Are Socially Responsible Behaviors Paid Off Equally? A Cross‐cultural Analysis

For Peer Review Are soci ally responsible behaviors paid off equally? A Cross - cultural analysis. Journal: Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Manuscript ID: CSR-12-0173.R1 Wiley - Manuscript type: Research Article Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, National Culture, Financial Performance, Meta-analysis, Stakeholders http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management For Peer Review Are socially responsible behaviors paid off equally? A Cross-cultural analysis. KEY WORDS: Corporate Social Responsibility, Financial Performance, Meta-analysis, National Culture, Stakeholders. Page 1 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review ABSTRACT: Based on the strong influence that national culture has on CSR actions (Institutional Theory), it is necessary to study how the financial outcomes of CSR actions could be affected by these cultural characteristics. This fact is particularly interesting for managers whose companies operate in different cultures given that they have to deal with this aspect. The aim of this paper is to analyze the moderator role that national culture could have on the CSR-FP relationship through a meta-analysis, hence helping to clarify the debate existing about this relationship in the literature. The results show that this relationship is greatly affected by national culture. In this sense, countries with a high assertiveness and gender egalitarianism show a very negative relationship. Nevertheless, those with a higher future orientation, institutional collectivism and a humane orientation reveal a positive correlation which reaches its maximum value in those countries with a high uncertainty avoidance. Page 2 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review 1. INTRODUCTION Debate is growing about the lack of agreement on the relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Financial Performance (FP) (Davidson &Worrell, 1990, Ruf et al, 2001). Although this is a much studied question, the findings are heterogeneous. In this sense, recent works have aimed to study the possible mediator or moderator role that certain variables can have on this relationship to hopefully make a greater consensus about this issue possible. Nowadays, the analysis of the effect that national culture has on firm management and performance is one of the key areas in international business research (Venaik & Brewer, 2010). Given the growing importance that CSR has on the management and strategy of the company (Carroll & Shabana, 2010), some authors have empirically studied the strong impact that cultural characteristics of countries have on the socially responsible behaviour of their companies (Waldman et al, 2006; Ringov & Zollo, 2007). Others have focused on the differences between countries (Singh & Garcia, 2008; Yong, 2008; Svensson et al, 2009). Therefore, based on Institutional Theory (Baughn et al, 2007; Matten & Moon, 2008), the CSR concept is different according to the country (Jamali & Mirshak, 2006) and the expectations of the different stakeholders should be alike in countries with similar cultural characteristics. Therefore, these variations in the CSR concept have an influence on the stage of the CSR development (Maon et al, 2010) in the country, and they could affect the expected outcomes of the CSR actions (particularly their FP), according to Scholtens & Kang (2013). Surprisingly, the effect that the cultural characteristics of countries have on the CSR-FP relationship has not been empirically analyzed, despite this having been suggested by Gray et al (2001). Consequently, the aim of this research is to analyze the influence of national culture on the CSR-FP relationship in order to have a better understanding of it and hopefully make a greater consensus on this relationship possible. This is especially relevant for managers of Multinational Companies (MNC) because it could help them to manage their CSR strategy and their expected financial outcomes depending on the country (Duran & Bajo, 2012). To achieve our aim, our sample was made up of 103 articles that analyze the relationship between CSR and FP in 27 different countries from all over the world from 2000 until 2013. Later, we identify the different clusters according to the GLOBE national cultural dimensions (House et al, 2004) as a specific and relatively objective assessment of a country’s culture. Finally, we test our hypothesis by a meta-analytical technique. The results reveal that the cultural characteristics of the countries in which companies operate affect the CSR-FP relationship due to the great differences identified. In addition, the introduction of that moderating variable helps to considerably decrease the heterogeneity. Page 3 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Therefore, those characteristics that provide a very different CSR-FP relationship have been identified. They match a large negative relationship with countries with high assertiveness and gender egalitarianism. Nevertheless, the relationship is positive and stronger when the institutional collectivism, humane orientation and uncertainty avoidance dimensions in the countries are greater. The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we focus on the debate about the relationship between CSR and FP and formulate the relevant hypothesis. In Section 3, we look more closely at the statistical techniques we used: a cluster analysis and a metaanalysis. Section 4 presents the results of the study. Finally, we show the findings in Section 5, the limitations of the study and some of the lines of investigation which remain open. 2. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE Interest in the study of the relationship between CSR and FP began with Moskowitz (1972). This work has been continued over several decades of research in which many articles have been published, and, among them, several literature reviews (Brammer & Millington, 2005, Fernandez & Luna, 2007; Beurden & Gössling, 2008). The studies show that there is no widespread conclusion about the existence of the relationship and even less about its meaning. Setting out from the conceptual framework that seeks to explain the relationship between CSR and FP, we find that most accepted theoretical bases are summarized by Preston & O'Bannon (1997). These authors propose six hypotheses which posit the various possibilities that allow for a relationship between CSR and FP, such as the Social Impact Hypothesis, the Slack Resources Hypothesis, Positive Synergy, the Trade-off Hypothesis, the Managerial Opportunism Hypothesis and Negative Synergy (as can be seen in Table 1.). INSERT TABLE 1 Based on these hypotheses and the previous literature, there is no unanimity about the direction of the relationship, since we can find works that support the study of the relationship in both ways and others supporting a bidirectional relationship. Thus, we can find works that take CSR as the dependent variable (Prior et al, 2008, Choi & Jung, 2008; Apostolakau & Jackson, 2009; Soana, 2011; Surroca et al, 2010, Chih et al, 2010) ,those that consider FP as the dependent variable (Bartkus et al, 2006, Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006, Lopez et al, 2007, Fernandez & Luna, 2007; Berrone et al, 2007, Van der Laan et al, 2008 , Yu et al, 2009; Vergalli & Poddi , 2009; Moneva & Orta, 2010) and others which study the bidirectional relationship (Nakao et al, 2007; Makni et al, 2009, Yang et al, 2010; Aras et al, 2010; Fauzi, 2009). In this sense, the meta-analyses performed (Orlitzky et al, 2003; Allouche & Laroche, 2005; Wu, 2006) come to the conclusion that the relationship between CSR practices and FP exists and is positive. However, they highlight that the study of the mediating or moderating role of several variables could be the key to clarifying and understanding this Page 4 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review relationship better – the hypothesis of moderator variables (Orlitzky et al, 2003; Gomez, 2008). Some of the fields in which this has been studied are stakeholder management (Van der Laan et al, 2008), earnings management (Prior et al, 2008), the differentiation of industry and innovation capacity (Hull & Rothenberg, 2008), debt and the characteristics of boards (Dunn & Sainty, 2009), and intangible resources (Surroca et al, 2010). However, the differences that national culture has on the CSR-FP relationship have not been analyzed despite their being suggested by Gray et al (2001). Notwithstanding, some researchers have studied the strong effect that a country’s culture has on the CSR behaviors of their companies (Waldman et al, 2006; Ringov & Zollo, 2007). Additionally, in the specialized literature we can find significant differences in the ethical and environmental behavior between the most reputable U.S. companies and Europe (Fernandez & Luna, 2007), between two countries such as Spain and the UK (Singh & Garcia, 2008), Australia and Malaysia (Yong, 2008), and between Sweden, Canada and Australia (Svensson et al, 2009). This was supported by Institutional Theory (Baughn et al, 2007). This theory allows the exploring and comparing of the motives of managers concerning CSR in national, cultural and institutional contexts (Aguilera et al, 2005; Matten & Moon, 2008). This is because the concept of “institutions” could be understood as “collections of rules and routines that define actions in terms of relations between roles and situations” (March & Olsen, 1989: 160). Taking into account that the social responsibility of the companies is contextualized by national institutions, the CSR behaviors are thus different in each country (Jamali & Mirshak, 2006). This affects the financial outcome expected (Scholtens & Kang, 2013). In this sense, the literature shows that while Anglo-Saxon and European companies have been carrying out CSR actions for decades and these are at the core of the strategy of their business, organizations from developing countries have only started to implement these practices in recent years in order to legitimate themselves (Moon & Shen, 2010). They have prioritized their stakeholders counting on the FP expected (Jamali, 2008). Additionally, a question is arising in the literature about why companies are committed to CSR and if they are really carrying it out because they are actually engaged or if it is more a question of window-dressing (Cai et al, 2012). Some countries are often criticized for their socially irresponsible behavior (Wang & Juslin, 2009) and they are therefore trying to launch several CSR initiatives. Stakeholders are more and more sensitive to this question and they are decisive in the CSR-FP relationship (the Social Impact Hypothesis - Freeman, 1984). As a result, we formulate our research hypothesis: H 1 : The cultural characteristics of countries moderate the relationship between CSR and FP. Page 5 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review 3. METHODOLOGY As mentioned earlier, our aim is to reach a conclusion about whether a country’s culture affects the relationship established between CSR and FP, based on a sample of 103 articles from 2000 to 2013. To do so, we first performed a cluster analysis, taking into account the cultural values – based on the GLOBE classification (House et al, 2004) - of each of the countries involved in order to identify different groups which would allow us to contrast our hypothesis through the meta-analysis. 3.1. SAMPLE Our sample is composed of 103 work items (see Appendix 1). It includes a brief reference to the period studied, the size of the sample, and the geographical area referred to in each article. Firstly, to identify them, those articles that are referenced in the literature review of Beurden & Gössling (2008) about the relationship between CSR and FP from the early 1990s until 2007 have been included in the initial sample. Secondly, we performed a search in the ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus databases. These were chosen because they contain all the items from the journals which are specialized in CSR and are more renowned. The words used in these searches have been “Corporate Social Responsibility, Financial Performance, Empirical” and “Corporate Social Responsibility, Financial Performance, Analysis” in order to avoid theoretical articles. In addition, due to the important role of the “publication bias” (Kirkham & Dwan, 2010) - which even questions the robustness of the conclusions reachedwe included papers from SRNN in our sample. This is due to it being such a prestigious and illustrious international network. This bias is due to the fact that many scientific papers, mostly with "negative" results (those which find no significant differences, or which have results that go against the study hypothesis or the established norm) never get published, take longer to do so or are less cited in other publications. After collecting all the work items, we put them in order and followed procedures to eliminate any duplication that might exist for having used different sources. Subsequently, we also had to exclude items for the following reasons: 1. Theoretical articles - in which the relationship between CSR and FP is not studied quantitativelyas they are not useful for our purpose of reaching a conclusion on empirical evidence. 2. Studies published prior to 2000, because at the beginning of the century new ways of reporting and valuing CSR actions (DJSI, KLD) have appeared worldwide. Additionally, Quazi & Richardson (2012) suggested that it would be better to compare periods that are not too long as CSR strategy is constantly evolving. 3. We had to exclude studies that do not provide some statistics that could be transformed into Pearson correlation coefficients, in accordance with the formulas proposed by Wolf (1986), Rosenthal (1991) and Wilson & Lipsey (2000). Page 6 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review 4. Finally, we removed those articles that were made up of an international sample and did not provide an independent coefficient for each country. Once we had the clusters, we decided to also eliminate those which involve two or three different countries because all of the countries are not in the same group. 3.2. MODERATOR VARIABLE: THE NATIONAL CULTURE There is no universal agreement in the social sciences about defining the term “culture”. Generally speaking, culture is used to refer to a set of parameters of a group that sets this group apart from another group in a significant way. For House et al (2004), culture serves as a framework that allows us to interpret and give meaning to the significant events that result from the common experiences of members of a group, which, being an issue of great importance, are transmitted over generations. The fundamental feature of culture is that it is a social design that affects the majority of practices and social processes. In this way, much social behavior can be understood by the prevailing culture. CSR practices will be therefore conditioned by each country’s social design and culture. Yong (2008) indicated that different cultural variables affected the attitudes of managers concerning profit and social attitudes in the business and found that managers working in Australia are the most socially considerate toward their employees, customers and enviroment, while those employed in Malaysia had the highest regard for profit. Svensson et al (2009) found that corporations operating in Sweden have utilized ethical structures and processes differently from their Canadian and/or Australian counterparts, and that in each culture the way in which companies fashion their approach to business ethics appears congruent with their national cultural values. Ringov & Zollo (2007) suggest that national culture dimensions have a strong impact on the CSR behavior of organizations. Various studies have attempted to identify dimensions or cultural values that are useful in explaining the cultural differences between countries. The first was Hofstede’s (1980), which identified 4-5 cultural dimensions. This was followed by several other works which aimed to improve, expand or clarify the measurement of a country’s culture. In response to this conceptual development, we can include the cultural values studies of Schwartz (1992, 1994), of Ingleharts (1977, 2001, 2004) and of Trompenaars (1993), and finally, GLOBE’s cultural framework (House et al, 2004). Hofstede's original research (1980) was based on a questionnaire sent to IBM employees in 40 countries and two time periods (1967-1968) and (1971-1973). Hofstede identified four cultural dimensions that distinguished different countries. These were referred to as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism and masculinity 1 . Later (1987) he added a fifth cultural dimension called long-term orientation. In 2004, the GLOBE research program - the acronym of Global Leadership Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (House et al, 2004)- presented the results of research whose main aim was 1 Power distance: The degree to which a society accepts the unequal distribution of power in institutions and organizations. Uncertainty Avoidance: Reflects that people in a country prefer structured situations to unstructured situations.Individualism: The degree to which individuals prefer to act as such rather than as members of a group. Masculinity: The degree to which values such as assertiveness, performance, success and competitiveness - associated with the male role - prevail over values such as quality of life, personal relationships, service, solidarity - values associated with the feminine role. (Hofstede, 2000) Page 7 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review to describe, understand and predict the influence of cultural variables on leadership, process management and effectiveness anywhere in the world. This program began in 1993. It used data from 825 organizations in 62 countries, and identified 9 dimensions that were categorized as: uncertainty avoidance, power distance, emphasis in society on collectivism, family and group collectivist practices, gender equality, assertiveness, future orientation, performed orientation and human orientation 2 . As Robbins (2004) pointed out, Hofstede's cultural dimensions have become the basic framework for differentiating national cultures, though data which emanate from a single company - namely IBMand which are about 40 years old, can reduce and erode the ability to explain the cultural diversity between countries. A comparison of the dimensions of GLOBE and Hofstede shows that the former updates and extends Hofstede’s work. Hofstede’s and GLOBE’s dimensions are those most used in studies about country culture (Shi & Wang, 2011). However, studies based on both models reached similar conclusions (Ringov & Zollo, 2007), regardless of the cultural classification used. In this sense, the national cultural dimensions of GLOBE (House et al, 2004) (Appendix 2) are considered to be a more up-to-date set of cultural measures (Chhokar et al, 2007; Ringov & Zollo, 2007) and a large number of cultural characteristics are analyzed. Additionally, the measures are displayed by people within that culture (not only managers), hence being more appropriate for explaining societal outcomes (Stephan & Uhlaner, 2010). For all these reasons, we are going to take into account GLOBE´s cultural characteristics. We carry out a cluster analysis in terms of these variables in order to identify groups of countries with similar cultural characteristics. To do so, we first of all perform a k-means cluster, since the number of countries in the sample (27) is high and our intention is to reduce the heterogeneity within groups. 3.3. META-ANALYSIS Meta-analysis is a statistical technique used to quantitatively integrate the results of previous studies on a specific research topic in order to obtain a general conclusion about it (Sanchez-Meca, 2008). 2 Performance Orientation: The degree to which a group encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence. Future Orientation: The extent to which individuals engage in future-oriented behaviors such as delaying gratification, planning, and investing in the future. Humane Orientation: The degree to which a group encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, generous, caring, and kind to others. Gender egalitarianism: The degree to which a group minimizes gender inequality. Assertiveness: The degree to which individuals are assertive, confrontational and aggressive in their relations with others. Institutional Collectivism: The degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward the collective distribution of resources and collective action. In-group Collectivism: The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty and cohesiveness in their organizations and families. Power distance: The degree to which members of a group expect power to be distributed equally Uncertainty avoidance: The extent to which a society, organization or group relies on social norms, rules, and procedures to alleviate the unpredictability of future events. (House et al, 2004) Page 8 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Crisóstomo VL, Freire F, Vasconcellos F. 2011. Corporate social responsibility, firm value and financial performance in Brazil. Social Responsibility Journal 7(2): 295 – 309. DOI: 10.1108/17471111111141549 Da Silva-Monteiro SM, Aibar‐Guzman B. 2010. Determinants of environmental disclosure in the annual reports of large companies operating in Portugal. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17(4): 185-204. Davidson WN, Worrell DL. 1990. A Comparison and Test of the Use of Accounting and Stock Market Data in Relating Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Akron Business and Economic Review 21 (3): 7-19. Ducassy I. 2013. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Pay Off in Times of Crisis? An Alternate Perspective on the Relationship between Financial and Corporate Social Performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 20 (5): 157–167. doi: 10.1002/csr.1282 Dunn P, Sainty B. 2009. The relationship among board of director characteristics, corporate social performance and corporate financial performance. International Journal of Managerial Finance 5 (4): 407-423. DOI: 10.1108/17439130910987558 Duran JJ, Bajo N. 2012. Institutions as Determinant Factors of Corporate Responsibility Strategies of Multinational Firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. doi: 10.1002/csr.1308 Elijido-Ten E. 2007. Applying stakeholder theory to analyze corporate environmental performance: Evidence from Australian listed companies. Asian Review of Accounting 15(2): 164-184. Elsayed KK, Paton D. 2005. The impact of environmental performance on firm performance: static and dynamic panel data evidence. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 16(3): 395–412. DOI: 10.1016/j.strueco.2004.04.004 Fauzi H, Mahoney L, Hahaman AA. 2007. Institutional Ownership and Corporate Social Performance: Empirical Evidence from Indonesian Companies. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 1 (2): 334-347. Fauzi H, Hussain MM, Rahman AA, Priyanto AA. 2009. Corporate Social Performance of Indonesian State-Owned and Private Companies. SSRN. Fauzi, H. 2010. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: Empirical Evidence from American Companies. SSRN. Fernandez JL, Luna L. 2007. The creation of value through corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics 76 (3): 335-346. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-006-9285-0 Freeman RE. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman. Friedman M. 1970. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits. New York Times 13, September 1970, 122-126. Galbreath J. 2006. Does primary stakeholder management positively affect the bottom line? Some evidence from Australia. Management Decision 44 (8): 1106-1121. DOI: 10.1108/00251740610690649 Galbreath J, Shum P. 2012. Do customer satisfaction and reputation mediate the CSR–FP link? Evidence from Australia. Australian Journal of Management 37(2): 211-229. Page 15 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Garay L, Font X. 2012. Doing good to do well? Corporate social responsibility reasons, practices and impacts in small and medium accommodation enterprises. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31(2): 329-337. Garcia-Meca E, Sanchez-Ballesta JP. 2010. The association of board independence and ownership concentration with voluntary disclosure: a meta-analysis. European Accounting Review 19(3): 603-627. García-Castro R, Ariño M, Canela MA. 2010. Does Social Performance Really Lead to Financial Performance? Accounting for Endogeneity. Journal of Business Ethics 92(1): 107-126. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-009-0143-8 Godos-Diez JL, Fernandez-Gago R, Cabeza-Garcia L. 2012. Propiedad y control en la puesta en práctica de la RSC. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa 15(1): 1-11. Goll I, Rasheed A. 2004. The moderating effect of environmental Munificence and dynamism on the Relationship between Discretionary Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Journal of Business Ethics 49(1): 41-54. DOI: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000013862.14941.4e Gomez F. 2008. Responsabilidad Social Corporativa y Performance Financiero: treinta y cinco años de investigación empírica en busca de un consenso. Principios: estudios de economía política 11: 5-22. Gray R, Javad M, Power DM, Sinclair CD. 2001. Social and environmental disclosure and corporate characteristics: a research note and extension. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 28(3‐ ‐‐ ‐4): 327-356. Guenster N, Bauer R, Derwall J, Koedijk K. 2011.The Economic Value of Corporate Eco-Efficiency. European Financial Management 17: 679–704. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468036X.2009.00532.x Hafsi T, Turgut G. 2013. Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics 112(3): 463-479. Haniffa RM, Cooke TE. 2005. The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 24(5): 391-430. Hasseldine J, Salama AI, Toms JS. 2005. Quantity versus quality: the impact of environmental disclosures on the reputations of UK Plcs. The British Accounting Review 37(2): 231-248. He Y, Tian Z, Chen Y. 2007. Performance Implications of nonmarket strategy in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 24(1): 151-169. DOI: 10.1007/s10490-006-9030-3 Hedge LV, Olkin I. 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis., New York:. Academic Press. Hofstede G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, C.A.: Sage,.: Hofstede G. 2000. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. London: Sage Publications,. Höllerer MA. 2013. From Taken‐for‐Granted to Explicit Commitment: The Rise of CSR in a Corporatist Country. Journal of Management Studies 50(4): 573-606. Page 16 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review House RJ, Hanges PJ, Javidan M, Dorfman PW, Gupta V. 2004. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations. The Globe Study of 62 Societies. London. Sage Publications Huang CJ. 2010. Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility and corporate performance. Journal of Management & Organization 16(5): 641-655. Hull CE, Rothenberg S. 2008. Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with the innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal 29 (7): 781-789. DOI: 10.1002/smj.675 Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. 1990. Methods of Meta-analysis. Beverly Hills, CA,: Sage. Ingleharts R. 1977. The silent revolution changing values and political styles among western publics. Princeton , N.J.: Princeton University Press. Ingleharts R. 2001. Modernización y posmodernización: El cambio cultural, económico y político en 43 sociedades. CIS. 2001. Ingleharts R. 2004. Human Beliefs and Values. A cross-cultural sourcebook based on the 1999-2002 values surveys. Siglo XXI Editores, México. Jamali D. 2008. A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics 82(1): 213-231. Jamali D, Mirshak R. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Theory and Practice in a Developing Country Context. Journal of Business Ethics 72(3): 243–262. Janggu T, Joseph C, Madi N. 2007. The current state of corporate social responsibility among industrial companies in Malaysia. Social Responsibility Journal 3(3): 9-18. Kang J. 2013. The relationship between corporate diversification and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal 34(1): 94-109. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM. 2010. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. British Medical Journal 2010, 340365. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c365 Lanis R, Richardson G. 2012. Corporate social responsibility and tax aggressiveness: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 31(1): 86-108. Lee S, Park SY. 2009. Do socially responsible activities help hotels and casinos achieve their financial goals? International Journal of Hospitality Management 28(1): 105-112. Lee S, Singal M, Kang KH. 2013. The corporate social responsibility–financial performance link in the US restaurant industry: Do economic conditions matter? International Journal of Hospitality Management 32(March): 2-10. Leonidou CN, Katsikeas CS, Morgan NA. 2013. “Greening” the marketing mix: do firms do it and does it pay off? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 41(2): 151-170. Li W, Zhang R. 2010. Corporate social responsibility, ownership structure, and political interference: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics 96(4): 631-645. Lin CH, Yang HL, Liou DY 2009. The impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Financial Performance: Evidence from Business in Taiwan. Technology in Society 31(1): 56-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2008.10.004 Lipsey, M.; Wilson, D. (2001), Practical meta-analysis. Applied Social Research Methods 49, SAGE. Page 17 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Liu X, Anbumozhi V. 2009. Determinant factors of corporate environmental information disclosure: an empirical study of Chinese listed companies. Journal of Cleaner Production 17(6): 593-600. Lopez MV, García A, Rodriguez L. 2007. Sustainable development and corporate performance: A study based on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Journal of Business Ethics 75 (3): 285-300. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-006-9253-8 Luethge D, Han HG. 2012. Assessing corporate social and financial performance in China. Social Responsibility Journal 8(3): 389-403. Luo X, Bhattacharya CB. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility, customer satisfaction and market value. Journal of Marketing 70(4): 1-18. Lyon D. (2007). Financial Performance: the Motivation behind CSR Reporting. Dissertation. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10523/1178 Magness V. 2006. Strategic posture, financial performance and environmental disclosure: an empirical test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 19(4): 540-563. Mahoney L, Roberts RW. 2007. Corporate social performance, financial performance and institutional ownership in Canadian firms. Accounting Forum 31(3): 233-253. Makni R, Francoeur C, Bellavance F. 2009. Causality Between Corporate Social Performance and Financial Performance: Evidence from Canadian Firms. Journal of Business Ethics 89 (3): 409-422. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-008-0007-7 Maon F, Lindgreen A, Swaen V. 2010. Organizational stages and cultural phases: a critical review and a consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development. International Journal of Management Reviews 12(1): 20-38. March J, Olsen J. 1989. Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press. Marin L, Rubio A, Maya SR. 2012. Competitiveness as a strategic outcome of corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 19(6): 364-376. doi: 10.1002/csr.1288 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): 404-424. Melo T. 2012. Slack-resources hypothesis: a critical analysis under a multidimensional approach to corporate social performance. Social Responsibility Journal 8(2): 257-269. Melo T. 2012. Determinants of corporate social performance: the influence of organizational culture, management tenure and financial performance. Social Responsibility Journal 8(1): 33-47. Melo T. Garrido‐Morgado A. 2012. Corporate reputation: a combination of social responsibility and industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 19(1): 11-31. Menguc B, Ozanne LK. 2005. Challenges of the “green imperative”: a natural resourcebased approach to the environmental orientation–business performance relationship. Journal of Business Research 58(4): 430-438. Page 18 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Mishra S, Suar D. 2010. Does corporate social responsibility influence firm performance of Indian companies? Journal of Business Ethics 95(4): 571-601. Mittal RK, Sinha N, Singh A. 2008. An analysis of linkage between economic value added and corporate social responsibility. Management Decision 46(9): 1437-1443. Moneva JM, Ortas E. 2010. Corporate environmental and financial performance: a multivariate approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems 110 (2): 193-210. DOI: 10.1108/02635571011020304 Moon J, Shen X. 2010. CSR in China research: Salience, focus and nature. Journal of Business Ethics 94(4): 613-629. Moore G. 2001. Corporate social and financial performance: an investigation in the UK supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics 34(3-4): 299-315. Moura-Leite RC, Padgett RC, Galan JI. 2012. Is social responsibility driven by industry or firm-specific factors? Management Decision 50(7): 1200-1221. Moroney R, Windsor C, Aw YT. 2012. Evidence of assurance enhancing the quality of voluntary environmental disclosures: an empirical analysis. Accounting & Finance 52(3): 903-939. Moskowitz MR. 1972. Choosing Socially Responsible Stocks. Business and Society Review 1: 71-75. Muller A, Kolk A. 2010. Extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of corporate social performance: evidence from foreign and domestic firms in Mexico. Journal of Management Studies 47(1): 1-26. Nakao Y, Amano A, Matsumura K, Genba K, Nakano M. 2007. Relationship between environmental performance and financial performance: an empirical analysis of japanese corporations. Business Strategy and the Environment 16(2): 106–118. doi: 10.1002/bse.476 Nelling E, Webb E. 2009. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: the “virtuous circle” revisited. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 32(2): 197209. Oh WY, Chang YK, Martynov A. 2011. The effect of ownership structure on corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics 104(2): 283-297. Orlitzky M, Schmidt FL, Rynes SL. 2003. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis. Organization Studies 24(3): 403-441. DOI: 10.1177/0170840603024003910 Preston LE, O´Bannon DP. 1997. The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship: A Typology and Analysis. Business and Society 36(4): 419-429. Prior D, Surroca J, Tribo JA. 2008. Are socially responsible managers really ethical? Exploring the relationship between earnings management and corporate social responsibility. Corporate GovernanceAn International Review 16 (3): 160-177. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00678.x Purnomo PK, Widianingsih LP. 2012. The Influence of Environmental Performance on Financial Performance with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure as a Moderating Variable: Evidence from Listed Companies in Indonesia. Review of Integrative Business Economic Research 1(1): 57-69. Page 19 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Quazi A, Richardson A. 2012. Sources of variation in linking corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Social Responsibility Journal 8(2): 242-256. Reverte C. 2012. The Impact of Better Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure on the Cost of Equity Capital. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 19(5): 253-272. doi: 10.1002/csr.273. Rettab B, Ben Brik AB, Mellahi K. 2009. A Study of Management Perceptions of the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organisational Performance in Emerging Economies: The case of Dubai. Journal of Business Ethics 89 (3): 371-390. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-008-0005-9 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. DOI: 10.1108/14720700710820551 Robbins SP. 2004. Comportamiento Organizacional.Madrid: Pearson Educación. Rosenthal R. 1991. Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills,CA.:SAGE. Ruf BM, Muralidhar K, Brown R, Janney J, Paul K. 2001. An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship Between Change in Corporate Social Performance and Financial Performance: A Stakeholder Theory Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 32(2): 143– 156. DOI:10.1023/A:1010786912118 Sahin K, Basfirinci CS. Ozsalih A. 2011. The impact of board composition on corporate financial and social responsibility performance: Evidence from public-listed companies in Turkey. African Journal of Business Management 5(7): 2959-2978. Said R, Zainuddin YH, Haron H. 2009. The relationship between corporate social responsibility disclosure and corporate governance characteristics in Malaysian public listed companies. Social Responsibility Journal 5(2): 212-226. Salama A. 2005. A note on the impact of environmental performance on financial performance. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 16(3): 413–421. DOI: /10.1016/j.strueco.2004.04.005 Salama A, Anderson K, Toms JS. 2011. Does community and environmental responsibility affect firm risk? Evidence from UK panel data 1994–2006. Business Ethics: A European Review 20(2): 192-204. Sambasivan M, Bah SM, Jo-Ann H. 2013. Making the case for operating “Green”: Impact of environmental proactivity on multiple performance outcomes of Malaysian firms. Journal of Cleaner Production 42: 69-82. Sanchez-Meca JS. 2008. Meta-análisis de la investigación. Metodología en la investigación sobre discapacidad. Introducción al uso de las ecuaciones estructurales. VI Simposio Científico SAID, 2008. Sanchez-Meca JS. 2010. Cómo realizar una revisión sistemática y un meta-análisis. Aula abierta 38(2): 53-64. Schadewith H, Niskala M. 2010. Communication via Responsibility Reporting and its Effect on Firm Value in Finland. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17(2): 96-106. DOI:10.1002/csr.234 Page 20 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. 1977. Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology 62(5): 529-540. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.62.5.529 Scholtens B, Kang FC. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and earnings management: evidence from Asian economies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 20 (2): 95–112. doi: 10.1002/csr.1286 Schwartz SH. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental social Psychology 25, 1-65. Schwartz SH. 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism: new cultural dimensions of values. In Individualism and collectivism: theory, method, and applications, Kim U, Triandis HC, Kagitcibasi C, Choi S, Yoon G. (eds).Beverly Hills: SAGE. Shen CH, Chang Y. 2009. Ambition Versus Conscience, Does Corporate Social Responsibility Pay Off? The Application of Matching Methods. Journal of Business Ethics 88 (Suppl.1): 133-153. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-008-9826-9 Shi X, Wang J. 2011. Interpreting Hofstede Model and GLOBE Model: Which Way to Go for Cross-Cultural Research? International Journal of Business and Management 6(5): 93-99. Singh J, de los Salmones Sanchez MMG, Del Bosque IR. 2008. Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility and Product Perceptions in Consumer Markets: A Cross-cultural Evaluation. Journal of Business Ethics 80(3): 597-611. DOI:10.1007/s10551-007-9457-6 Smith ML, Glass GV. 1977. Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist 32 (9): 752-760. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.32.9.752 Smith M, Yahya K, Amiruddin AM. 2007. Environmental disclosure and performance reporting in Malaysia. Asian Review of Accounting 15(2): 185-199. Soana MG 2011. The relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Financial Performance in the banking sector. Journal of Business Ethics 104 (1):133-148. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-0894-x Stephan U, Uhlaner LM. 2010. Performance-based vs socially supportive culture: A cross-national study of descriptive norms and entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies 41(8): 1347-1364. Surroca J, Tribo J, Waddock S. 2010. Corporate Responsibility and Financial Performance: the role of Intangible Resources. Strategic Management Journal 31(5): 463-490. DOI: 10.1002/smj.820 Svensson G, Wood G, Singh J, Carasco E, Callaghan M. 2009. Ethical Structures and Processes of Corporations Operating in Australia, Canada, and Sweden: A Longitudinal and Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Business Ethics 86(4): 485-506. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-008-9860-7 Tagesson T, Blank V, Broberg P, Collin SO. 2009. What explains the extent and content of social and environmental disclosures on corporate websites: a study of social and environmental reporting in Swedish listed corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16(6): 352-364. Page 21 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Toms JS. 2002. Firm resources, quality signals and the determinants of corporate environmental reputation: some UK evidence. The British Accounting Review 34(3): 257282. Torugsa NA, O’Donohue W, Hecker R. 2012. Capabilities, Proactive CSR and Financial Performance in SMEs: Empirical Evidence from an Australian Manufacturing Industry Sector. Journal of Business Ethics 109(4): 483-500. Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Nicholas Brealey. Tsoutsoura, M. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility and financial performance. UC Berkeley: Center for Responsible Business. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/111799p2 Uhlaner LM, Berent-Braun MM, Jeurissen RJ, de Wit G. 2012. Beyond Size: Predicting engagement in environmental management practices of Dutch SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics 109(4): 411-429. Usunier JC, Furrer O, Furrer-Perrinjaquet A. 2011. The perceived trade-off between corporate social and economic responsibility: A cross-national study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 11(3): 279-302. Van der Laan G, Van Ees H, Van A. 2008. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: An Extended Stakeholder Theory, and Empirical Test with Accounting Measures. Journal of Business Ethics 79(3): 299-310. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-007-9398-0 Venaik S, Brewer P. 2010. Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies 41: 1294-1315. Vergalli S, Poddi L. 2009. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect The Performance of Firms? (August 5, 2009). FEEM Working Paper No. 52.2009. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1444333 Waldman DA, de Luque MS, Washburn N, House RJ. 2006. Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: a GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies 37: 823-837. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400230 Walls JL, Berrone P, Phan PH. 2012. Corporate governance and environmental performance: is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal 33(8): 885-913. Wang T, Bansal P. 2012. Social responsibility in new ventures: profiting from a long‐term orientation. Strategic Management Journal 33(10): 1135-1153. Wang L, Juslin H. 2009. The impact of Chinese culture on corporate social responsibility: The harmony approach. Journal of Business Ethics 88(3): 433-451. Wang H, Qian C. 2011. Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management Journal 54(6): 1159-1181. Wilson DB, Lipsey MW. 2000. Practical Meta-Analysis. Beverly Hills ,CA: SAGE. Wolf FM. 1986. Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Beverly Hills ,CA:SAGE. Wu M.L. 2006. Corporate Social Performance, Corporate Financial Performance and Firm Size. Journal of American Academy of Business Cambridge 8 (1): 163171. Page 22 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Yang FJ, Lin CW. Chang YN. 2010. The linkage between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance. African Journal of Business Management 4 (4): 406-413. Ye K, Zhang R. 2011. Do lenders value corporate social responsibility? Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics 104(2): 197-206. Yong A. 2008. Cross-cultural Comparisons of Managerial Perception on Profit. Journal of Business Ethics 82(4): 775-791. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-007-9592-0 Yu V, Ting HI, Wu YC. 2009. Assessing the greenness effort for European firms a resource efficiency perspective. Management Decision 47 (7): 1065-1079. DOI: 10.1108/00251740910978304 Page 23 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review CAUSAL SEQUENCE SIGN OF THE RELATIONSHIP Positive Neutral Negative CSR → FP Social Impact Hypothesis Hypothesis of moderator variables Trade-Off Hypothesis CSR ← FP Slack Resources Hypothesis Managerial Opportunism Hypothesis CSR ↔ FP Positive Synergy Negative Synergy Table 1: Types of relationship between CSR and FP. Source: Preston & O'Bannon (1997), Gomez (2008). K N Effect size p-value Confidence interval Test of homogeneity 75% CSR-CFP 103 31878 0.0674 0.003 0.0233 0.1114 732.16 11.77 Group 1 15 2063 -0.0508 0.35 -0.1481 0.0466 68.74 125.92 Group 2 34 12591 0.0852 0.08 -0.0091 0.1795 311.27 214.46 Group 3 54 17224 0.068 5 0.003 0.0196 0.1174 319.34 26.99 The confidence interval is calculated with a probability of 95%. The test of homogeneity through the Q statistic and associated probability distribution according to the Chi-square. Table 2: Moderation of countries grouped by GLOBE. K N Effect size p-value Confidence interval Test of homogeneity 75% CSR-CFP 103 31878 0.0674 0.003 0.0233 0.1114 732.16 11.77 Group 1_1 11 1467 0.0127 0.81 -0.0898 0.1151 29.52 294.62 Group 1_2 4 596 - 0.2069 0.07 - 0.4292 0.015 3 18.77 424.56 Group 2_1 6 2686 0.0916 0.001 0.0430 0.1402 17.06 501.52 Group 2_2 28 9905 0.0835 0.115 - 0.0304 0.1973 294.07 29.17 Group 3_1 47 15796 0.0570 0.02 0.0128 0.1011 180.02 48.02 Group 3_2 7 1428 0.1964 0.125 -0.0522 0.4450 81.23 99.00 The confidence interval is calculated with a probability of 95%. The test of homogeneity is through the Q statistic and associated probability distribution according to the Chi-square. Table 3: Moderation of countries grouped by GLOBE (II) Page 24 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Appendix 5 T test for equality of means t df Sig. Means difference Standard error of difference Performance_Orientation - 1.176 9 . 270 . 25071 . 21313 Future_Orientation .502 9 .628 . 0 9071 . 18073 Gender -.480 9 .642 -.10714 .22301 Assertiveness .557 9 .591 .13714 .24626 Institutional_collectivism 1.657 9 .132 .35750 .21576 In-group_collectivism -3.953 9 .003 -.71646 .18079 Power_distance - .470 9 .650 - .0 7429 .1 5818 Humane_Orientation - 2.762 9 .022 - . 55036 .1 9924 Uncertain ty _avoidance .148 9 .886 - . 56746 . 64675 HIERARCHICAL CLUSTER ANALYSIS Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups) Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine Page 31 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Appendix 6 T test for equality of means t df Sig. Means difference Standard error of difference Performance_Orientation .90 2 8 . 393 . 18167 .2 0130 Future_Orientation .016 8 .988 .00333 .21230 Gender .202 8 .845 .03750 .18572 Assertiveness 1.476 8 .178 .37750 .25577 Institutional_collectivism -1.356 8 .212 -.33333 .24575 In-group_collectivism 3.580 8 .007 . 4 1 500 .1 1591 Pow er_distance .904 8 . 393 . 25083 . 27756 Humane_Orientation - 3.716 8 .006 - .5 9583 . 16033 Uncertain ty _avoidance . 720 8 . 492 - . 18833 . 26153 HIERARCHICAL CLUSTER ANALYSIS Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups) Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine Page 32 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Appendix 7 CLUSTERS’ MEAN VALUES Initial Clusters Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 1 2 3 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 Performance_Orientation 3.84 4.32 4.25 3.87 3.77 4.17 4.42 4.25 4.25 Future_Orientation 3.58 4.07 4.24 3.69 3.35 4.13 4.03 4.24 4.23 Gender 3.43 3.25 3.51 3.22 3.86 3.18 3.29 3.49 3.52 Assertiveness 4.29 4.09 4.03 4.20 4.47 4.18 4.04 4.17 3.89 Institutional_collectivism 3.85 4.57 4.48 3.91 3.73 4.80 4.44 4.35 4.62 In-group_collectivism 5.27 5.39 3.94 5.51 4.81 4.93 5.65 4.17 3.72 Power_distance 5.45 5.15 4.75 5.47 5.42 5.10 5.17 4.90 4.60 Humane_Orientation 3.60 4.40 4.05 3.71 3.38 4.42 4.38 4.12 3.98 Uncertainty_avoidance 3.78 4.18 4.80 3.78 3.78 3.83 4.38 4.56 5.04 Page 33 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Figure 1: Clusters resulting from cluster analysis based on GLOBE cultural dimensions. 160x122mm (96 x 96 DPI) Page 34 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Figure 2: Clusters resulting from cluster analysis based on cultural dimensions within the GLOBE groups 1, 2 and 3. 147x155mm (96 x 96 DPI) Page 35 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/csrem Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60