Individual Personality Factors That Affect Normative Beliefs About the Rightness of Corporate Social Responsibility

Abstract

What types of persons are likely to believe in a narrow view of corporate social responsibility—that is, that managers should seek only to maximize profits in the interests of shareholders? Prior research suggested that such persons seemed likely to defer unquestioningly to organizational authority and thus to approve of unethical activities performed for organizational benefit. This article examined additional implications of such deferential tendencies among high social traditionalism scorers. In three samples of employed respondents ( N = 491), social traditionalists emerged as Machiavellian, had an entitled pattern of equity sensitivity, had an external work locus of control, were self-denying and authoritarian, felt that misfortune accrues to deserving people, and scored low on principled moral reasoning. These findings suggest that normative views about the rightness of social responsibility are closely tied to fundamental personality traits, attitudes, values, and thinking patterns. Therefore, resolving the long-standing social responsibility debate by determining once and for all whether social responsibility is good or bad may be an elusive goal.

Individual Values and SME Environmental Engagement

“…This article is concerned with how individual values shape the way in which decision makers make sense of social and environmental responsibilities in business (Hahn, Pinkse, Preuss, & Figge, 2015). It builds on previous studies, which have taken a more general perspective on links between values and business engagement (Desai & Rittenburg, 1997;Goodpaster & Matthews, 1982) or focused on a very small range of specific values and contexts (Chin et al, 2013;Duarte, 2010;Mudrack, 2007).…”

The Influence of Cultural Values on Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: Application of Hofstede’s Dimensions to Korean Public Relations Practitioners

“…Friedman's view was ''a strongly libertarian view and consequently portrays an individualistic and atomistic society, stressing individual not collective responsibilities'' (L'Etang, 2006, p. 411). According to Mudrack (2007), high social traditionalism is in the same context as a Friedman position and rejects the desirability of business social involvement. However, Wicks (1996) argued, ''Business ethics a pleonasm rather than oxymoron'' (p. 114) by objecting to the ''separation thesis,'' which sees business and ethics separate.…”

Responsible business practices: Aspects influencing decision-making in small, medium and micro-sized enterprises

“…Decision-makers are influenced by numerous aspects when facing a certain decision (Fernandez-Huerga, 2008). Aspects that were found to influence RBP decision-making in other studies include personal feelings and emotions (Dincer & Dincer, 2013;McCuen & Shah, 2007), values (Hammann et al, 2009;Mudrack, 2007) business finances (Dincer & Dincer, 2013;Rodgers & Gago, 2004), requests from friends and family (Coppa & Sriramesh, 2013;Dincer & Dincer, 2013;Westerman et al, 2007), religion (Dincer & Dincer, 2013;King, 2006), competitive reasons (Cochius, 2006), morals (Dincer & Dincer, 2013;Rupp, 2011), and ethics (Dincer & Dincer, 2013). Morals are the underlying principles on which individuals base their decisions, while ethics is the application of morals to decisions (Van Wyk, 2016).…”