (legal responsibility), (c) avoid layoffs (respons-

ibility toward employees), and (d) help improve the

quality of life in our community (responsibility toward

the community). Much attention was paid to maintaining

translation equivalence (Agarwal, 1992). To that effect,

the items were first translated into French and German,

respectively, by one native speaker and back translated

into English by a professional translator. The few dis-

crepancies observed between the original instrument and

its back translated version were only minor and easily

solved by the translators.

4.2. Data collection

One main concern with the data collection process

consisted in obtaining information from comparable sam-ples in the three countries considered. Recruiting consumers

within a similar workplace environment seemed to provide

some assurance of sample comparability in terms of social

status, education, and lifestyles. The authors established

convenience samples in each of the three countries consid-

ered after securing the involvement of contact persons

working in large insurance companies and banks. Specif-

ically, in the US, informants were recruited among one bank

in a south-eastern city, and one insurance company in a

north-eastern city. In France, questionnaires were distributed

in one insurance company and two banks, all located in

metropolitan areas. In Germany, surveys were handed out inone bank and one insurance company located in two large

cities. Such limited samples cannot be considered repres-

entative of the populations of the three countries at stake;

yet, they are conducive of sample comparability.

In each firm, a contact person was asked to pass the

questionnaires among colleagues at all levels of the organ-

ization and in as many different departments as possible.

The contact person was instructed to explain to informants

that: (1) the study was conducted for academic purposes (a

cover page detailed the purpose and features of the survey),

(2) the study was not sponsored or in any other way linked

to their company, and (3) the completed surveys should be

sent back directly to the researchers. The resulting ques-

tionnaire was entitled Survey of Shopping Styles and

included many items about shopping habits in addition to

the measures developed for the purpose of this study. No

question was asked about respondents work experiences.

With these precautions, participants could reasonably be

expected to approach the questionnaire as consumers.

The contact persons were given a total of 200 question-

naires in each country. The German contacts managed to

pass only 120 surveys. A total of 169 French, 94 German,

and 145 US usable questionnaires were returned. An exam-

ination of the respondents demographic profile revealed

that the three samples were quite comparable in terms ofage, gender, education, and position in the company.

5. Analysis and results

5.1. Overall examination of social and stakeholder

responsibilities

Exploratory factor analyses were conducted in each

sample to check that consumers could differentiate between

each type of social and stakeholder responsibility. As

indicated in Table 1, eight factors four for social



6/13


7/13

responsibilities and four for stakeholder responsibilities

were clearly apparent in the three samples. No instance of

obvious cross-loading over factors could be observed; in

addition, eigenvalue indicators fell within recommended

guidelines (Hair et al., 1995). The communality indices

were acceptable: they ranged from .71 to 92 in the US

sample, from .61 to .88 in the French sample, and from .71to .93 in the German sample. Reliability scores were good

for each type of responsibility: Cronbachs alpha ranged

from .86 to .97 in the US; from .81 to .96 in the France; and

from .87 to .96 in Germany. These results suggested that

US, French, and German consumers clearly regrouped

corporate responsibilities by social domain (economic,

legal, ethical, and philanthropic) and by stakeholder group

(employees, customers, investors, and the community).

An examination of the correlations between the types of

social and stakeholder responsibilities, respectively, also

yielded interesting insights (see Tables 2 and 3). For

example, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilitieswere found to be positively and significantly correlated in

the three samples, with the exception of philanthropic

responsibilities that were not significantly associated with

any social responsibility in the French sample. In contrast,

economic responsibilities were either negatively or not

significantly associated with other social responsibilities,

with the exception of a positive and significant association

with legal responsibilities in France. In order to better assess

the external validity of the scales measuring each type of

social responsibility, correlations between each social

responsibility and an overall item I believe that busi-

nesses must make efforts to behave in a socially responsible

manner were scrutinized (see Table 2). Legal, ethical,

and philanthropic responsibilities, respectively, were posi-

tively and significantly correlated with that overall item in

the three countries. However, no significant association was

found for economic responsibilities in France and Germany,

while a significant negative association was observed in the

US. Thus, respondents did not judge economic duties to be

corporate social responsibilities to the same extent as legal,

ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities.

As indicated in Table 3, corporate responsibilities

toward employees, customers, and the community were

significantly and positively correlated in each sample. The

pattern of correlations with investor responsibilities was

not consistent across samples: they were significantly

associated only with customer responsibilities in the US,

with customer responsibilities and community responsibil-ities in France, and with no other stakeholder responsibility

in Germany. The correlations between an overall stake-

holder responsibility item I believe that businesses

must satisfy the demands of their different publics and

each type of stakeholder responsibility were also examined

(see Table 3). Employee, customer, and community

responsibilities were positively and significantly associated

with the overall stakeholder responsibility item with the

exception of community responsibilities in France. Investor

responsibilities were not significantly associated with that

item in all samples. This observation implies that consum-

ers do not necessarily view investors as an importantpublic of the organization.


responsibilities


Hypothesis 1a c were tested with one-sample t tests

conducted in each country (see Table 2). In the US sample,

consumers rated economic responsibilities as significantly

more important than ethical (t=3.13, P< .01) and phil-

anthropic responsibilities (t=9.37, P< .01). However, no

significant difference was observed in the degree of import-

ance allocated to economic and legal responsibilities.

Hence, support was found for Hypothesis 1b and c, but

not for Hypothesis 1a. French and German consumers

allocated the least importance to the economic responsibil-

ities of the firm: economic responsibilities were found to be

less important than legal (t= 10.67, P< .01 in France;

t= 6.61, P< .01 in Germany), ethical (t= 9.29, P


8/13

responsibilities, respectively. Consequently, Hypothesis 2a

c was supported.

Overall, US consumers ranked the importance of social

responsibilities in the following decreasing order of import-ance: (1) economic and legal responsibilities, (2) ethical

responsibilities, and (3) philanthropic responsibilities.

French consumers ranked the different social responsibil-

ities in the following decreasing order of importance: (1)

legal, (2) ethical, (3) philanthropic, and (4) economic

responsibilities. Finally, German consumers ranked corpor-

ate social responsibilities in the following decreasing order

of importance: (1) legal and ethical, (2) philanthropic, and

(3) economic.


A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was first

employed to test for Hypotheses 3a to 4c. Each social

responsibility was considered as a dependent variable, and

three covariates gender, education, and age were

included in the analysis. Since the resulting Wilks statistics

was significant (Wilks = 9.15; df= 2,193; P< .01), subse-

quent analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted

for each social responsibility dimension. The ANCOVAs

indicated that only some of the individual covariates were

significant: education and gender for economic responsibil-

ities; education, gender, and age for legal responsibilities;

gender for ethical responsibilities; and age for philanthropic

responsibilities. Accordingly, as indicated in Table 4, the

ANCOVAs were run for the study results using only thesignificant demographic variables. Then, LSD post hoc tests

were conducted to locate the differences.

Support for Hypothesis 3a and b was provided: US

consumers allocated more importance to economic respons-

ibilities than their French and German counterparts

( F= 32.40; df= 2,394; P< .01). No difference was found

in the importance allocated to legal and ethical responsibil-

ities, respectively, by US, French, and German consumers.

Hence, Hypothesis 4a and b was not supported. However, a

significant difference was observed for philanthropic

responsibilities ( F= 6.16; df= 2,398; P< .01): French and

German consumers, respectively, allocated more importance

to philanthropic responsibilities than their US counterparts.

Consequently, Hypothesis 4c was supported.



One-sample t tests were employed to examine differ-

ences in the level of importance attributed by consumers to

stakeholder responsibilities in each country (Hypotheses 5a

to 7; see Table 3). Corporate investor responsibilities were

deemed as more important than employee responsibilities

in the US sample (t= 4.48; P< .01). However, corporate

investor responsibilities were not deemed as significantly

more important than community responsibilities. Accord-

ingly, support was found for Hypothesis 5a but not for

Hypothesis 5b.

Hypothesis 6a,b was supported: US consumers allocated

more importance to customer responsibilities than to

employee responsibilities (t= 12.65, P< .01) and commun-

ity responsibilities (t= 12.31, P< .01). Overall, US custom-

ers ranked the different stakeholder responsibilities in the

following decreasing order of importance: (1) customers,

Table 3

Stakeholder responsibilities: correlations, differences (t test), and means

United States France Germany

EMP CUS INV COM EMP CUS INV COM EMP CUS INV COM

EMP 1 .36** .13 .17 * 1 .30** .13 .26** 1 .50** .12 .28**

CUS 12.65** 1 .24** .34** 3.69** 1 .22** .22** 7.34** 1 .10 .24 *

INV 4.48** 5.98** 1 .13 24.26** 26.38** 1 .26** 20.13** 25.48** 1 .06COM 7.22** 12.31** 1.18 1 18.06** 26.38** 11.73** 1 6.60** 11.23** 10.85** 1

STA .64** .57** .11 .44** .38** .42** .10 .14 .54** .50** .01 .53**

Mean 4.51 5.71 4.99 4.94 6.10 6.29 3.64 4.61 5.56 6.16 3.30 4.70

Above the diagonal, Pearsons correlations; below the diagonal, t values in italics; EMP= corporate employee responsibilities; CUS = corporate customer

responsibilities; INV= corporate investor responsibilities; COM= corporate community responsibilities; STA= overall stakeholder responsibility item: I

believe that businesses must satisfy the demands of their different publics.

* P< .05.

** P< .01.

Table 4

Importance attributed to social responsibilities: comparison across France,

Germany, and the US

Dependent Univariate F Mean Post hoc

measure

US France Germany

LSD test

ECOa 32.40** 5.42 4.56 4.43 FR < US

GR


9/13

(2) investors and the community, and (3) employees. Both

French and German consumers allocated significantly differ-

ent levels of importance to each stakeholder responsibility.

Hence, no support was found for Hypothesis 7. French and

German consumers ranked the different stakeholder respons-

ibilities in the following decreasing order of importance: (1)

customers, (2) employees, (3) community, and (4) investors.


A MANOVA with the four stakeholder responsibilities

as dependent variables and gender, education, and age as

covariates was first used to test for Hypotheses 8 11.

Since the resulting Wilks statistic was significant (Wilks =

35.57; df= 2,193; P< .01), subsequent ANCOVAs were

conducted. The ANCOVAs presented in Table 5 include

only the covariates that were found to be significant: gender

for responsibilities toward employees and customers; and

education along with gender for responsibilities toward

the community.Support was found for Hypothesis 8a and b: US con-

sumers allocated more importance to corporate investor

responsibilities than French and German consumers ( F=

63.74; df= 2,399, P< .01). Evidence in support of Hypo-

thesis 9a and b was also gathered: French and German

consumers, respectively, gave more importance to corporate

employee responsibilities than their US counterparts ( F=

100.32; df= 2,397; P< .01). No support was gathered for

Hypothesis 10a and b: consumers in France and Germany,

respectively, did not allocate the same level of importance to

corporate community responsibilities as consumers in the

US. Hypothesis 11 was not supported: French and German

consumers, respectively, allocated more importance to cus-

tomer responsibilities than their US counterparts ( F= 14.34;

df= 2,397; P< .01).

Given that, as earlier mentioned, gender, education, and

age were found to be significant covariates in some ANCO-

VAs, MANOVAs were conducted in each sample with

gender, education, and age as grouping variables. Since

demographic differences are not at the core of this study, the

results of this analysis are not presented in details. Overall,

no consistent pattern appeared in each sample that revealed

differences in consumers evaluation of corporate respons-

ibilities according to gender, education, and age.

6. Discussion and conclusions

6.1. Nature of corporate responsibilities according

to consumers

First of all, the results of the factor analyses gave

credibility to both the social responsibility and the stake-

holder responsibility frameworks since consumers could

differentiate between each type of corporate responsibility.

As far as social responsibilities were concerned, consumersin the US and Germany were prone to differentiate between

economic responsibilities on the one hand, and other social

responsibilities on the other hand. This is illustrated by the

insignificant or negative correlations linking economic

responsibilities to other social responsibilities and to the

overall responsibility item. The differentiation between (1)

economic responsibilities and (2) other social responsibilities

was less apparent in France where economic responsibilities

were found to be associated with legal responsibilities. In

addition, in that country, philanthropic responsibilities were

not significantly associated with the other three responsibil-

ities and with the overall responsibility item.

Social responsibilities as perceived by consumers can

hardly be viewed as dimensions of a unique underlying

construct. This result contrasts sharply with the conceptual-

ization adopted by Maignan et al. (1999) who treated

economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities

as correlated dimensions of one underlying construct named

corporate citizenship. Maignan et al.s approach was sup-

ported empirically in a survey of managers; yet, it does not

seem to reflect consumers perceptions of corporate respon-

sibilities. Thus, while managers may view economic, legal,

ethical, and philanthropic duties as part of an overall

corporate responsibility concept, consumers appear more

likely to establish differences between corporate respons-ibilities, and especially between economic duties and other

social responsibilities. This observation suggests that vari-

ous social actors may have contrasted perceptions of cor-

porate responsibilities. Accordingly, businesses may want to

emphasize different initiatives when trying to convey the

image of a responsible organization among diverse publics.

In addition, our study questions the relevance of Carrolls

(1979) classification to understand consumers evaluation

of, and reaction to, corporate responsibility initiatives.

Indeed, the findings suggest that consumers might perceive

that corporate social responsibility is mainly made of legal,

ethical, and philanthropic duties, three dimensions of cor-

Table 5

Importance attributed to stakeholder responsibilities: comparison across the

US, France, and Germany

Dependent Univariate F Mean Post hoc

measureUS France Germany

LSD test

EMPa 100.32** 4.51 6.10 5.56 FR > US,GR>US,

FR>GR

CUSa 14.34** 5.71 6.29 6.16 FR>US

GR>US

INVb 63.74** 4.99 3.64 3.30 US>FR

US>GR

COMc 1.81 4.94 4.61 4.70

US = United States, FR= France, GR = Germany; EMP= employee respon-

sibilities, CUS= customer responsibilities, INV= investor responsibilities,

COM = community responsibilities.a Covariate included in the analysis: gender.b No covariate was included in the analysis (not significant).c Covariates included in the analysis: degree and gender.

** P< .01.



10/13

porate activities that may be viewed as quite distinct from

the economic mission of the firm.

Across the three samples, customers, employees, and

community responsibilities were found to be positively

and significantly associated to the overall stakeholder

responsibility item with the exception of community

responsibilities in France that were not correlated to theoverall item. In contrast, investor responsibilities were not

systematically associated with other stakeholder respons-

ibilities and were not significantly correlated with the

overall stakeholder responsibility in the three samples.

Accordingly, consumers appeared to establish a clear dis-

tinction between investor responsibilities on the one hand

and customer, employee, and community responsibilities on

the other hand. Hence, like corporate social responsibilities,

stakeholder responsibilities do not appear to be components

of one underlying construct. Combining the results of the

correlation analyses for both corporate social and stake-

holder responsibilities, it becomes apparent that consumersdifferentiated the need for businesses to be financially

responsible (in order to meet their economic and investor

responsibilities) from their other responsibilities.


responsibilities

US consumers evaluation of corporate social respons-

ibilities came close to confirm Carrolls (1979) assertion that

the most important duties of the firm are economic, fol-

lowed, respectively, by (1) legal, (2) ethical, and (3) phil-

anthropic responsibilities. The only difference between

Carrolls ordering and the ranking provided by the US

respondents was that the latter attributed the same import-

ance to economic and legal responsibilities. The primary

role attributed to legal duties may result from the highly

legalist nature of the US (Galen et al., 1992) and from the

common recourse to consumer litigation in that country

(Morrison, 1991).

The assessment provided by US consumers contrasted

sharply with that given by their European counterparts.

French and German consumers not only allocated less

importance to corporate economic responsibilities than US

consumers, they also judged economic responsibilities to be

the least important social responsibilities. Consequently,whereas US consumers perceived the achievement of eco-

nomic performance as a lead objective of businesses, French

and German consumers viewed economic achievements as

only secondary.

Even though French and German consumers allocated a

similar degree of importance to legal and ethical respons-

ibilities, respectively, as US consumers, they positioned

these two responsibilities as the most important corporate

social responsibilities. This finding suggests that French and

German consumers are mostly concerned about businesses

conforming to social norms, not about businesses achieving

high levels of economic performance. The fact that French

and German consumers were found to allocate more import-

ance to philanthropic responsibilities than US consumers

further demonstrates that businesses are expected to actively

contribute to the welfare of society in the two European

nations. Altogether, the findings illustrate the communit-

arian nature of the French and German ideologies as

depicted by Lodge (1990). The study results also emphasizethe individualist nature of the US ideology: businesses in

that country are expected to strive mainly for their own well-

being by achieving high economic performance (while

simultaneously paying much attention to legal issues.)

For businesses, the results point to the difficulties that

may be encountered when trying to build the image of a

responsible organization especially in the French and Ger-

man markets. In those two countries, the achievement of

high levels of economic performance can actually be per-

ceived negatively by the public opinion and therefore by

consumers. Consider the example of the French tire man-

ufacturer Michelin, which announced in 1999 both recordprofitability levels and the need for layoffs. The French

press, union leaders, and even government representatives

all unanimously denounced Michelins strategy as inhumane

and highly inappropriate in a country with high rates of

unemployment (Toscer, 1999). The Michelin crisis echoes

the struggles faced by companies such as Hoechst and

Volkswagen in Germany (Chemical Week, 1998; Shlaes,

1994). For instance, despite increased competition and

ailing profits, Hoechst Marion Roussel has had to reduce

the number of planned layoffs after being accused by both

union leaders and the press of consistently focusing on

profitability at the expense of employees welfare. These

anecdotes illustrate the idea that economic performance is

not systematically venerated in France and Germany; in

fact, it is likely to be deplored unless the company displays a

strong commitment to the interests of society as a whole.

According to the study findings, businesses that want to

position themselves as socially responsible in France and

Germany may have to downplay their economic achieve-

ments and emphasize their preparedness to serving first their

legal and ethical responsibilities, followed by their phil-

anthropic duties.

In contrast, in the US, claiming to be a socially respons-

ible organization when economic achievements are not the

greatest, can be dangerous. This idea is illustrated by theexperience of the ice-cream manufacturer Ben and Jerrys

which has been accused repeatedly of neglecting economic

performance because of its many philanthropic activities

(e.g., Taylor, 1997). In the US, high levels of economic

performance may even enable the firm to maintain the

image of a responsible organization, even if this business

actually neglects its other social responsibilities. This is the

case of Microsoft which benefits from a very positive

corporate reputation in spite of the fact that the company

was found guilty of antitrust violations. Altogether, the

comparison of consumers expectations of the firm in the

US, France, and Germany points to difficulty of implement-



11/13

ing uniform communication programs about social respons-

ibility across borders.


While US, French, and German consumers disagreed on

what they viewed as the most important social responsibil-ity, they all designated customer responsibilities as the most

important corporate responsibility. By asserting the central-

ity of customers fair and satisfactory treatment, respondents

appeared to emphasize their own interest as customers.

Responsibilities toward customers were deemed as even

more important in absolute terms in France and Germany

than in the US.

For other stakeholder groups, the assessment of US

consumers on the one hand and French and German con-

sumers on the other hand differed significantly. French and

German consumers placed employees as the second most

important corporate stakeholder group, whereas employeeswere perceived as the least important stakeholders by US

consumers. In addition, the level of importance allocated to

responsibilities to employees was greater in France and

Germany, respectively, than in the US. These results illus-

trate the common view prevalent in France and Germany

that the firm should serve the interests of its employees.

Companies in those two countries are not only expected to

provide employees with an occupation, but also with

extensive benefits, a pleasant work environment, and a

place where social interactions are cultivated (Capron and

Leseul, 1996; Centre des Jeunes Dirigeants dEntreprise,

1996; Wachter, 1997).

French and German consumers attributed the third level

of importance to responsibilities toward the community,

which were granted however the same importance level as

in the US. In the last position in France and Germany

appeared investors, whose importance was also rated as

significantly lower than in the US. In fact, the average score

assigned to responsibilities toward investors by French and

German consumers was below the neutral point, which

implies that these two consumer groups did not view

businesses as entities with the duty to serve the interest of

investors. Combined with the little importance attributed to

economic responsibilities by French and German consum-

ers, these results suggest that corporations in these twocountries are seen above all as social agents at the service of

their customers, employees, and society at large. Businesses

do not seem to be considered by French and German

consumers as economic agents striving to generate eco-

nomic value for themselves and their shareholders/investors.

This perspective further illustrates the communitarian nature

of the French and German national ideologies.

The discrepancy in the importance level allocated,

respectively, to employee and investor responsibilities in

both France and Germany is probably at the core of the

often conflicting relationships between these two stake-

holder groups. Responsible businesses in France and

Germany are thus facing the difficulty of satisfying simul-

taneously two groups employees and equity holders

whose interests are perceived as irreconcilable by consum-

ers, and therefore by the public opinion. Hence, when

building the image of a responsible organization among

consumers, businesses may want to downplay their eco-

nomic performance and their attractiveness to investors,and instead advertise their dedication to the satisfaction of

their customers, their employees, and to a lesser degree,

the community.

Such an approach would not be recommended in the US

where investors and the community were rated as the second

most important stakeholder groups (after customers). The

importance granted to these two stakeholder groups by US

consumers confirms Lodges (1990) depiction of the Amer-

ican national ideology as being conflicted about businesses

role in society: whereas businesses were traditionally

viewed in the US as serving mainly the interests of their

equity holders, they are also expected today to serve theinterests of society as a whole. US corporations seem to

have assimilated this evolution quite well since they are

known for, on the one hand, giving high returns to their

investors while, on the other hand, committing a high

percentage of their profits to philanthropic activities.

Finally, US consumers gave the lowest level of import-

ance to corporate responsibilities toward employees. This is

quite surprising since those evaluations were provided by

individuals employed in large organizations. Overall, busi-

nesses committed to acting responsibly in the US first have

to emphasize their commitment to customer satisfaction.

Then, community involvement and high economic returns

for investors can also be used to demonstrate the organiza-

tions commitment to behaving in a responsible manner. All

in all, the study findings pinpoint to significant cross-

cultural differences in the responsibilities that consumers

assign to businesses, and therefore call for caution in the

communication of global corporate responsibility programs.

Consumers in different nations are unlikely to grant the

same level of support to various responsibility initiatives.

6.4. Limitations and directions for future research

6.4.1. A deeper understanding of corporate responsibilities

The fact that existing conceptualizations of corporateresponsibilities along with the different behaviors depicting

each type of responsibility were imposed on consumers

probably represents the first and foremost limitation of the

study. Informants had to rate the importance of different

responsibilities that had been defined and classified before-

hand. Thus, the findings report consumers evaluations of

certain predefined corporate responsibilities, and do not

describe consumers own definition of these responsibilities.

When questioned about corporate responsibilities in an

unaided manner, consumers may or may not mention each

of the different types of responsibilities and corporate

actions considered in this study. These caveats call for



12/13

qualitative inquiries examining: (1) how consumers define

corporate responsibilities in general, and (2) which corpor-

ate behaviors are significant of corporate responsibility

according to consumers.

6.4.2. Extending the applicability of the research

The properties of the scales should be further examinedsince the measurement instruments employed were

developed specifically for the purpose of the present ana-

lysis. The study suffered from relatively small sample sizes

and sample selection that could not claim to be represent-

ative of the larger populations of US, French, and German

consumers. Hence, surveys of larger and more represent-

ative samples are definitely called for. While cultural differ-

ences were highlighted, only three countries were included

in the analysis. In order to make the findings more mean-

ingful, additional countries should be considered.

6.4.3. From consumer evaluations to consumer actionsThe present research investigated consumers evaluation

of the importance of different corporate responsibilities.

This may be a first step in understanding which type of

corporate social responsibility initiatives may or may not

generate goodwill among consumers. However, the study

did not reveal whether consumers are willing to actively

support a firm that performs well in terms of the different

responsibilities considered. For example, the findings

showed that US consumers rate highly corporate respons-

ibilities toward investors and the community; however, the

research did not examine whether consumers are willing to

make an effort to support for instance through repeat

purchases or positive word-of-mouth the organizations

that make specific efforts to treat investors and the com-

munity with utmost respect and care. Therefore, future

research is needed to investigate the relationship between

consumers evaluations of corporate responsibilities in gen-

eral and consumers concrete reactions to specific respons-

ibility initiatives.

Despite its many caveats, this study constitutes a sig-

nificant contribution to help understand consumers view of

corporate responsibilities. The research clearly indicates that

consumers do assign a number of responsibilities to busi-

nesses, and favor some forms of responsibility over others.

The analysis further pinpoints to the difficulty of establish-ing the image of a responsible organization in the eyes of

consumers especially in an international context. This pro-

ject calls for future inquiries that investigate more thor-

oughly consumers definition of corporate responsibilities in

order for organizations to adopt rewarding responsibility

initiatives across borders.

References

Addison JT. Nonunion representation in Germany. J Labour Res 1999;

20(1):7391.

Agarwal S. Influence of formalization on role stress, organizational com-

mitment, and work alienation of salespersons: a cross-national compa-

rative study. J Int Bus Stud 1992;71539 (Fourth Quarter).

Aupperle KE, Carroll AB, Hatfield J. An empirical examination of the

relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability.

Acad Manage J 1985;28(2):44663.

Bowen HR. Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper

& Row, 1953.Brown TJ, Dacin PA. The company and the product: corporate associations

and consumer product responses. J Mark 1997;61:6884 (January).

Capron M, Leseul G. Pour un Bilan Societal des Entreprises. Rev Int Econ

Soc 1996;266:2941.

Carroll AB. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate perform-

ance. Acad Manage Rev 1979;4(4):497505.

Centre des Jeunes Dirigeants dEntreprise. LEntreprise au XXIe Siecle

Paris: Flammarion, 1996.

Hoechst renegotiates drugs job cuts. Chem Week 1998;160(13):8.

Churchill GA. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing

constructs. J Mark Res 1979;16:6473 (February).

Clarkson MBE. Corporate social performance in Canada, 1976 1986. Res

Corp Soc Perform Policy 1988;10:24165.

Clarkson MBE. Defining, evaluating, and managing corporate social per-

formance: the stakeholder management model. Res Corp Soc PerformPolicy 1991;12:33158.

Clarkson MBE. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating

corporate social performance. Acad Manage Rev 1995;20(1):92 117.

Davis K. The case for and against business assumptions of social responsi-

bilities. Acad Manage J 1973;16(2):31222.

De Beer and Colleagues. Le Travail au XXI Siecle Mutations de lEco-

nomie et de la Societe a lEre des Autoroutes de lInformation Paris:

Dunod, 1995.

Donaldson T, Preston LE. The stakeholder theory of the corporation:

concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manage Rev 1995;20(1):

6591.

Economist. Metall buckles the wage agreement between Germanys

bosses and the countrys largest trade union bodes well for the economy.

Economist. Available at: http://www.economist.com. March 30, 2000a.

Economist.Everyone cross. Economist. Available at: http://www.economist.com. February 3, 2000b.

Economist. Is consensus under threat? Germanys famously steady trade

unions sound unusually turbulent. Economist. 2000c;50 (June 3).

Economist.A Frenchpox on them. Economist.2000d;31 2 (September 16).

Eellis R, Walton C. Conceptual foundations of business. Homewood, IL:

Richard Irwin, 1961.

Eilbert H, Parket IR. The practice of business the current status of

corporate social responsibility. Bus Horiz. 1973;514 (August).

Enriquez E. Lentreprise Comme Lien Social Un Collosse Aux Pieds

dArgile. In: Sainsaulieu Renaud, editor. LEntreprise, une Affaire de

Societe. Paris: Presse de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques,

1992. p. 20328.

Frederick, WC. From CSR1 to CSR2 the maturing of the business and

society. Thought Working Paper 279, Graduate School of Business,

University of Pittsburgh, 1978. Reproduced in Business and SocietyAugust 1994;33(2)15064.

Galen M, Cuneo A, Greising D. Guilty. Bus Week 1992;605.

Goodpaster KE. Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Bus Ethics Q

1991;1(1):5373.

Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis

with readings 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1995.

Handelman JM, Arnold SJ. The role of marketing actions with a social

dimension: appeals to the institutional environment. J Mark 1999;63:

3348 (July).

Hofstede G. Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories

apply abroad? Organ Dyn 1980;9:4263 (Summer).

Hofstede G. National cultures in four dimensions a research-based

theory of cultural differences among nations. Int Stud Manage Organ

1983;13(12):46 74.

http://%20www.economist.com./http://%20www.economist.com./http://%20www.economist.com./http://%20www.economist.com./http://%20www.economist.com./http://%20www.economist.com./


13/13

Jones D. Good works, good business. USA Today 1997;1B (April 25).

Katz JP, Werner S, Brouthers L. Does winning mean the same thing around

the world? National ideology and the performance of global compe-

titors. J Bus Res 1999;44:11726.

Langlois C, Schlegelmich BB. Do corporate codes of ethics reflect national

character? Evidence from Europe and the US. J Int Bus Stud 1990;

21(4):51939.

Lewin AY, Sakano T, Stevens CU, Victor B. Corporate citizenship in Japan:survey from Japanese firms. J Bus Ethics 1995;14(2):83101.

Lodge GC. Comparative business government relations. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990.

Lorge S. Consumers care about causes. Cornering the market. Sales Mark

Manage 1999;151(6):47.

Maignan I, Ferrell OC. Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries:

the case of the United States and France. J Bus Ethics 1999;23:283 97.

Maignan I, Ferrell OC, Tomas G, Hult M. Corporate citizenship: cultural

antecedents and business benefits. J Acad Mark Sci 1999;27(4):

45569.

Mason ES. The corporation in modern society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Univ. Press, 1960.

McGuire JB. Business and society. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.

Morrison A. The role of litigation in consumer protection. J Consum Aff

1991;25(2):209 (Winter).Pinkston TS, Carroll AB. Corporate citizenship perspectives and foreign

direct investment in the US. J Bus Ethics 1994;13:15769.

Robin DP, Reidenbach ER. Social responsibilities, ethics, and marketing

strategy: closing the gap between concept and application. J Mark

1987;51:4458 (January).

Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical

advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna MP, editor.

Advances in experimental social psychology. San Diego: Academic

Press, 1992. p. 165.

Sethi SP. A conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social

issues and evaluation of business response patterns. Acad Manage

Rev 1979;4(1):6374.

Shlaes A. Germanys chained economy. Foreign Aff 1994;73(5):109 24.

Strand R. A systems paradigm of organizational adaptations to the socialenvironment. Acad Manage Rev 1983;8(1):90 6.

Swanson DL. Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate

social performance model. Acad Manage Rev 1995;20(1):43 64.

Taylor A. Yo, Ben! Yo, Jerry! Its just ice cream!; the celebrated Vermont

do-gooders seek global solutions in every spoonful of their luscious

products. Meanwhile, their business suffers and their shareholders

starve. Fortune 1997;374 (April 28).

Thurow L. Head to head. New York, NY: William Morrow and Co, 1992.

Toscer O. Les Marches Aiment Ils la Casse Sociale? Nouv Obs

1999;802 (September 16).

Wachter H. German co-determination quo vadis? A study of the imple-

mentation of new management concepts in the German steel industry.

Employee Relat 1997;19(1):2737.

Wartick SL, Cochran PL. The evolution of the corporate social performance

model. Bus Soc 1985;31(1):3342.Wever KS. Negotiating competitiveness employment relations and or-

ganizational innovation in Germany and the United States. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School Press, 1995.

Wood DJ. Corporate social performance revisited. Acad Manage Rev

1991;16(4):691 718.


Documents

Nature of corporate responsibilities