Perceptions on Social Responsibility

Perceptions on SocialResponsibilityThe Entrepreneurial VisionRobin T. PetersonMinjoon JunNew Mexico State University, Las Cruces

This article outlines the results of an inquiry into the nature of entrepreneurialcommitment to social responsibility as a business philosophy. Findings showthat the respondents, as a group, reported a strong orientation to this view.Several social responsibility topics emerge in a position of special prominenceto entrepreneurs, and their preferences for these topics do not widely vary.Furthermore, the degree of attachment to social responsibility, as an operationalconstruct, correlates with several demographic and psychographic dimensions.

Keywords: social responsibility; business ethics; society; small business;entrepreneurship

Social responsibility is a theme that has long been a focus of attentionand interest on the part of business practitioners and academics (Gorte,

2005). Informed self-interest and pressure from a variety of publics haveushered into involvement in many elements of this subject. Numerous man-agers are aware that failure to react to this force can engender negative andrestraining effects on industry, including the imposition of new legislation,more intense application of existing regulations, adverse publicity, and con-flicts with organization publics. However, interested parties evidence somedegree of disagreement regarding the extent to which firms should pursuethis objective and the issues that should be emphasized (Ostas, 2005; Saha& Darnton, 2005; Vogel, 2005). Yet there is considerable agreement as tothe significance of this topic to management and to society at large.

Much of the attention and criticism focusing on social responsibilityissues has been directed to the activities of large enterprises (R. Adams,2005; Doonar, 2005; Preston, 2005). Lawmakers frequently target regula-tions on issues such as air and water pollution in a manner that is intendedto impinge more on large than on small companies. Environmentalists,

Business & SocietyVolume XX Number X

Month XXXX xx-xx© Sage Publications

10.1177/0007650307305758http://bas.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

1

Business Society OnlineFirst, published on September 18, 2007 as doi:10.1177/0007650307305758

Copyright 2007 by SAGE Publications. at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016bas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://bas.sagepub.com/

journalists, and other influential publics often call for modifications in thepractices of large companies as an avenue for addressing issues such asproduct safety and the depletion of nonrenewable resources (Kitchin &Wilson, 2005). Consequently, a substantial portion of the social responsi-bility literature has concentrated on the actions of large concerns.

However, entrepreneurs, most of whom operate small businesses, are avery consequential and influential element. Studies indicate that entrepre-neurship is a key antecedent to the creation of wealth in any society (Van Stel,Carree, & Thurik, 2005). Each year, there are more than 10.1 million indi-viduals who are actively engaged in establishing additional businesses in theUnited States (Reynolds, Carter, Gartner, & Greene, 2004). Entrepreneurialorganizations are instrumental for job creation (Henley, 2005). Furthermore,they are one of the major sources of innovation in new products andprocesses, particularly through breakthrough inventions, in contrast to nonen-trepreneurial firms, which emphasize incremental improvements (Baumol,2004, 2005). The economic and social weight of entrepreneurship is signifi-cantly great to justify an examination of their social responsibility objectives,policies, and practices.

The social responsibility philosophies and practices of entrepreneurshave been largely slighted by the academic literature (Lester, Tomkovick,Wells, Flunker & Kickul, 2005). Little is known as to the degree to whichthey are dedicated to this philosophy and attempt to adjust their businesspractices in accordance with its precepts. Furthermore, there is a paucityof information on which social responsibility problems are most significantin their eyes. Finally, there are limited insights regarding what character-istics of entrepreneurs are correlated with socially responsible philoso-phies. The present article attempts to furnish understandings into these andassociated issues.

Review of the Literature

There is an extensive volume of literature pertaining to social responsi-bility and its composition, desirability, functions, and ramifications, a por-tion of which is dated. The objective of this literature review is to present anumber of relevant contributions that have been published in recent timesand that provide current thinking and the results of recent research.

Generally, the social responsibility construct stipulates that businessorganizations carry an obligation to society at large and to particularsubgroups, such as children, who may require special focus and attention

2 Business & Society

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016bas.sagepub.comDownloaded from


(Horgan, 2005; Valor, 2005). One proposition is that, in simple terms, “itcan be reduced to an attitude of providing a bond that transcends trivial andconsequential differences, focusing on those things of value for most if notall people, and seeking ways to live and work better together” (Cornell &Bodie, 1999, p. 164). If the concept is to be instrumental for decisionmaking, it must operate as an integral segment of the company strategy for-mulation and implementation processes (Manfredi, 2005; Stead & Stead,2000). According to one source, it is vital for change agents within thecompany to stimulate and underpin the essence of social responsibility(Cramer, Jonker, & Van Der Heijden, 2004).

Several theories help to explain the role of social responsibility. One,Foucauldian theory, reveals the contours of an emerging corporate discourseof sustainability and the knowledge–power dynamics entailed by socialreporting. “Such reports could be read simply as corporate attempts toreestablish discursive regularity and hegemonic control in the wake of chal-lenges by environmentalists and human rights activists” (Gates, 2004, p. 498).“However, it is interpreted in the context of the larger sociopolitical discur-sive struggle over environment and social justice and embracing the conceptof sustainable development can transform companies and the notion of sus-tainability itself” (Livesey, 2002, p. 314). In short, social responsibility ismuch more than lip service designed to placate important publics.

Stakeholder theory is central in studies of social responsibility. Sirgy(2002) has proposed that the main thesis guiding the conceptual develop-ment of a corporate performance model is that business success—definedas long-term survival and growth—is determined by relationship qualityamong the various organizational departments (internal stakeholders),between internal and external stakeholders, and between internal and distalstakeholders. Relationship quality among internal stakeholders is concep-tualized and operationalized in terms of internal service quality (Tullberg,2005). In turn, relationship quality between internal and external stake-holders is conceptualized and operationalized in terms of company good-will. According to this theory, corporate performance can be measuredthrough surveys of representatives of internal, external, and distal stake-holders. Significantly, the theory has been praised as a means of initiatingand maintaining socially responsible practice (David, Kline, & Yang, 2005;Randel, 2002).

The theory of social responsibility is highly predicated on the notionof the responsibility of the organization in attending to its primary stake-holders in a proficient fashion. However, this can be a laborious and evennonrealizable goal. In many instances, the various stakeholders have

Peterson, Jun / Social Responsibility 3



diverging interests, norms, and objectives and management is confrontedwith the task of reconciling these without resorting to undue compromises(Skinner, 2005). Should one cluster of stakeholders be disproportionatelyfavored over others, the latter may engage in noncooperative behaviors,resulting in negative consequences to the company (Tracey, Phillips, &Haugh, 2005). Moreover, the requirements of the sundry stakeholders maybe so sweeping that it is insupportable in an operational sense to fulfill allor even a majority of them to an acceptable degree. A possible means ofdetermining which stakeholders will receive partiality is through the use ofcost-benefit analysis (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001).

Various management teams view social responsibility as a paternalisticpursuit where the managers ascertain what society requires and subse-quently undertake actions to accommodate these needs (Crossley, 1999;Trainer, 2005). The philosophical foundations for this theory emanate fromthe “gospel of wealth,” embraced by Andrew Carnegie (Warren & Tweedale,2002) and proposing that the wealthy are the stewards of their property,reserving it in trust and deploying it for the advantage of society at large.Of course, this gospel is sometimes operationalized through philanthropicexercise by business enterprises (Wulfson, 2001). One disciple of thegospel reports that “at its core, stewardship lets us care for ourselves andothers simultaneously” (Wagner, 2000, p. 53). This sentiment is not uni-versally shared, however. Today, the majority of managers and academicssubscribe to a practice of scrutinizing the manifest needs of relevant stake-holders and attempting to fulfill these rather than following a paternalisticpath (Crossley, 1999; Joyner & Raiborn, 2005).

Differences of opinion are commonplace when it comes to the benefitsand ramifications of philanthropy. Lantos (2002), for instance, proposes thatcorporate philanthropic endeavors that do not necessarily benefit the firm’sfinancial condition are immoral as they unjustly commandeer stockholderproperty rights and wealth and contribute advantages for the general publicat the expense of those for whom the company should assist in close rela-tionships. Conversely, some writers propound that philanthropic endeavorscan enhance the competitive context—the quality of the business environ-ment in the locations where firms operate—thereby aligning social andeconomic goals and improving the firm’s long-term business prospects (Pepin,2005; Porter & Kramer, 2002).

There are social responsibility philosophies that tend to assume a world-view. According to Hart and Christensen (2002), organizations can satisfysocial and environmental stakeholders through a “great leap” to the base ofthe economic pyramid, where 4 billion people aspire to join the market




economy for the first time. This is not a question of simply doing the rightthings to lift people out of poverty. It is a matter of finding the most excit-ing growth markets of the future. It is also where the technologies that areneeded to address the social and environmental challenges associated witheconomic growth can best be developed.

Both experience and research indicate that companies that adopt the socialresponsibility construct may financially benefit (Brammer & Millington,2005). A firm’s consummation of social responsibilities often improves itsreputation, and reputation and financial performance are closely related(David et al., 2005; Joyner & Payne, 2002; Miles & Covin, 2000).

Companies with solid social performance behaviors often discover thatthe associated expenses are not prohibitive, and many of these enterprisesreport the achievement of net financial gains from their efforts (Carter, Kale,& Grimm, 2000; Elsayed & Paton, 2005; Henderson, 2005; Szwajkowski &Figlewicz, 2000). Both theoretical and empirical research support this con-tention. Both equity and virtue theory, for example, suggest that companiesthat adopt social responsibility–driven strategies can experience a greaterprofit potential than those firms that pursue solely profit-driven strategies(Arjoon, 2000; Marshall, 2005). According to one source, the advantages ofoperating in conjunction with a social responsibility perspective can include(a) reduced production costs, (b) customer loyalty, (c) interaction of businessvalues and community values, and (d) reduced employee retention costs orimproved ability to attract the best employees (Holdsworth, 2000).

Numerous specific reasons that help explain why fulfilling social respon-sibility obligations can be beneficial to the company are in evidence.Research indicates that a firm’s record for exemplary social functioning canserve as a positive signal of the firm’s business performance to stakeholders(America’s, 2004; Jones & Murrell, 2001). Real options theory suggests thatsocial responsibility pursuits are negatively related to the firm’s ex antedownside business risk (Husted, 2005). In this vein, corporate social respon-sibility can serve as brand insurance—it can protect against corporateactions that violate societal expectations and damage brand image amongnetworked stakeholders who are in a position to buy branded products andservices (Werther & Chandler, 2005). Furthermore, social responsibilityefforts can produce enrichment marketing, where the well-being of con-sumers is enhanced, leading to favorable goodwill toward the company(Acuff, 2005). A number of mutual funds classify themselves as “sociallyresponsible” and tend to be partial to firms with a record of socially respon-sible behavior in selecting their investment portfolios (Stone, 2001).




There are other specific reasons. One is that some consumers are willingto actively patronize firms that are believed to be socially responsible andto disperse positive word of mouth about these enterprises (Berens, vanRiel, & van Bruggen, 2005; Davis, 2005; Maignan, 2001). Another is thatcompany work climates that are perceived as accenting social responsibil-ity tend to enhance the self-images of employees and are useful in attract-ing superior job applicants (Backhaus, Stone, & Heiner, 2002; Barnett &Vaicys, 2000; Greening & Turban, 2000).

The present study was undertaken in an attempt to provide insights onthe extent to which small business managers currently embrace the socialresponsibility concept and some of its major components.

Hypotheses

The hypotheses to which this study was directed are as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Entrepreneurs do not have a substantial dedication to the socialresponsibility philosophy.

There is some degree of indirect evidence to the effect that entrepreneursare not heavily oriented to social responsibility goals. It has been proposedthat larger firms are more adept at identifying and prioritizing their stake-holders and linking corporate social responsibility programs and social out-comes than are smaller companies, many of which are entrepreneurial(Knox, Maklan, & French, 2005).

An impediment to the undertaking of socially responsible actions byentrepreneurs is that many are deficient in possession of adequateresources. The social responsibility of entrepreneurs may not be as greatas that of larger concerns simply because their social power is relativelylimited (Downing, 2005; Wood, Davenport, Blockson & Van Buren,2002). The critical task of entrepreneurship lies in effectively managingthe uncertainty inherent in trying something new. Individual entrepre-neurs have few tools to manage their risks, as compared to larger corpo-rations with substantial resources and numerous means of spreading riskthrough diversification (Sull, 2004).

Numerous entrepreneurs must rely on management by expediency andsurvival on a day-to-day basis and may not have the luxury of involvingthemselves with social issues. Some sources report that numerous entre-preneurs perceive that social responsibility activities may endanger the




financial security of their firms (Besser & Miller, 2004). Researchers haveuncovered some evidence to the effect that entrepreneurs are less commit-ted than larger corporate firms in fields such as energy conservation(Doctors, Fahey, & Patton, 1978). Overall, considering the various indirectresearch and pragmatic evidence, it might be expected that entrepreneursare not likely to be highly involved in the social responsibility area (Jay &Thum, 2005; Peters, 1996; Rosen, Hall, & Stainer, 2005).

Hypothesis 2: Entrepreneurs’ dedication to particular social responsibilityissues does not tend to be highly clustered.

That is, they do not have similar perceptions as to which issues deservetheir attention. It is postulated that entrepreneurs, taken as a group, willsubstantially differ in the social responsibility issues to which they showpartiality. In this regard, studies have pointed out that entrepreneurs are nota homogeneous group—they considerably differ on matters such as values,strategies, tactics, attitudes, norms, and objectives pursued (D. C. Adams &Hunt, 1996; Blanchflower & Oswald, 1998; Carland & Carland, 1997;Herron & Robinson, 1993; Moran, 1998; Vossen, 1998; Westhead, Ucbasaran,& Wright, 2005). Furthermore, these differences extend to issues that mightaffect their social responsibility stance (Morris & Schindehutte, 2005;Vyakarnam, Bailey, Myers, & Burnett, 1997). Research has indicated, forinstance, that small business policies relative to the physical environmentwidely vary (Dion, 1998).

Hypothesis 3: Certain qualities of entrepreneurs are directly and positivelycorrelated to dedication to social responsibility.

Previous studies have indicated that certain demographic and lifestylevariables considerably diverge from one entrepreneur to another and thatthese variables are predictive of the decision making and associated behav-ior of entrepreneurs (Doctors et al., 1978). Thus, it appears to be appropri-ate to evaluate the relationship of these variables to dedication to socialresponsibility. The variables in question are

A. age,B. income,C. gender,D. education,E. religious commitment, andF. perceived importance of the profit motive.




These particular variables were selected for study because the literaturesuggests that they are important forerunners to differences in the values,goals, objectives, and strategies of various entrepreneurs (Peterson, 1991;Rosen et al., 2005). Previous studies have suggested that issues related toentrepreneurial social responsibility commitment may be significantlyassociated with these and affiliated demographic and psychographic vari-ables (Ede, Panigrahi, Stuart, & Calcich, 2000; Forbes, 2005; Quinn, 1997;Vitell, Dickerson, & Festervand, 2000).

Older entrepreneurs exhibit numerous differences from their youngercounterparts. Among other differences, they tend to have less formaleducation, more managerial experience, and superior personal networks(Weber & Schaper, 2004). In turn, they have unique personality character-istics, such as a tendency to be less confident than younger individuals(Forbes, 2005). Female entrepreneurs fall into two categories—those whotend to be dominant are assertive, restless, and risk takers, whereas compli-ant females have strong people skills, resist change, and have a high desirefor routines and structure (Krueger, 2000). Research indicates that the levelof formal education achieved exerts an impact on the attitudes, managerialmethods, and strategies of the entrepreneur (Certo & Certo, 2005). Religiouscommitment has been found to be an influential variable. A Christianworldview, for instance, has been linked to ethical entrepreneurship (Barbee,2005). Furthermore, religiosity has been found to contribute to entrepre-neurial success, and entrepreneurs’ pursuit of material wealth, in the pres-ence of personal religiosity, does not lead to dysfunctional outcomes butrather to greater degrees of life satisfaction (Renato & Fiume, 2004).Finally, the perceived importance of the profit motive is an entrepreneurialphilosophy and objective that could be related to social responsibility prac-tice (Carr, 2003). There are significant differences among individual entre-preneurs regarding the relative importance of profits, on one hand, and thewelfare of society, on the other (Newbert, 2003). The sources cited abovesuggest that the variables selected for study might account for variations inacceptance of the social responsibility concept.

The Inquiry

Packages of questionnaires and cover letters were forwarded to 100 pro-fessors from 100 colleges and universities in the United States. The respon-dents all taught entrepreneurship and/or small business management coursesthat offered consulting services to entrepreneurs and small businesses. Many




were former Small Business Institute offerings that had continued to operatedespite the withdrawal of federal funding. The professors were selected atrandom from the Membership Directory of the International Council forSmall Business (March, 2005). The sample was stratified, whereby at leastone professor was selected from each state, to achieve wide geographic dis-persion. Those professors who were initially selected were contacted bytelephone to determine if, in fact, they taught an appropriate class. If theydid not, a replacement was chosen in a random fashion. Some sample-selection bias may exist because course-offering clients may not be repre-sentative of the entrepreneurial population at large. However, other studieshave found such a sample to be representative (Peterson, 1991).

Each professor received 15 questionnaires with the cover letter, accom-panied by a request to distribute these to clients who were entrepreneurs.The term entrepreneur can be defined in a variety of ways (see Carland &Carland, 1997). For the present study, it was defined as “an independentbusiness person who has assumed the risks of business ownership and hasactively managed its operations for two years or less.” This definition wasprovided to the professors in the cover letter. After completing the ques-tionnaires, the entrepreneurs returned them to the professors, who, in turn,mailed them back to the researchers. The total usable sample size was 482,producing a response rate of 32.1%.

The respondents were requested to specify their dedication to the socialresponsibility motif. This was accomplished by asking them to react to thefollowing statement:

Some business managers feel that they are responsible to society. That is,they think that they are obligated to serve consumers, employees, the gov-ernment, debtors, suppliers, stockholders, the disadvantaged, and the publicat large in the best way that is possible, subject to the fact that they must earnenough profit to stay in business. To what extent do you agree or disagreewith this statement? (agree very strongly to disagree very strongly)

The questionnaire also asked the respondents to specify, through a scalesimilar to the one employed for the first question, their extent of action toassist in remedying problems associated with a list of social responsibilityissues, such as air pollution and drug usage. The latter were derived by theresearchers through a content analysis of five leading textbooks focusing onthe social responsibility of business. In addition, the respondents wererequested to indicate their education, income, gender, age, religious com-mitment, and significance of the profit motive to them.




The questionnaire was pretested on a convenience sample of 20 entre-preneurs in the city where the researchers were employed. The respondentswere asked to report on the clarity of the questions and the relevance tothem. A number of the suggestions offered by the sample members wereincorporated into the final questionnaire.

Research Results

The researchers converted the scale values for responses to the firstquestion (measuring expressed dedication to social responsibility) to meanscale values for the entire sample. The tabulation indicated that the meanscale value was 5.5. On this scale, 1.0 signifies disagree very strongly and7.0 signifies agree very strongly. A t test indicates that the calculated meanscale value is significantly larger than the midpoint (3.5) at a .05 level.Hence, the members of the sample at large report a substantial degree ofdedication to the social responsibility construct. This finding provides sup-port for the first hypothesis.

The second question requested that the sample members specify thedegree to which they directed their business in such a way as to assist insolving problems associated with a number of social responsibility issues.They were asked to respond on a 7-point scale that ranged from direct thebusiness very strongly to not direct the business very strongly.

Table 1 presents the results. Six of the 20 issues produced mean scalevalues that were significantly greater than the total sample mean scalevalue, according to a Tukey K test at the .05 level. These issues were con-sumer welfare, public health and safety, employee welfare, moral values,religious values, and combating drug usage.

Because only 6 of the 20 issues produced significant mean scale values,there is some indirect and generalized support for the second hypothesis. Tofurnish a more conclusive test, a Kendall coefficient of concordance analy-sis was applied to the respondents’ assessment of the issues. According tothe Kendall test, the rank ordering of the issues was not substantially dif-ferent (the computed Kendall W was .73). This finding does not furnishsupport for the second hypothesis.

There is evidence, then, that entrepreneurs do have relatively similarviews regarding the relative importance of social responsibility issues. Theydisplay considerable consensus on which issues are important and which areof lesser significance. One might propose that some consensus is desirablebecause it could result in entrepreneurs uniting their collaborative efforts towork together toward the resolution of specific commonly perceived social




problems. A counter argument is that these firms may pursue certain socialresponsibility issues to the omission of others.

The survey data were cross-classified according to various demographicand psychographic characteristics to assess Hypothesis 3. Table 2 sets forththe mean scale values resulting from the first question (measuring dedica-tion to social responsibility) categorized by levels of education. The datamanifest a relationship between dedication and educational achievement.The product-moment coefficient of correlation between the two variables is81.2, which is significant at the .05 level. This provides evidence for thehypothesis that dedication to social responsibility is directly related to edu-cational achievement. It may be that formal education enhances entrepre-neurs’ perceptual horizons and enlightens them to the requirements ofsociety and to forces that threaten these requirements. In fact, public andpost–high school curricula often focus on social problems and possiblemeans of alleviating these problems.


Table 1Stated Dedication to Social Responsibility Issues

Social Responsibility Issue Mean Scale Value

Consumer welfare 6.4a

Public health and safety 6.4a

Employee welfare 6.0a

Moral values 5.8a

Religious values 5.4a

Combating drug usage 5.1a

Littering 5.0Combating crime 4.9Equal opportunity for women 4.9Use of nonrenewable resources 4.8Minority group welfare 4.8Equal opportunity for the handicapped 4.6Individual freedoms 4.5Welfare of senior citizens 4.0Noise pollution 3.7Water pollution 3.6Public education 3.3Welfare of the homeless 3.2The population explosion 2.3Other 3.5Total 4.6

a. Signifies an issue that has a mean scale value that is significantly greater than the totalsample mean scale value, according to a Tukey K test at the .05 level.



Table 3 sets forth the mean scale values generated by the first question,categorized by income levels, addressing the hypothesis that dedication tosocial responsibility would be directly and positively related to income(part of Hypothesis 3). A cursory examination of the mean scale valuessuggests a direct and positive relationship. This is verified by a calculatedproduct-moment correlation coefficient of .78, which is significant at the .05level. There is evidence that income is positively related to commitment tosocial responsibility.

A possible explanation for this finding is that many sample memberswith lower incomes are engaged in endeavors for financial survival on aday-to-day basis and might not possess the resources necessary for involve-ment in social responsibility issues. Conversely, many of those with largerincomes could fundamentally have their basic needs satisfied and be in aposition to seriously consider social responsibility matters.


Table 2Reported Dedication to Social Responsibility by Level of Education

Highest Level of Formal Education Mean Scale Value

Eighth grade or less 3.6High school or less 3.3Some college 3.9College graduate, bachelor’s 4.4College graduate, master’s 5.5College graduate, doctorate 5.8

Table 3Reported Dedication to Social Responsibility by Income

Annual Family Personal Income Mean Scale Values

$0 to $9,999 3.6$10,000 to $19,999 3.3$20,000 to $29,999 3.9$30,000 to $39,999 4.7$40,000 to $49,999 5.3$50,000 to $59,999 5.8$60,000 to $69,999 5.9$70,000 to $79,999 6.1$80,000 to $89,999 6.3$90,000 to $99,999 6.5$100,000 and more 6.4



The third hypothesis proposed that females would generate larger socialresponsibility dedication measures than would males. In the literature, there issupport for the position that women in the United States tend to be more sen-sitive to societal needs than are men (Envick & Langford, 1998). In the pre-sent study, women produced larger scores. The mean scale value was 5.8 forwomen and 5.4 for men. However, a t test reveals that the difference is not sta-tistically significant at the .05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is not supported.

The third hypothesis also proposed that dedication to social responsibil-ity was positively related to age. Table 4 sets forth data from Question 1 andthe associated social responsibility measures. There is a positive correlation(r = .83) that is statistically significant at the .05 level. Furthermore, all ofthe scores for the advanced aged groupings have mean square values thatare more statistically significant than the mean square value for the nextyoungest age group, according to a Tukey K test at the .05 level.

To further examine Hypothesis 3, the data were classified according todegree of religious commitment. This hypothesis has face value because thedominant religion and most of the less-dominant religions in the UnitedStates applaud the morality of caring for and helping others and avoidingself-seeking conduct that could injure others. The religious commitmentvariable was measured by asking the sample members to indicate the extentto which they felt they were personally dedicated to some set of religiousbeliefs. The possible responses were “complete lack of dedication,” “mod-erate dedication,” and “strong dedication.” The results appear in Table 5.

There is a positive association between degree of religious commitmentand stated commitment to social responsibility. The moderate group meanscale value is significantly larger than that for the complete lack of commit-ment group, and the strong commitment mean scale value exceeds that for themoderate group. These results, then, provide support for Hypothesis 3.


Table 4Reported Dedication to Social Responsibility by Age

Age Category Mean Scale Value

0 to 19 4.920 to 39 5.4a

40 to 59 5.9a

60 and older 6.5a

a. Signifies a mean that is significantly larger than the mean for the next youngest agegrouping, according to a Tukey K test at the .05 level.



Finally, the data were assessed according to the degree to which the sam-ple members believed in the profit motive as an agent for directing theiractivities and the activities of their companies. The sample members wereasked to indicate if their dedication to this end was “limited,” “moderate,”or “strong.” Individuals with a strong focus on the profit motive may see anassociation between achievement of this goal and a policy of pursuingsocially responsible behavior. Should this be the case, measures of the twovariables should be positively related. Conversely, one might postulate thatdevotion to the profit motive would produce managerial decisions based onthe conception that socially responsible conduct is irrelevant or even coun-terproductive to profitability.

Table 6 sets forth the results of an assessment of the relationshipbetween the profit maximization objective and stated commitment to socialresponsibility. The table does not show a relationship between focus on theprofit motive and dedication to social responsibility. Furthermore, none ofthe mean square values are statistically significant. The data do not furnishsupport for this portion of Hypothesis 3.

Discussion

This inquiry was conducted to furnish insights into the commitment andinvolvement of entrepreneurs relative to social responsibility. Generally,there was an expressed dedication to this philosophy, as the respondentscited a firm inclination toward serving the listing of stakeholders. A cau-tion, however, is that one cannot assume that the responses to this questiondefinitively establish that such a level of dedication is in existence. It is pos-sible that the participants experienced response bias that prompted them to


Table 5Reported Dedication to Social Responsibility by

Religious Commitment

Extent of Religious Commitment Mean Square Value

Complete lack of dedication 4.8Moderate dedication 5.3a

Strong dedication 5.9a

a. Signifies a mean square value that is significantly larger than that of the next lowestdegree of commitment, according to a Tukey K test at the .05 level.



reply in the affirmative to this request for information, whereas their actualinclinations and practices might diverge from this position. There is evi-dence of kindred response bias in some studies designed to evaluate socialresponsibility commitment (Saha & Darnton, 2005). Furthermore, theresponses to the question do not specify if positive attitudes toward socialresponsibility can be attributed to altruism, on one hand, or efforts to com-ply with the law or the demands of important stakeholders, on the other.However, given these limitations, the responses to the question do providean expressed positive affective reaction to the concept.

The specific issues that produced significant mean scale values wereconsumer welfare, public health and safety, employee welfare, moral values,religious values, and combating drug usage. The sample at large indicatedsubstantial homogeneity with regard to commitment to specific issues. Thisruns counter to the position advocated in the second hypothesis. Despiteevidence in the literature regarding numerous differences in the character-istics, attitudes, and behavior among entrepreneurs, they display consider-able similarity in the assessment of the issues. This may be because of theirongoing experiences in operating their businesses, their fundamental valuesand philosophies of life, their exposure to media coverage related to socialresponsibility, or other factors. Generally, the results appear to be positivefor those individuals and groups who are partial to the issues that werehighly ranked by the respondents and not positive for those who preferattention to other issues.

The data indicated that stated dedication to the social responsibility con-cept is directly related to age. Older individuals indicate that they are moredevoted to this philosophy than are their younger counterparts. With the pas-sage of time, senior entrepreneurs have the opportunity to examine themission and role of their companies and consider their interactions with var-ious stakeholders. This experience may generate insights and attitudes that


Table 6Reported Dedication to Social Responsibility and

Commitment to the Profit Motive

Degree of Commitment to the Profit Motive Mean Square Value

Limited commitment 5.8Moderate commitment 5.5Strong commitment 5.3



transcend the mere earning of profits and that focus more on the environmentand its needs. Furthermore, some senior entrepreneurs have previously beenable to satisfy their primary needs and are now in a position to concentrate onhigher-order needs that are closely allied with social responsibility.

Income was found to be directly related to expressed social responsibil-ity. Those respondents with higher income levels report larger socialresponsibility assessments. It may be that those with lesser incomes aremore obsessed with the success and even survival of their companies andfeel that they must devote their attention more to profits than to the needsof stakeholders. Once higher incomes are obtained, entrepreneurs maybelieve that they are now in a position to contribute to others outside thefirm and to attempt to enhance the status of their environment.

Gender was not found to be related to expressed social responsibility com-mitment. This is despite the fact that some sources in the literature suggestthat women in the Untied States are more sensitive to societal needs than aremen. The present study did not indicate that this was the case for the sampledentrepreneurs, however. Further research into this issue probably is merited,as the rationale for the existence of this finding is not obvious.

The study found that level of education was directly related to stateddedication to the social responsibility concept. Those who are engaged informal education activities are exposed to a number of issues, concepts, andphilosophies that may not confront the less educated. Of course, variouspublic and private educational institutions examine the nature of societyand culture, problems that confront these institutions, and possible reme-dies for the major problems. These experiences may create the mentalframework for student development of views that are oriented toward socialresponsibility.

The analysis revealed a direct association between degree of religiouscommitment and stated dedication to the social responsibility concept. Themajority of formal religions and many spiritual movements speak out infavor of promoting the well-being of society and its members, often withsome types of self-sacrifice. This view may serve as an antecedent for theacceptance of social responsibility.

Finally, the data did not reveal a relationship between commitment to theprofit motive and social responsibility. The perspective may be that profitsare the major objective of the firm and that social responsibility is secondaryin importance or at least not correlated with success in the marketplace.

This study has some limitations that additional research efforts mightexplore. Further studies could be undertaken into entrepreneurial thinkingand practice in the social responsibility arena. Researchers could assess




commitment to social responsibility, employing samples generated fromframes different from those used in this study, to analyze the reliability of themajor results. Furthermore, attempts related to attribution theory could beundertaken to uncover entrepreneur motives for socially responsible prac-tice. Also, inquiries employing categorizations of the dependent variables byclassifications such as type of industry and size of company could be useful.Finally, studies on specific social responsibility issues, such as employeedisability coverage and job protection for AIDS victims, could be of value.

References

Acuff, D. (2005). Taking the guesswork out of responsible marketing. Young Consumers, 6(4),68-71.

Adams, D. C., & Hunt, R. (1996). Owner’s personality profile: Impact on the small businessperformance. Journal of Academy of Business Administration, 2(1), 39-45.

Adams, R. (2005). Fast food, obesity, and tort reform: An examination of industry responsi-bility for public health. Business and Society Review, 110(3), 297-320.

America’s corporate citizenship expectations continue to increase. (2004, November). PublicRelations Tactics, 11(11), 4-5.

Arjoon, S. (2000). Virtue theory as a dynamic theory of business. Journal of Business Ethics,28(2), 159-178.

Backhaus, K, Stone, B., Heiner, K. (2002). Exploring the relationship between corporatesocial performance and employer attractiveness. Business & Society, 41(3), 292-318.

Barbee, B. (2005). Ethics of entrepreneurship. Baylor Business Review, 22(2), 41-44.Barnett, T., & Vaicys, C. (2000). The moderating effect of individuals’ perceptions of ethical

work climate on ethical judgments and behavioral intentions. Journal of Business Ethics,27(4), 351-362.

Baumol, W. J. (2004). Entrepreneurial cultures and countercultures. Academy of ManagementLearning & Education, 3(3), 316-326.

Baumol, W. J. (2005). Education for innovation: Entrepreneurial breakthroughs versus corpo-rate incremental improvements. In A. B. Jaffe, J. Lerner, & S. Stern (Eds.). NBERInnovation Policy & the Economy (Vol. 5, pp. 33-56). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Berens, G., van Riel, C., & van Bruggen, G. H. (2005). Corporate associations and consumerproduct responses: The moderating role of corporate brand dominance. Journal ofMarketing, 69(3), 35-48.

Besser, D., & Miller, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship, small business and ethics: A financialperspective. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 16(1), 73.

Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (1998). What makes an entrepreneur? Journal of LaborEconomics, 16(1), 26-60.

Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2005). Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An empiricalanalysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), 29-44.

Carland, J., & Carland, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship: An American dream. Journal of Businessand Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 33-46.

Carr, P. (2003). Revisiting the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism: Understanding therelationship between ethics and enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(1), 7-16.




Carter, C. R., Kale, R., & Grimm, C. (2000). Environmental purchasing and firm performance:An empirical investigation. Transportation Research, 36(3), 219-228.

Certo, S. T., & Certo, S. C. (2005). Spotlight on entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 48(4),274-278.

Cornell, T., & Bodie, P. (1999). Balancing the scales. Western Journal of Black Studies, 23(3),164-167.

Cramer, J., Jonker, J., & Van Der Heijden, A. (2004). Making sense of corporate social respon-sibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), 215-222.

Crossley, D. (1999). Paternalism and corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,21(4), 291-302.

David, P., Kline, S., & Yang, D. (2005). Corporate social responsibility practices, corporateidentity, and purchase intention: A dual-process model. Journal of Public Relations Research,17(3), 291-313.

Davis, I. (2005). What is the business of business? McKinsey Quarterly, 3(1), 104-113.Dion, M. (1998). A typology of corporate environmental policies. Environmental Ethics,

20(2), 151-162.Doctors, S. L., Fahey, L., & Patton, G. R. (1978). The response of small manufacturer to the

energy environment—An exploratory study. American Journal of Small Business, 8(2), 16-27.Doonar, J. (2005). A question of ethics. Brand Strategy, 193(1), 24-27.Downing, S. (2005). The social construction of entrepreneurship: Narrative and dramatic

processes in the coproduction of organizations and identities. Entrepreneurship: Theory &Practice, 29(2), 185-204.

Ede, F. O., Panigrahi, B., Stuart, J., & Calcich, S. (2000). Ethics in small minority businesses.Journal of Business Ethics, 26(2), 133-146.

Elsayed, K., & Paton, D. (2005). The impact of environmental performance on firm perfor-mance: Static and dynamic panel evidence. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,16(3), 395-412.

Envick, B. R., & Langford, M. (1998). Behavior of entrepreneurs: A gender comparison.Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 106-115.

Forbes, D. P. (2005). Are some entrepreneurs more overconfident than others? Journal ofBusiness Venturing, 20(5), 623-640.

Gates, J. (2004). The ethics commitment process: Sustainability through value-based ethics.Business and Society Review, 109(4), 493-505.

Gorte, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Close to victory. Journal of Investing, 14(3), 140.Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. P. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive

advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39(3), 254-280.Hart, S. L., & Christensen, C. M. (2002). The great leap: Driving innovation from the base of

the pyramid. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(1), 51-56.Henderson, H. (2005). Socially responsible practices have businesses seeing green. Journal of

Financial Planning, 18(9), 16-17.Henley, A. (2005). Job creation by the self-employed: The roles of entrepreneurial and finan-

cial capital. Small Business Economics, 25(2), 175-196.Herron L., & Robinson, R. B. (1993). A structural model of the effects of entrepreneurial char-

acteristics on venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 281-294.Holdsworth, L. (2000). Maximizing the bottom line and social responsibility. Chartered

Accountants Journal of New Zealand, 79(8), 15-18.Horgan, S. (2005). Kids as stakeholders in business. Young Consumers, 6(4), 72-81.




Husted, B. (2005). Risk management, real options, corporate social responsibility. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 60(2), 175-183.

Jay, P. C., & Thum, M. (2005). Corruption and the shadow economy. International EconomicReview, 46(3), 817-836.

Jones, R., & Murrell, A. (2001). Signaling positive corporate social performance: An eventstudy of family-friendly firms. Business & Society, 40(1), 59-78.

Joyner, B. E., & Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and implementation: A study of values, businessethics, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(4), 297-311.

Joyner, B. E., & Raiborn, C. A. (2005). Management caveats for measuring and assessingpublic responsibility performance. Business Horizons, 48(6), 525-533.

Kitchin, T., & Wilson, T. (2005). Unlocking values. Brand Strategy, 194(1), 38-39.Knox, S., Maklan, S., & French, P. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Exploring stake-

holder relationships and programme reporting across leading FTSE companies. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 61(1), 7-28.

Krueger, D. (2000). Characteristics of the female entrepreneur. Journal of Business andEntrepreneurship, 12(1), 87-93.

Lantos, G. (2002). The ethicality of altruistic corporate social responsibility. Journal ofConsumer Marketing, 19(3), 205-232.

Lester, S., Tomkovick, C., Wells, T., Flunker, L., & Kickul, J. (2005). Does service-learningadd value? Examining the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Academy of ManagementLearning & Education, 4(3), 278-294.

Livesey, S. (2002). The discourse of the middle ground. Management CommunicationQuarterly, 15(3), 313-349.

Maignan, I. (2001). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(1), 57-72.

Manfredi, F. (2005). Social responsibility in the concept of the social enterprise as a cognitivesystem. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(10), 835-848.

Marshall, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility. Financial Executive, 21(6), 44-50.McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm per-

spective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127.Miles, M. P., & Covin, J. G. (2000). Environmental marketing: A source of reputational, com-

petitive, and financial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 299-311.Moran, P. (1998). Personality characteristics and growth-orientation of the small business

owner-manager. International Small Business Journal, 16(3), 17-38.Morris, M., & Schindehutte, M. (2005). Entrepreneurial values and the ethnic enterprise: An

examination of six subcultures. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(4), 453-479.Newbert, S. L. (2003). Realizing the spirit and impact of Adam Smith’s capitalism through

entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(3), 251-258.Ostas, D. T. (2005). Cooperate, comply, or evade? A corporate executive’s social responsi-

bilities with regard to law. American Business Law Journal, 41(4), 559-594.Pepin, J. (2005). Venture capitalists and entrepreneurs become venture philanthropists.

International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 10(3), 165-173.Peters, M. P. (1996). Marketing strategy for small business. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 24(3), 272-274.Peterson, R. T. (1991). Attitudes of small business managers regarding the importance of

various social responsibility themes. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 1-8.Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy.

Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56-68.




Preston, C. (2005). Advertising to children and social responsibility. Young Consumers, 3(6),61-67.

Quinn, J. (1997). Personal ethics and business ethics: The ethical attitudes of owner/managersof small business. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(2), 119-127.

Randel, A. (2002). The maintenance of an organization’s socially responsible practice: Across-level framework. Business & Society, 41(1), 61-83.

Renato, R. B., & Fiume, P. (2004). Religiosity and entrepreneurial behavior: An exploratorystudy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(3), 191-201.

Reynolds, P. D., Carter, N., Gartner, W., & Greene, P. (2004). The prevalence of nascent entre-preneurs in the United States: Evidence from the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics.Small Business Economics, 23(4), 263-284.

Rosen, P., Hall, D., & Stainer, L. (2005). Sustainability and ethical decision making: TheBovince case. International Journal of Management & Decision Making, 6(3), 1-2.

Saha, M., & Darnton, G. (2005). Green companies or green con-panies: Are companies reallygreen, or are they pretending to be? Business and Society Review, 110(2), 117-157.

Sirgy, M. J. (2002). Measuring corporate performance by building on the stakeholders modelof business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(3), 143-162.

Skinner, H. (2005). Towards a typology of virtuous marketing: Applying marketing principlesand practices to community development work. Marketing Review, 5(3), 263-276.

Stead, J., & Stead, E. (2000). Eco-enterprise strategy: Standing for sustainability. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 24(4), 313-329.

Stone, B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and institutional investment: A content analysis-based portfolio screening model for socially responsible mutual funds. Business & Society,40(1), 112-117.

Sull, D. N. (2004). Disciplined entrepreneurship. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 71-77.Szwajkowski, E., & Figlewicz, R. E. (2000). Evaluating corporate performance: A comparison

of the Fortune Reputational Survey and the Socrates Rating Database. Journal of ManagerialIssues, 11(2), 137-154.

Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Haugh, H. (2005). Beyond philanthropy: Community enterprise asa basis for corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(4), 327-344.

Trainer, T. (2005). Social responsibility: The most important and neglected problem of all?International Journal of Social Economics, 32(8), 682-703.

Tullberg, J. (2005). Reflections upon the responsive approach to corporate social responsibil-ity. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(3), 261-276.

Valor, C. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship: Towards corporateaccountability. Business and Society Review, 110(2), 191-212.

Van Stel, A., Carree, M., & Thurik, R. (2005). The effect of entrepreneurial activity on nationaleconomic growth. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 311-321.

Vitell, S. J., Dickerson, E. B., & Festervand, T. A. (2000). Ethical problems, conflicts, andbeliefs of small business professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(1), 15-24.

Vogel, D. (2005). Is there a market for virtue? The business case for corporate social respon-sibility. California Management Review, 47(4), 19-45.

Vossen, R. W. (1998). Relative strengths and weaknesses of small firms in innovation.International Small Business Journal, 16(3), 88-94.

Vyakarnam, S., Bailey, A., Myers, A., & Burnett, D. (1997). Towards an understanding of eth-ical behavior in small firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(15), 1625-1636.

Wagner, R. B. (2000). 21st century stewardship. Journal of Financial Planning, 13(11), 52-56.




Warren, R., & Tweedale, G. (2002). Business ethics and business history: Neglected dimen-sions in management education. British Journal of Management, 13(3), 209-219.

Weber, P., & Schaper, M. (2004). Understanding the grey entrepreneur. Journal of EnterprisingCulture, 12(2), 147-164.

Werther, W. B., Jr., & Chandler, D. (2005). Strategic corporate social responsibility as globalbrand insurance. Business Horizons, 48(4), 317-324.

Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Decisions, actions, and performance: Donovice, serial, and portfolio entrepreneurs differ? Journal of Small Business Management,43(4), 393-417.

Wood, D. J., Davenport, K. S., Blockson, L. C., & Van Buren, J. H., III. (2002). Corporateinvolvement in community economic development: The role of U.S. business education.Business & Society, 41(2), 208-241.

Wulfson, M. (2001). The ethics of corporate social responsibility and philanthropic ventures.Journal of Business Ethics, 29(1), 135-145.

Robin T. Peterson is a professor in the Department of Marketing at New Mexico StateUniversity. His research interests include personal selling, small business, sport marketing,and business ethics.

Minjoon Jun is a professor in the Department of Management at New Mexico StateUniversity. His research interests include operations management, Internet commerce, andcustomer behavior.




Documents

Perceptions on Social Responsibility