Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do Personal Values Influence the Propensity for Sustainability Actions? A Policy-Capturing Study

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using a policy-capturing approach with a broad student sample we examine how individuals’ economic, social and environmental values influence their propensity to engage in a broad range of sustainability-related corporate actions. We employ a multi-dimensional sustainability framework of corporate actions and account for both the positive and negative impacts associated with corporate activity—termed strength and concern actions, respectively. Strong economic values were found to increase the propensity for concern actions and the willingness to work in controversial industries. Individuals with balanced values were as likely as those with strong economic values to pursue positive economic outcomes, but without the same downside potential for concern actions. We also found significant gender effects, with females being less likely to engage in concern actions and more supportive of social and environmental strength actions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

CFA:

Confirmatory factor analysis

KLD:

Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini Research & Analytics

UI:

Usefulness index

VVI:

Values variance index

References

  • Adams, W. (2006). The future of sustainability: Re-thinking environment and development in the twenty-first century. Geneva: International Union for Conservation of Nature.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agle, B. R., & Caldwell, C. B. (1999). Understanding research on values in business: A level of analysis framework. Business Society, 38(3), 326–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiman-Smith, L., Scullen, S. E., & Barr, S. H. (2002). Conducting studies of decision making in organizational contexts: A tutorial for policy-capturing and other regression-based techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 388–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C. (1998). Mid-course correction: Toward a sustainable enterprise—The interface model. Atlanta, GA: Peregrinzilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, L., Jackson, S. E., & Russell, S. V. (2013). Greening organizational behavior: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 151–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, L., Shivarajan, S., & Blau, G. (2005). Enacting ecological sustainability in the MNC: A test of an adapted value-belief-norm framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(3), 295–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2003). From issues to actions: The importance of individual concerns and organizational values in responding to natural environmental issues. Organization Science, 14(5), 510–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H., & Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Sources of environmentally destructive behavior: Individual, organizational, and institutional perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 39–79). Stanford, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, M., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2009). Dynamics of the gender gap for young professionals in the corporate and financial sectors. Working Paper No. 14681. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved October 3, 2012, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w14681.

  • Bertrand, M., & Hallock, K. F. (2001). The gender gap in top corporate jobs. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. (1999). Beyond resources: The mediating effect of top management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy. Business and Society, 38(2), 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Y., Jo, H., & Pan, C. (2012). Doing well while doing bad? CSR in controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(4), 467–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cetindamar, D., & Husoy, K. (2007). Corporate social responsibility practices and environmentally responsible behavior: The case of the United Nations Global Compact. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2), 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, S., & Ng, A. (2011). Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and price effects on consumer responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 269–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2007). The promise of a managerial values approach to corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 345–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, C. M., Steg, L., & Koning, M. A. S. (2007). Customers’ values, beliefs on sustainable corporate performance, and buying behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 24(6), 555–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darlington, R. B. (1968). Multiple regression in psychological research and practice. Psychological Bulletin, 69(3), 161–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deckop, J. R., Merriman, K. K., & Gupta, S. (2006). The effects of CEO pay structure on corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 32(3), 329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. The Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egri, C. P., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the North American environmental sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 571–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the suitable corporation: Win–win–win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Gabiola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elms, H., Brammer, S., Harris, J. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). New directions in strategic management and business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(3), 401–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, R., & McLaughlin, F. (1984). Perceptions of socially responsible activities and attitudes: A comparison of business school deans and corporate chief executives. Academy of Management Journal, 27(3), 666–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraj, E., & Martinez, E. (2006). Environmental values and lifestyles as determining factors of ecological consumer behaviour: An empirical analysis. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(3), 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, J. (1999). Efficiency and rationality in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 163–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritzsche, D., & Oz, E. (2007). Personal values’ influence on the ethical dimension of decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R. B. (2001). Specification of sustainability-based environmental assessment decision criteria and implications for determining “significance” in environmental assessment pp. (1–56). A report prepared under a contribution agreement with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Research and Development Programme.

  • Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. R., Stewart, T. R., Brehmer, B., & Steinmann, D. O. (1975). Social-judgment theory. In M. F. Kaplan & S. Schwartz (Eds.), Human judgment and decision processes (pp. 271–312). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L. (2005). Capitalism at the crossroads: The unlimited business opportunities in solving the world’s most difficult problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, T. A., & Sharfman, M. (2012). Assessing the concurrent validity of the revised Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini corporate social performance indicators. Business & Society. Retrieved October 2, 2012, from http://bas.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/07/0007650312455793.

  • Hemingway, C. A. (2005). Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3), 233–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobson, C. J., & Gibson, F. W. (1983). Policy capturing as an approach to understanding and improving performance appraisal: A review of the literature. Academy of Management Review, 8(4), 640–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (2001). From heresy to dogma. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, S. (2010). An interview with Chad Holliday, (former) CEO & Chairman, Dupont: The relationship between sustainability education and business. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(3), 532–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon, G. (2009). Bosses’ perceptions of family-work conflict and women’s promotability: Glass ceiling effects. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 939–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., & Na, H. (2012). Does CSR reduce firm risk? Evidence from controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 441–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 261–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallio, T. J., & Nordberg, P. (2006). The evolution of organizations and natural environment discourse: Some critical remarks. Organization and Environment, 19(4), 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karp, D. G. (1996). Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 28(1), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karren, R. J., & Barringer, M. W. (2002). A review and analysis of the policy-capturing methodology in organizational research: Guidelines for research and practice. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 337–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassinis, G., & Vafeas, N. (2006). Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketola, T. (2007). A holistic corporate responsibility model: Integrating values, discourses and actions. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 419–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini Research & Analytics. (2007). 2007 environmental, social and governance ratings criteria. KLD Research & Analytics, Inc. Retrieved August 21, 2008, from http://www.kld.com/.

  • Kolk, A. (2003). Trends in sustainability reporting by the fortune global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(5), 279–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristof-Brown, A. L., Jansen, K. J., & Colbert, A. E. (2002). A policy-capturing study of the simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 985–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laszlo, C. (2008). Sustainable value: How the world’s leading companies are doing well by doing good. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G. P. (2007). Work motivation: History, theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liddick, D. (2006). Eco-terrorism: Radical environmental and animal liberation movements. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 288–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, J. (2012). Human values and corporate actions propensity: Examining the behavioural roots of societal sustainability. Business and Society, 51(4), 677–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, J., Kurucz, E. C., & Colbert, B. A. (2010). Conceptions of the business-society-nature interface: Implications for management scholarship. Business and Society, 49(3), 402–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, J., & Sulsky, L. M. (2011). Validating a policy-capturing measure of economic, social, and environmental values. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada (Vol. 32, No. 2). Montreal, QC. Retrieved from http://luxor.acadiau.ca/library/ASAC/v32/SocialResponsibility/SocialResponsibility.pdf.

  • McDonald, P., & Gandz, J. (1991). Identification of values relevant to business research. Human Resource Management, 30(2), 217–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24(3), 351–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonis, S., & Swift, C. O. (2001). Personal value profiles and ethical business decisions. Journal of Education for Business, 76(5), 251–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pepper, M., Jackson, T., & Uzzell, D. (2009). An examination of the values that motivate socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(2), 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. L. (2002). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy + Business, 26, 2–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichert, E. (2011). Social work and human rights: A foundation for policy and practice. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robin, D., & Babin, L. (1997). Making sense of the research on gender and ethics in business: A critical analysis and extension. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(4), 61–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxas, M. L., & Stoneback, J. Y. (2004). The importance of gender across cultures in ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(2), 149–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (p. 25). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2007). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 681–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheth, J. N., Sethia, N. K., & Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful consumption: A customer-centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. (2009). Green management matters only if it yields more green: An economic/strategic perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(5), 322–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suar, D., & Khuntia, R. (2010). Influence of personal values and value congruence on unethical practices and work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(3), 443–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A., & House, R. J. (2008). Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates’ perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), 626–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2002). Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: A panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 605–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth, K. L., Dmitrieva, A., & Adriasola, E. (2013). Changing behaviour: Increasing the effectiveness of workplace interventions in creating pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 211–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. (2008). Defining the socially responsible leader. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warr, P. (2008). Work values: Some demographic and cultural correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(4), 751–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welford, R. J. (1998). Editorial: Corporate environmental management, technology and sustainable development: Postmodern perspectives and the need for a critical research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 7(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2012). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01073.

  • Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedeck, S. (1977). An information processing model and approach to the study of motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18(1), 47–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Administrative Studies, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada

    Joel Marcus

  2. Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, A1B 3X5, Canada

    Heather A. MacDonald & Lorne M. Sulsky

Authors
  1. Joel Marcus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather A. MacDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lorne M. Sulsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joel Marcus.

Appendices

Appendix A

Sample Items from the Corporate Actions Propensity Measure

Economic-Strength

  1. 1.

    I would support efforts to make a financial return for shareholders.

  2. 2.

    I would act to improve the economic outcomes of my organization.

Economic-Concern

  1. 1.

    I would endorse corporate actions that maximize short-term profit (e.g., quarterly, yearly), even if that might jeopardize long-term returns.

  2. 2.

    I can imagine supporting policies that compromise shareholder returns if it resulted in a better financial outcome for me.

Social-Strength

  1. 1.

    I would support innovative initiatives related to labour rights in the supply chain or particularly good labour relations outside North America.

  2. 2.

    I would endorse a strong diversity program to ensure the inclusion of women and visible minorities within my company’s workforce.

Social-Concern

  1. 1.

    I can imagine ‘turning a blind eye’ to breaches of my company’s code of ethical conduct.

  2. 2.

    I would have little problem endorsing significant employee layoffs if the need arose.

Environmental-Strength

  1. 1.

    I would endorse my company making a superior commitment to environmental management systems.

  2. 2.

    I would support the significant use of renewable and clean energy within my company.

Environmental-Concern

  1. 1.

    Under some circumstances, I would endorse dealing improperly with hazardous waste.

  2. 2.

    I can imagine engaging in corporate activities that have a negative impact on the natural environment.

Appendix B

Partial Instructions and Sample Policy-Capturing Scenarios

Instructions

Below you are provided with 68 profiles of large, public, multi-national, for-profit companies, prepared by a panel of expert analysts… Using your own judgement and the information provided in each scenario, your task is to assign each organization an overall rating.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marcus, J., MacDonald, H.A. & Sulsky, L.M. Do Personal Values Influence the Propensity for Sustainability Actions? A Policy-Capturing Study. J Bus Ethics 127, 459–478 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-2032-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-2032-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation