The Role of Culture in Responsible Business Practice: An Exploration of Finnish and Russian SMEs

Part of the The Academy of International Business book series (AIB)


National culture has been studied extensively in the context of small- and medium-sized enterprises’ (SMEs) internationalization processes. With the current focus on the greater integration of SMEs into both international trade and achievement of global sustainability, it is worth investigating the role that national culture plays in SMEs’ responsible business practices in the cross-border business relationship context. The qualitative approach used to study Finnish and Russian SMEs reveals that the cultural differences are reflected in SMEs’ responsible business practices only to some extent while they are more visible in their international business. This study thus contributes to the literature on both SME internationalization and small business responsibility by applying the lens of national culture to the phenomenon of small business responsibility in international business relationships.


SMEs Internationalization Responsible business practices Sustainability Finland Russia 


  1. Beckerman, W. (1956). Distance and the pattern of intra-European trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 38(1), 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buckley, P. J., Carter, M. J., Clegg, J., & Tan, H. (2005). Language and social knowledge in foreign-knowledge transfer to China. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35(1), 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. J. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: Readings and cases in a global context (2nd ed., pp. 3–26). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Crotty, J. (2016). Corporate social responsibility in the Russian federation: A contextualized approach. Business & Society, 55(6), 825–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. EC. (2003). Commission recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Official Journal of the European Union, 46, 36–41.Google Scholar
  7. Ellis, P. D. (2008). Does psychic distance moderate the market size–entry sequence relationship? Journal of International Business Studies, 39(3), 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission. (2001). Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibilities. COM 366 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  9. Fassin, Y., Van Rossem, A., & Buelens, M. (2011). Small-business owner-managers’ perceptions of business ethics and CSR-related concepts. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3), 425–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fassin, Y., Werner, A., Van Rossem, A., Signori, S., Garriga, E., von Weltzien Hoivik, H., & Schlierer, H. J. (2015). CSR and related terms in SME owner–managers’ mental models in six European countries: National context matters. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(2), 433–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Felício, J. A., Duarte, M., & Rodrigues, R. (2016). Global mindset and SME internationalization: A fuzzyset QCA approach. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1372–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerschewski, S. (2013). Improving on the Kogut and Singh metric of psychic distance. Multinational Business Review, 21(3), 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graafland, J., & Noorderhaven, N. (2018). National culture and environmental responsibility research revisited. International Business Review, 27(5), 958–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Håkanson, L., & Ambos, B. (2010). The antecedents of psychic distance. Journal of International Management, 16(3), 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ho, F. N., Wang, H. M. D., & Vitell, S. J. (2012). A global analysis of corporate social performance: The effects of cultural and geographic environments. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(4), 423–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hofstede, G. (2018). Country comparison: Russia, Finland.,russia/. Accessed 20 Aug 2018.
  18. Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2012). What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(9), 834–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ivanova, M., & Torkkeli, L. (2013). Managerial sensemaking of interaction within business relationships: A cultural perspective. European Management Journal, 31(6), 717–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ivanova-Gongne, M., & Torkkeli, L. (2018). No manager is an Island: Culture in sensemaking of business networking. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 33(5), 638–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (2009). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1411–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keim, G. (2003). Nongovernmental organizations and business-government relations: The importance of institutions. In Globalization and NGOs: Transforming business, government, and society (pp. 19–34). Santa Barbara: Praeger.Google Scholar
  23. Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 124–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kolk, A., & Van Tulder, R. (2010). International business, corporate social responsibility and sustainable development. International Business Review, 19(2), 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kontinen, T., & Ojala, A. (2010). Internationalization pathways of family SMEs: Psychic distance as a focal point. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(3), 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koos, S. (2011). The institutional embeddedness of social responsibility: A multilevel analysis of smaller firms’ civic engagement in Western Europe. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 135–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuznetsov, A., Kuznetsova, O., & Warren, R. (2009). CSR and the legitimacy of business in transition economies: The case of Russia. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(1), 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Larrán Jorge, M., Herrera Madueno, J., Lechuga Sancho, M. P., & Martínez-Martínez, D. (2016). Development of corporate social responsibility in small and medium-sized enterprises and its nexus with quality management. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marino, L., Strandholm, K., Steensma, H. K., & Weaver, K. M. (2002). The moderating effect of national culture on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and strategic alliance portfolio extensiveness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and the consequences: A triumph of faith – A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55, 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Moore, G., & Spence, L. (2006). Small and medium-sized enterprises & corporate social responsibility: Identifying the knowledge gaps. Editorial. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. OECD. (2013). Green entrepreneurship, eco-innovation and SMEs. OECD working party on SMEs and entrepreneurship, CFE/SME (2011)9/FINAL.Google Scholar
  34. OECD. (2016). Entrepreneurship at a glance 2016. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. OECD. (2017). Enhancing the contributions of SMEs in a global and digitalised economy. Meeting of the OECD council at ministerial level, Paris, June 7–8. Accessed 20 Aug 2018.
  36. Ojala, A. (2009). Internationalization of knowledge-intensive SMEs: The role of network relationships in the entry to a psychically distant market. International Business Review, 18(1), 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Panapanaan, V. M., Linnanen, L., Karvonen, M. M., & Phan, V. T. (2003). Roadmapping corporate social responsibility in Finnish companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peng, Y. S., Dashdeleg, A. U., & Chih, H. L. (2014). National culture and firm’s CSR engagement: A cross-nation study. Journal of Marketing & Management, 5(1), 38–49.Google Scholar
  39. Perrini, F., Russo, A., & Tencati, A. (2007). CSR strategies of SMEs and large firms. Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(3), 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ringov, D., & Zollo, M. (2007). The impact of national culture on corporate social performance. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 7(4), 476–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ryan, A., O’Malley, L., & O’Dwyer, M. (2010). Responsible business practice: Re-framing CSR for effective SME engagement. European Journal of International Management, 4(3), 290–302.Google Scholar
  42. Simpson, M., Taylor, N., & Barker, K. (2004). Environmental responsibility in SMEs: Does it deliver competitive advantage? Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(3), 156–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spence, L. J. (2016). Small business social responsibility: Expanding core CSR theory. Business & Society, 55(1), 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thanetsunthorn, N. (2015). The impact of national culture on corporate social responsibility: Evidence from cross-regional comparison. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 4(1), 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. The World Values Survey. (2017). Cultural map – WVS wave 6 (2010–2014). Accessed 20 Aug 2018.
  46. Vinokurova, N., Ollonqvist, P., Viitanen, J., Holopainen, P., Mutanen, A., Goltsev, V., & Ihalainen, T. (2009). Russian-Finnish roundwood trade – Some empirical evidence on cultural based differences (Vol. 129). Working papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa.Google Scholar
  47. Vuontisjärvi, T. (2006). Corporate social reporting in the European context and human resource disclosures: An analysis of Finnish companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(4), 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. World Trade report. (2016). Levelling the trading field for SME. Online document. Available at: Accessed 20 Jan 2018.
  49. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods, Applied social research methods. London/Singapore: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lappeenranta University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinland
  2. 2.Åbo Akademi UniversityTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations