Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 128, Issue 2, pp 305–320 | Cite as

The Intentions with Which the Road is Paved: Attitudes to Liberalism as Determinants of Greenwashing

Article

Abstract

Previous literature has shown contradictory results regarding the relationship between economic liberalism at the country level and firms’ engagement in corporate social action (CSA). Because liberalism is associated with individualism, it is often assumed that firms will engage in mostly symbolic rather than substantive social and environmental actions; in other words, they will practice “greenwashing.” To understand how cultural beliefs in the virtues of liberalism affect the likelihood of greenwashing, we disentangle the effects of the distinct and co-existing beliefs in the virtues of economic liberalism. We begin by conducting an exploratory qualitative analysis of managers’ sentiments on this matter, based on a focus group methodology. We then use these investigative elements to articulate a comparison of the conflicting theoretical arguments: in liberal contexts, are firms, as social entities, inherently selfish or pro-active when it comes to CSA? We empirically test our hypotheses on a large-scale dataset. Finally, we show paradoxically that in countries where beliefs in the virtues of competition are strong, firms are more likely to greenwash, while in countries where beliefs in the virtues of individual responsibility are prominent, firms are more likely to focus on concrete actions. These findings suggest that in contexts where weak governments are seen as ideal, firms might feel the need to step into fill institutional voids, in contexts in which competitive mindsets dominate, this tendency is counterbalanced.

Keywords

Corporate social actions Greenwashing Economic liberalism Competition Individual responsibility Country-level institutions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the GDF-Suez Chair in Business & Sustainability, and the Society and Organizations (SnO) Research Center, both at HEC Paris. They would also like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and the editor Joëlle Vanhamme for her guidance.

References

  1. Agar, M., & MacDonald, J. (1995). Focus groups and ethnography. Human Organization, 54(1), 78–86.Google Scholar
  2. Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry, H., Guillén, M., & Zhou, N. (2010). An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1460–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowie, N. (1991). Challenging the egoistic paradigm. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  5. Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buehler, V. M., & Shetty, Y. K. (1974). Motivations for corporate social action. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4), 767–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christie, P. M., Kwon, I. G., Stoeberl, P. A., & Baumhart, R. (2003). a cross-cultural comparison of ethical attitudes of business managers. India, Korea and the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(3), 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2006). Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: Determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 863–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delmas, M., & Burbano, V. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denzau, A. T., & North, D. C. (1994). Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions. Kyklos, 47(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fligstein, N. (2001). The architecture of markets: An economic sociology of twenty-first-century capitalist societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Freestone, O., & Mitchell, V. (2004). Generation Y attitudes towards e-ethics and internet-related misbehaviours. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galvin, T. L., Ventresca, M. J., & Hudson, B. A. (2004). Contested industry dynamics. International Studies of Management and Organization., 34(4), 56–82.Google Scholar
  16. Gill, M. (Forthcoming). The possibilities of phenomenology for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods. Google Scholar
  17. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. W. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hawn, O., & Ioannou, I. (2012, July 6). Do actions speak louder than words? The case of corporate social responsibility (CSR). SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2101775.
  19. Hay, C. (2004). The normalizing role of rationalist assumptions in the institutional embedding of neoliberalism. Economy and Society, 33(4), 500–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. A. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2009). Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creation: A study of multinational enterprises in Mexico. Management International Review, 49(6), 781–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jackson, G., & Apostolakou, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe: An institutional mirror or substitute? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 371–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. (2008). Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 540–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jenkins, M., & Harrison, K. S. (1990). Focus groups: A discussion. British Food Journal, 92(9), 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jo, T.-H. (2012). Heterodox critiques of corporate social responsibility. Working Paper, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/35367/2/jo2012csr.pdf.
  27. Jones, B., & Nisbet, P. (2011). Shareholder value versus stakeholder values: CSR and financialization in global food firms. Socio-Economic Review, 9(2), 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Julian, S. D., & Ofori-Dankwa, J. C. (2013). Financial resource availability and corporate social responsibility expenditures in a subsaharan economy: The institutional difference hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11), 1314–1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kang, N., & Moon, J. (2012). Institutional complementarity between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: A comparative institutional analysis of three capitalisms. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim, Y., & Kim, S.-Y. (2010). The influence of cultural values on perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Application of Hofstede’s dimensions to Korean Public Relations Practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(4), 485–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kinderman, D. (2012). ‘Free us up so we can be responsible!’The co-evolution of corporate social responsibility and neo-liberalism in the UK, 1977–2010. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 29–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. King, A. A., Lenox, M. J., & Terlaak, A. (2005). The strategic use of decentralized institutions: exploring certification with the ISO14001 management standards. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1091–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ. British Medical Journal, 311(7000), 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, M. P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lim, A., & Tsutsui, K. (2012). Globalization and commitment in corporate social responsibility: Cross-national analyses of institutional and political-economy effects. American Sociological Review, 77(1), 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). ‘Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 402–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.Google Scholar
  42. Morgan, D. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Prechel, H., & Morris, T. (2010). The effects of organizational and political embeddedness on financial malfeasance in the largest U.S. corporations: Dependence, incentives, and opportunities. American Sociological Review, 75, 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ramus, C. A., & Montiel, I. (2005). When are corporate environmental policies a form of green-washing? Business and Society, 44(4), 377–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Russo, M. V., & Harrison, N. S. (2005). Organizational design and environmental performance clues from the electronics industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 582–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stormer, F. (2003). Making the shift: Moving from “ethics pay” to an inter-systems model of business. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(4), 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463–490.Google Scholar
  48. Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Touboul, S., & Roulet, T. (2011). How to Turn entrepreneurs into social entrepreneurs? A challenge for developing countries. Journal of Social Business, (2), 71–91, available online http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1882269.
  51. Vyakarnam, S., Bailey, A., Myers, A., & Burnett, D. (1997). Towards an understanding of ethical behaviour in small firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(15), 1625–1636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walker, K., & Wan, F. (2012). The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: Corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weaver, G. R., Treviño, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1994). Substance and symbolism in CEOs’ long-term incentive plans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (2001). Decoupling policy from practice: The case of stock repurchase programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 202–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitman, M. (1999). New world, new rules: The changing role of the american corporation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saïd Business SchoolUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of StrategyIPAG Business SchoolParisFrance
  3. 3.Affiliated Researcher at S&O Research CenterHEC ParisJouy-en-JosasFrance

Personalised recommendations