Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Global Analysis of Corporate Social Performance: The Effects of Cultural and Geographic Environments

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

Abstract

As more and more multi-national companies expand their operations globally, their responsibilities extend beyond not only the economic motive of profitability but also other social and environmental factors. The objective of this article is to examine the impact of national culture and geographic environment on firms’ corporate social performance (CSP). Empirical tests are based on a global CSP database of companies from 49 countries. Results show that the Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are significantly associated with CSP. In addition, European companies are found to out-perform other regions and countries in CSP.

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

Notes

  1. Additional resources available on Hofstede’s website at http://www.geert-hofstede.com/geert_hofstede_resources.shtml.

  2. Both KLD and Innovest were acquired by RiskMetric Group in 2009 which in turn was acquired by MSCI in 2010.

References

  • Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2010). Comparative and international corporate governance. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 485–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akaah, I. P. (1990). Attitudes of marketing professionals toward ethics in marketing research: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(1), 45–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alas, R. (2006). Ethics in countries with different cultural dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 237–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2006). Firm size, organizational visibility and corporate philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Business Ethics, Oxford, 15(1), 6–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(January), 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. (1996). A methodological note on cross-cultural accounting ethics research. International Journal of Accounting, 31(1), 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Donleavy, G. D., Lam, K.-C. J., & Ho, S. S. M. (2008). Does east meet west in business ethics: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, C. W., Nonis, S. A., & Hudson, G. I. (2005). A cross-cultural comparison of value systems and consumer ethics. Cross Cultural Management, 12(4), 36–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, G. R., & Scott Nadler, S. (2008). Culture, economic development, and national ethical attitudes. Journal of Business Research, 61, 254–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, D. (2008). Just good business: A special report on corporate social responsibility. The Economist, 386(January), 3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, N., & Jaggi, B. (1982). Pollution disclosures, pollution performance, and economic performance. The International Journal of Management Science, 10, 167–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Castro, R., Arino, M. A., & Canela, M. A. (2010). Does social performance really lead to financial performance? Accounting for endogeneity. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(1), 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, L. E., & Huntington, S. P. (2000). Culture matters: How values shape human progress. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R. Paul, Ainscough, T., Shank, T., & Manullang, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and socially responsible investing: A global perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(2), 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, Geert. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1985). The interaction between national and organizational value systems. Journal of Management Studies, 22(4), 347–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach’s value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(4), 417–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holden, N. (2002). Cross-cultural management—a knowledge management perspective. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W. (2000). A contingency theory of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39(March), 24–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W. (2005). Culture and ecology: A cross-national study of the determinants of environmental sustainability. Management International Review, 45(3), 349–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurgens, M., Berthon, P., Papania, L., & Shabbir, H. A. (2010). Stakeholder theory and practice in Europe and North America: The key to success lies in a marketing approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 769–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashima, E., & Kashima, Y. (1998). Culture and language: The case of cultural dimensions and personal pronoun use. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 461–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social screening of investment: An introduction. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 163–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Licht, A. N., Goldschmidt, C., & Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Culture rules: The foundations of the rule of law and other norms of governance. Journal of Comparative Economics, 35(4), 659–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, L.-C., Rose, G. M., & Blodgett, J. G. (1999). The effects of cultural dimensions on ethical decision making in marketing: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(January), 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(October), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2003). Nature of corporate responsibilities perspectives from American, French, and German consumers. Journal of Business Research, 56, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, K. M., & Siegfried, J. J. (1985). The effect of firm size on corporate philanthropy. Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 25(2), 18–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith—a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, L., & Firbrass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 745–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M. (2001). Does firm size confound the relationship between corporate social performance and firm financial performance? Journal of Business Ethics, 33(Sep), 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, H., Russell, C., & Lee, J. (2007). National culture and environmental sustainability: A cross-national analysis. Journal of Economics and Finance, 31(1), 104–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rallapalli, K., Vitell, S. J., Wiebe, F. A., & Barnes, J. H. (1994). Consumer ethical beliefs and personality traits: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 487–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringov, D., & Zollo, M. (2007). Corporate responsibility from a socio-institutional perspective: The impact of national culture on corporate social performance. Corporate Governance, 7(4), 476–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholtens, B., & Dam, L. (2007). Cultural values and international differences in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 273–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S. P. (1979). A conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social issues and evaluation of business response patterns. Academy of Management Review, 4(1), 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simerly, R. L., & Li, M. (2000). Corporate social performance and multinationality, a longitudinal study. B > Quest, article available at http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2000/corporate.html.

  • Simga-Mugan, C., Daly, B. A., Onkal, D., & Kavut, L. (2005). The influence of nationality and gender on ethical sensitivity: An application of the issue-contingent model. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 139–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R. L., & Gegez, A. E. (2004). Attitudes towards business ethics: A five nation comparative study. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(3), 253–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., & Lane, P. J. (2004). A model of cultural differences and international alliance performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(4), 306–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. C. (2009). Bounded goodness: Marketing implications of Drucker on corporate responsibility. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(1), 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sotorrio, L., Luna, J., & Sanchez, L. F. (2008). Corporate social responsibility of the most highly reputed European and North American firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 379–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srnka, K. J. (2004). Culture’s role in marketers’ ethical decision making: An integrated theoretical framework. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2004, 1.

  • Stanwick, P. A., & Stanwick, S. D. (1998). The relationship between corporate social performance, and organizational size, financial performance, and environmental performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(Jan), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabellini, G. (2008). The scope of cooperation: Values and incentives. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(3), 905–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J., & Chow, I. H.-S. (2009). Isolating cultural and national influence on value and ethics: A test of competing hypotheses. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(Apr), 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 411–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Udayasankar, K. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm size. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 167–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullman, A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Festervand, T. A. (1987). Business ethics: Conflicts, practices and beliefs of industrial executives. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Paolillo, J. G. P. (2004). A cross-cultural study of the antecedents of the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23(April/July), 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P. K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 170–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H.-m. D. (2010). Corporate social performance and financial-based brand equity. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 19(5), 335–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S. L., & Mahon, J. F. (1994). Toward a substantive definition of the corporate issue construct: A review and synthesis of the literature. Business & Society, 33, 293–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R. (2001). Ethics programs in global business: Culture’s role in managing ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(Mar), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whipple, T. W., & Swords, D. F. (1992). Business ethics judgments: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(Sep), 671–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Foo Nin Ho & Hui-Ming Deanna Wang

  2. Department of Marketing, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, USA

    Scott J. Vitell

Authors
  1. Foo Nin Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hui-Ming Deanna Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Scott J. Vitell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Foo Nin Ho.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Innovest intangible value assessment (IVA) assessment criteria
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ho, F.N., Wang, HM.D. & Vitell, S.J. A Global Analysis of Corporate Social Performance: The Effects of Cultural and Geographic Environments. J Bus Ethics 107, 423–433 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1047-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1047-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation