Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 150, Issue 4, pp 1129–1150 | Cite as

See What We Want to See? The Effects of Managerial Experience on Corporate Green Investments

  • Birte Schaltenbrand
  • Kai FoerstlEmail author
  • Arash Azadegan
  • Kevin Lindeman
Article

Abstract

How impartial are managerial decisions? This question is particularly concerning when it comes to making green investment decisions in the face of stakeholder pressures. When managers respond to stakeholder pressures, their personal cognition, judgment, and past experiences play a role in determining their responses. The salience of particular stakeholder claims may be determined by deeply rooted individual preferences. This research investigates how a manager’s past experiences can influence green investments. Data are gathered from 247 managers about their past experience and their employer’s performance data. These data are combined with managerial responses to a vignette-based experiment, which required managers to make green investments based on a decision scenario where they are exposed to different types and strength of stakeholder pressure (from consumers and the community). Results suggest that managers’ years of experience, their employers’ financial performance, and their employers’ market performance influence investment decisions even when making decisions under new and different set of circumstances. While the employers’ financial performance influences managers to invest more, the employers’ market performance only influences managers’ investment in the presence of either high consumer or high community pressure. Compared to less-experienced managers, experienced managers invest more in response to consumer pressure but less in response to community pressure. Practical and theoretical implications of these findings in green management are explored.

Keywords

Corporate sustainability Green investments Managerial cognition and reasoning Survey research Vignette-based experiments 

References

  1. Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to Ceos? an investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and Ceo values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.Google Scholar
  2. Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.Google Scholar
  3. Amato, C., & Amato, L. (2011). Corporate commitment to global quality of life issues: Do slack resources, industry affiliations, and multinational headquarters matter? Business and Society, 50(2), 388–416.Google Scholar
  4. Ariely, D., & Jones, S. (2010). The upside of irrationality: The unexpected benefits of defying logic at work and at home (Vol. 159). New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  5. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.Google Scholar
  6. Ashforth, B. E., & Fried, Y. (1988). The mindlessness of organizational behaviors. Human Relations, 41(4), 305–329.Google Scholar
  7. Ateş, M. A., Bloemhof, J., van Raaij, E. M., & Wynstra, F. (2012). Proactive environmental strategy in a supply chain context: The mediating role of investments. International Journal of Production Research, 50(4), 1079–1095.Google Scholar
  8. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.Google Scholar
  9. Banerjee, S. B. (2001). Managerial perceptions of corporate environmentalism: Interpretations from industry and strategic implications for organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(4), 489–513.Google Scholar
  10. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 3(4), 717–736.Google Scholar
  11. Bateman, T. S., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1989). The psychological context of strategic decisions: A model and convergent experimental findings. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 59–74.Google Scholar
  12. Blome, C., Hollos, D., & Paulraj, A. (2014). Green procurement and green supplier development: Antecedents and effects on supplier performance. International Journal of Production Research, 52(1), 32–49.Google Scholar
  13. Bollen, K. A. (1998). Structural equation models. New York: Wiley Online Library.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. The Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.Google Scholar
  15. Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  16. Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2012). Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 352–376.Google Scholar
  17. Business Week (1981). Schlumberger: The star of the oil fields tackles semi-conductors, pp. 60–70.Google Scholar
  18. Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453–470.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.Google Scholar
  21. Chiesi, H. L., Spilich, G. J., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(3), 257–273.Google Scholar
  22. Chin, M. K., Hambrick, D. C., & Trevino, L. K. (2013). Political ideologies of Ceos: the influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 197–232.Google Scholar
  23. Chiu, S. C., & Sharfman, M. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1558–1585.Google Scholar
  24. Cohen, J., Manzon, G. B., & Zamora, V. L. (2013). Contextual and individual dimensions of taxpayer decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(4), 631–647.Google Scholar
  25. Connolly, C., & Hyndman, N. (2013). Towards charity accountability: Narrowing the gap between provision and needs? Public Management Review, 15(7), 945–968.Google Scholar
  26. Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of us environmental managers: Applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 627–641.Google Scholar
  27. Cormier, D., Gordon, I. M., & Magnan, M. (2004). Corporate environmental disclosure: Contrasting management’s perceptions with reality. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 143–165.Google Scholar
  28. Dearborn, D. C., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Selective perception: A note on the department identifications of executives. Sociometry, 21(1), 140–144.Google Scholar
  29. Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1027–1055.Google Scholar
  30. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation—Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  31. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific sociological review, 18(1), 122–136.Google Scholar
  32. Dutton, J. E. (1993). Interpretations on automatic: A different view of strategic issue diagnosis. Journal of Management Studies, 30(3), 339–357.Google Scholar
  33. Dvir, T., Eden, D., & Avolio, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735–744.Google Scholar
  34. Eckerd, S., & Bendoly, E. (2011). Introduction to the discussion forum on using experiments in supply chain management research. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(3), 3–4.Google Scholar
  35. Eesley, C., & Lenox, M. J. (2006). Firm Responses to Secondary Stakeholder Action. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), 765–781.Google Scholar
  36. Ehrgott, M., Reimann, F., Kaufmann, L., & Carter, C. R. (2011). Social sustainability in selecting emerging economy suppliers. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 99–119.Google Scholar
  37. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks. The triple bottom line of 21st century. Oxford: Capstone Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  38. England, G. W. (1967). Personal value system of american managers. Academy of Management Journal, 10(1), 53–68.Google Scholar
  39. Fineman, S., & Clarke, K. (1996). Green stakeholders: Industry interpretations and response. Journal of Management Studies, 33(6), 715–730.Google Scholar
  40. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  41. Flannery, B. L., & May, D. R. (2000). Environmental ethical decision making in the us metal-finishing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 642–662.Google Scholar
  42. Flynn, B. B., & Flynn, E. J. (1999). Information-processing alternatives for coping with manufacturing environment complexity. Decision Sciences, 30(4), 1021–1052.Google Scholar
  43. Fraj-Andrés, E., Martinez, E., & Matute, J. (2009a). A multidimensional approach to the influence of environmental marketing and orientation on the firm’s organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 263–286.Google Scholar
  44. Fraj-Andrés, E., Martinez-Salinas, E., & Matute-Vallejo, J. (2009b). A multidimensional approach to the influence of environmental marketing and orientation on the firm’s organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 263–286.Google Scholar
  45. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  46. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Frynas, J. G., & Stephens, S. (2014). Political corporate social responsibility: Reviewing theories and setting new agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews., 17(4), 483–509.Google Scholar
  48. Fryxell, G. E., Lo, C. W. H., & Chung, S. S. (2004). Influence of motivations for seeking ISO 14001 certification on perceptions of ems effectiveness in China. Environmental Management, 33(2), 239–251.Google Scholar
  49. Gattiker, T. F., Carter, C. R., Huang, X., & Tate, W. L. (2014). Managerial commitment to sustainable supply chain management projects. Journal of Business Logistics, 35(4), 318–337.Google Scholar
  50. Goltz, S. M. (1993). Examining the joint roles of responsibility and reinforcement history in recommitment. Decision Sciences, 24(5), 977–994.Google Scholar
  51. González-Benito, J. (2007). A theory of Purchasing’s contribution to business performance. Journal of Operations Management, 25(4), 901–917.Google Scholar
  52. Gonzalez-Benito, J., & Gonzalez-Benito, O. (2006). The role of stakeholder pressure and managerial values in the implementation of environmental logistics practices. International Journal of Production Research, 44(7), 1353–1373.Google Scholar
  53. Gualandris, J., Klassen, R. D., Vachon, S., & Kalchschmidt, M. (2015). Sustainable evaluation and verification in supply chains: Aligning and leveraging accountability to stakeholders. Journal of Operations Management, 38, 1–13.Google Scholar
  54. Gwinner, K., & Swanson, S. R. (2003). A model of fan identification: Antecedents and sponsorship outcomes. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(3), 275–294.Google Scholar
  55. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2005). Multivariate data analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  56. Hall, J. (2000). Environmental Supply Chain Dynamics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8(6), 455–471.Google Scholar
  57. Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Harris, J. R. (1990). Ethical values of individuals at different levels in the organizational hierarchy of a single firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(9), 741–750.Google Scholar
  59. Harris, S. G. (1994). Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: A schema-based perspective. Organization Science, 5(3), 309–321.Google Scholar
  60. Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33–44.Google Scholar
  61. Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1996). The determinants of an environmentally responsive firm: An empirical approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30(3), 381–395.Google Scholar
  62. Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 87–99.Google Scholar
  63. Henriques, I., & Sharma, S. (2005). Pathways of stakeholder influence in the canadian forestry industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(6), 384–398.Google Scholar
  64. Hogarth, R. M. (1980). Judgement and choice. New York: WIley.Google Scholar
  65. Hogarth, R. M. (1987). Judgement and choice: The psychology of decision. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  66. Huo, B., Zhao, X., & Zhou, H. (2013). The effects of competitive environment on supply chain information sharing and performance: An empirical study in China. Production and Operations Management, 23(4), 552–569.Google Scholar
  67. Kach, A., Busse, C., Azadegan, A., & Wagner, S. M. (2016). Maneuvering through hostile environments: How firms leverage product and process innovativeness. Decision Sciences. doi: 10.1111/deci.12196.Google Scholar
  68. Kassinis, G., & Vafeas, N. (2006). Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 145–159.Google Scholar
  69. Kathuria, R. (2000). Competitive priorities and managerial performance: A taxonomy of small manufacturers. Journal of Operations Management, 18(6), 627–641.Google Scholar
  70. Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), 81–104.Google Scholar
  71. Keeley, M. (1984). Impartiality and participant-interest theories of organizational-effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  72. Keil, M., Depledge, G., & Rai, A. (2007). Escalation: The role of problem recognition and cognitive bias. Decision Sciences, 38(3), 391–421.Google Scholar
  73. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (1999). Foundations of behavioral research. Boston, MA: Cengage Lerning.Google Scholar
  74. Khavul, S., & Bruton, G. D. (2013). Harnessing innovation for change: Sustainability and poverty in developing countries. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 285–306.Google Scholar
  75. Klassen, R. D. (2001). Plant-level environmental management orientation: The influence of management views and plant characteristics. Production and Operations Management, 10(3), 257–275.Google Scholar
  76. Knemeyer, A. M., & Naylor, R. W. (2011). Using behavioral experiments to expand our horizons and deepen our understanding of logistics and supply chain decision making. Journal of Business Logistics, 32(4), 296–302.Google Scholar
  77. Konar, S., & Cohen, M. A. (2001). Does the market value environmental performance? Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(2), 281–289.Google Scholar
  78. Laurian, L. (2004). Public participation in environmental decision making: Findings from communities facing toxic waste cleanup. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 53–65.Google Scholar
  79. Lorentz, H., Töyli, J., Solakivi, T., Hälinen, H.-M., & Ojala, L. (2012). Effects of geographic dispersion on intra-firm supply chain performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(6), 611–626.Google Scholar
  80. Lorenzi, P., Sims, H. P., & Slocum, J. W. (1981). Perceived environmental uncertainty: An individual or environmental attribute? Journal of Management, 7(2), 27–41.Google Scholar
  81. Mackay, J. M., & Elam, J. J. (1992). A comparative study of how experts and novices use a decision aid to solve problems in complex knowledge domains. Information Systems Research, 3(2), 150–172.Google Scholar
  82. Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. (2003). Nature of corporate responsibilities: Perspectives from American, French, and German consumers. Journal of Business Research, 56(1), 55–67.Google Scholar
  83. March, J. G. (1981). Decision making perspectives: Decisions in organizations and theories of choice. In A. H. Van de Ven & W. F. Joyce (Eds.), Perspectives on prganizsation design and behavior (pp. 205–244). New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  84. Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions: Theory, cases, and techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  85. Mitchell, D. G. (2011). The nexus between decision making and emotion regulation: A review of convergent neurocognitive substrates. Behavioural Brain Research, 217(1), 215–231.Google Scholar
  86. Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  87. Mowen, M. M., & Mowen, J. C. (1986). An empirical examination of the biasing effects of framing on business decisions*. Decision Sciences, 17(4), 596–602.Google Scholar
  88. Murillo-Luna, J. L., Garces-Ayerbe, C., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2008). Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach. Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), 1225–1240.Google Scholar
  89. Nunnally, J. C. (2010). Psychometric Theory 3e: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  90. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.Google Scholar
  91. Pagell, M., & Krause, D. R. (1999). A multiple-method study of environmental uncertainty and manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Operations Management, 17(3), 307–325.Google Scholar
  92. Papagiannakis, G., & Lioukas, S. (2012). Values, attitudes and perceptions of managers as predictors of corporate environmental responsiveness. Journal of Environmental Management, 100(15), 41–51.Google Scholar
  93. Parmigiani, A., Klassen, R. D., & Russo, M. V. (2011). Efficiency meets accountability: Performance implications of supply chain configuration, control, and capabilities. Journal of Operations Management, 29(3), 212–223.Google Scholar
  94. Parnell, J. A., Scott, G. J., & Angelopoulos, G. (2013). Benchmarking tendencies in managerial mindsets: Prioritizing stockholders and stakeholders in Peru, South Africa, and the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 589–605.Google Scholar
  95. Perdue, B. C., & Summers, J. O. (1986). Checking the success of manipulations in marketing experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(4), 317–326.Google Scholar
  96. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.Google Scholar
  97. Rajagopalan, N., & Datta, D. K. (1996). Ceo characteristics: Does industry matter? Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 197–215.Google Scholar
  98. Roberts, S. (2003). Supply chain specific? Understanding the patchy success of ethical sourcing initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 159–170.Google Scholar
  99. Rodrigue, M., Magnan, M., & Cho, C. H. (2013). Is environmental governance substantive or symbolic? An Empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 107–129.Google Scholar
  100. Ross, M., & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 322.Google Scholar
  101. Roxas, B., & Coetzer, A. (2012). Institutional environment, managerial attitudes and environmental sustainability orientation of small firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(4), 461–476.Google Scholar
  102. Rungtusanatham, M., Wallin, C., & Eckerd, S. (2011). The vignette in a scenario-based role-playing experiment. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(3), 9–16.Google Scholar
  103. Sandhu, S., Ozanne, L. K., Smallman, C., & Cullen, R. (2010). Consumer driven corporate environmentalism: Fact or fiction? Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(6), 356–366.Google Scholar
  104. Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010). Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: The mediating effect of training. Journal of Operations Management, 28(2), 163–176.Google Scholar
  105. Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K.-H. (2011). An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 130(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  106. Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 159–180.Google Scholar
  107. Sharfman, M. P., Shaft, T. M., & Anex, R. P. (2009). The road to cooperative supply-chain environmental management: Trust and uncertainty among pro-active firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  108. Sharma, S., & Nguan, O. (1999). The biotechnology industry and strategies of biodiversity conservation: The influence of managerial interpretations and risk propensity. Business Strategy and the Environment, 8(1), 46–61.Google Scholar
  109. Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational research methods, 13(3), 456–476.Google Scholar
  110. Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In D. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers (Vol. 35, pp. 35–65). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  111. Sturman, M. C. (2003). Searching for the inverted U-shaped relationship between time and performance: Meta-analyses of the experience/performance, tenure/performance, and age/performance relationships. Journal of Management, 29(5), 609–640.Google Scholar
  112. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Wrochel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  113. Thaler, R. H. (2015). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  114. Van Cranenburgh, K. C., Liket, K., & Roome, N. (2013). Management responses to social activism in an era of corporate responsibility: A case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 497–513.Google Scholar
  115. Vazquez Brust, D. A., & Liston-Heyes, C. (2010). Environmental management intentions: An empirical investigation of Argentina’s polluting firms. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(5), 1111–1122.Google Scholar
  116. Waller, M. J., Huber, G. P., & Glick, W. H. (1995). Functional background as a determinant of executives’ selective perception. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 943–974.Google Scholar
  117. Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 307–336.Google Scholar
  118. Zietsma, C., & Winn, M. I. (2008). Building chains and directing flows: Strategies and tactics of mutual influence in stakeholder conflicts. Business & Society, 47(1), 68–101.Google Scholar
  119. Zu, L. R., & Song, L. N. (2009). Determinants of managerial values on corporate social responsibility: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 105–117.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birte Schaltenbrand
    • 1
  • Kai Foerstl
    • 2
    Email author
  • Arash Azadegan
    • 3
  • Kevin Lindeman
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute for Supply Chain Management – Procurement and Logistics (ISCM)EBS University for Business and LawWiesbadenGermany
  2. 2.Chair of Supply Chain Management & LogisticsGerman Graduate School of Management & Law (GGS)HeilbronnGermany
  3. 3.Department of Supply Chain Management & Marketing Sciences, Rutgers Business SchoolRutgers UniversityNewark, New BrunswickUSA
  4. 4.Supply Chain and Operations Department, Carlson School of ManagementUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations