The Influence of Employees’ Ethical Behavior on Enterprises’ Social Responsibility

ORI GIN AL PA PER

The Influence of Employees’ Ethical Behavioron Enterprises’ Social Responsibility

Vojko Potocan • Matjaz Mulej • Zlatko Nedelko

Published online: 13 October 2013� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract The enterprises’ social responsibility (CSR) importantly depends upon

behavior and its important factors like values, culture, ethics and norms. This article

investigates how employees’ ethical behavior defines CSR. Article includes a compre-

hensive literature review, and empirical results of survey about employees’ perception of

ethical behavior and relations between employees’ ethical attitudes and CSR. Sample

consists of more than 900 employees in Slovenian enterprises, collected in last decade.

Trends about employee’s perceptions of ethical, economic, environmental, and social

attitudes, show increasing importance of ethical and environmental attitudes, and

decreasing importance of striving for economic performance. Social attitudes remain

unchanged over the entire decade. Employees’ ethical perceptions positively and signifi-

cantly impact their attitudes toward social and environmental concerns. Their impact on

attitudes toward giving priority to economic results is negative and significant. The con-

sidered relations were controlled by demographic variables mediating the relationship only

for economic concern. Results of trends and relations confirm the significant influence of

employees’ ethical behavior on CSR. The developed solution enables improvement of CSR

considering importance of influences of employees’ ethical attitudes on aspects of CSR.

The proposed solution reduces unexplained part of CSR related to ethical behavior and

develops requisitely holistic methodological framework for future consideration of other

behavior factors in enterprise.

Keywords Behavior � Employees � Enterprise � Ethics � Social responsibility

V. Potocan � M. Mulej � Z. Nedelko (&)Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), University of Maribor (UM), Razlagova 14,2000 Maribor, Sloveniae-mail: [email protected]

V. Potocane-mail: [email protected]

M. Muleje-mail: [email protected]

123

Syst Pract Action Res (2013) 26:497–511DOI 10.1007/s11213-013-9299-3

Introduction

In the global competitive environment enterprises try to assure their existence and

development through business, aimed to socially responsibly satisfy the legal, market,

stakeholder, and environmental requirements. In order to achieve more socially responsible

business, an important issue is how human ethical behavior defines CSR.

Enterprises can improve their results with realization of CSR in their business concepts

by development of adequate ethical behavior, irrespective of their limited resources and

demanding conditions.

Business practice illustrates that realization of CSR requires innovatively changing

behavior of humans involved in enterprise. Management consideration emphasizes factors

that define the adequate business behavior, and is based on values, culture, ethics and

norms (VCEN). Management research studies of business ethics (BE) are frequently

focusing on employees’ perceptions about ethical behavior, on state of employees’ BE

behavior, and on influence of employees’ ethical attitudes toward CSR.

The poor use and results of CSR in business practice results from people’s lack of

systemic thinking, and their limited capacity of interdisciplinary co-operation. SR authors

use different methodological approaches, ranging from one-sided, through systematic, to

systems and systemic. Each approach forms different types of thinking and co-operation.

Systems approach enables creation of quite holistic SR with consideration of interdepen-

dence between relations inside the SR, and relations between the enterprise under con-

sideration and the human action influencing it. The holism of SR action can be increased

by different methodologies, including Action research (AR). AR enables study of enter-

prise by improved action. Management literature relates AR with organizational devel-

opment, consideration of social organizational content through future readiness to change

behavior and working of organization, for increasing enterprise’s relevance, viability, and

holism.

This article reports on examination of influence of employees’ perceptions about their

ethical attitudes on economic, environment, and social aspect of CSR. Sample includes the

last decade in Slovenian enterprises.

Theoretical Background

Literature Review

The modern life depends on balancing the economic, social, and environmental sustain-

ability (Dunlap et al. 1993; Clayton and Radcliffe 1996; Dunphy et al. 2000; Schwartz

2011).

The development of CSR matters to international organizations, such as United Nations

(UN 2011), European Union (EU 2011), OECD (2011), ISO (2010), etc.

Authors in social sciences focused their considerations of SR on: (1) the environmental

paradigm, developed by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978), and (2) CSR paradigm (Holme and

Watts 2000).

CSR covers: governance, management and organization, human rights, labor relations,

natural environment, fair business practices, consumer issues, and community involvement

and development (Clayton and Radcliffe 1996; Elkington 2004; Davis et al. 2008; Delios

2010; ISO 2010).

498 Syst Pract Action Res (2013) 26:497–511

123

In management, authors emphasize the role of human behavior for CSR, and consider

appropriate employees’ ethical attitudes as necessary precondition for SR development

(Crane and Matten 2010; Schwartz 2011).

Authors research BE (representing VCEN) as an important subjective part of the

enterprise’s business (Crane and Matten 2010; Delios 2010).

Management authors try to construct a quite holistic framework for enterprises’ BE

(Buchanan and Huczynski 2010; Brooks and Dunn 2011). Several management research

studies of BE considered humans behavior factors defining employees’ attitudes to

enterprises’ working and behavior (Rokeach 1973; Thomson and Barton 1994; Delios

2010).

We adapted the basic cognitions about influences of individual behavior on enterprises

from England (1967), and Ralston et al. (2007). For empirical research on employees’

attitudes toward CSR we use cognitions about several important factors which influence:

pro-environmental behavior (Axelrod and Lehman 1993; Kemmelmeier et al. 2002; Dietz

et al. 2005), and role of business ethics in SR (Karp 1996; Schultz and Zelezny 1999).

The development of SR is related with human behavior, which supports the necessary

use of systems thinking and action for attaining a holistic SR (Clayton and Radcliffe 1996;

Burns 2007; Flood 2010).

The common background for the need for SR in reality is people’s lack of systemic

thinking due to their narrow specialization, and people’s lack of capacity of interdisci-

plinary co-operation supportive of action requiring humans’ broader horizons. In that

framework we focus our research on improving holism of human behavior toward SR in

their VCEN and practice.

Most authors have dealt with complicated rather than complex SR constructs (Berta-

lanffy 1968; Beer 1979; Francois 2004). Authors define enterprise differently, and they

take any traditional, i.e. narrowly specialized and one-sided approach, systematic, or

systems approach (Francois 2004; Flood 2010).

Enterprises face obstacles in introduction of systems or systemic approach in their

business, especially in practical action. Possible solutions for more holistic realization of

business result from Action research (Lewin 1946).

Authors define AR differently, due to their selected methodological, content-, and

circumstances-based approaches to consideration of AR (Morton 1999; Walker and Haslett

2002; Flood 2010).

In AR, author emphases the role of behavior for consideration of Social Enterprise

Content, and for Organization development (Greenwood and Levin 1998; Swenson and

Rigoni 1999; Flood 2010).

With organization development we are returning to the initial questions of our contri-

bution about ethical human behavior expressed in employees’ ethical perceptions and

possible solution for attaining the desired SR.

Theses

The purpose of our research and cognitions from literature (Dunlap et al. 1993; Schultz and

Zelezny 1999; Elkington 2004; Crane and Matten 2010) let us postulate the following

hypotheses:

• H1: modern enterprises try to follow the general tendency of accepting the increasing

importance of SR. Hence we can presuppose H1a, H1b, H1c, and H1d.

Syst Pract Action Res (2013) 26:497–511 499

123

– H1a: In Slovenian enterprises employees’ perceptions about giving priority to the

ethical concern tends to increase.

– H1b: In Slovenian enterprises employees’ perceptions about giving priority to the

economic results tends to decrease.

– H1c: In Slovenian enterprises employees’ perception about environmental concern

tends to increase.

– H1d: In Slovenian enterprises employees’ perceptions about giving priority to the

societal concern tends to increase.

• H2: In Slovenian enterprises employees’ perceptions about giving priority to the ethical

concern importantly influence all others indicators of SR aspects. Hence we can

presuppose H2a, H2b, and H2c.

– H2a: employees’ perceptions about giving priority to the ethical concern are

negatively related to their priorities about economic results.

– H2b: employees’ perceptions about giving priority to the ethical concern are

positively related to their concern for environment.

– H2c: employees’ perceptions about giving priority to the ethical concern are

positively related to their concern for society.

The hypotheses concern how employees’ ethical perceptions influence state of SR in

Slovenian enterprises. With research of employees’ behavioral attitudes we try to recog-

nize how employees’ ethical perceptions follow the general tendency of increasing

importance of SR and how employees’ perceptions about ethical behavior influence eco-

nomic, environmental, and social concerns in CSR.

Employees’ Perception About Selected Factors Regarding SR in SlovenianEnterprises

Research Method

Subjects and Procedure

Sample includes data collected over 2-year intervals between 2002 and 2010. Random

sampling was based on GVIN, the national directory of Slovenian enterprises. In every

repetition we mailed or contacted 1,000 employees in sampled enterprises. In the first three

repetitions we sent questionnaires per regular post and afterwards called targeted

employees in order to secure a higher response rate. In the last two repetitions we sent the

survey link to selected employees in enterprises, without calling afterwards.

In the sample includes 200 employees’ answers, in 2004 199 answers, in 2006 200

answers, in 2008 176 answers, and in 2010 132 answers. Altogether 907 usable answers

were obtained from employees. An average response rate was 18.14 %. At the beginning,

the response rate was around 20 %, and decreased in last two repetitions: 17.6 and 13.2 %.

The demographic characteristics for the entire sample read: on average employees are

38.45-year-old and have 15.90 years of working experiences. 36.4 % were males and

63.6 % females. In terms of the highest completed education, 4.8 % did not finish primary

school, 4.7 % finished it, 42.7 % high school, 46.4 % B.A./S., 1.2 % M.S., and 0.1 %


123

doctorate degree. Regarding their position in enterprise, 67.1 % are non-supervisory staff,

17.4 % are lower managers, 12 % middle, and 3.4 % top managers. Regarding the

enterprise size, 58.9 % of employees work in enterprises employing\100, 29.8 % in those

employing 100–1,000, whereas 11.3 % in enterprises employing over 1,000 employees.

Measures

Our scale includes 25 items aimed to measure SR (Ralston et al. 2007). A 9-point scale is

used, ranging from 1, strongly agree to 9, strongly disagree.

The multidimensional structure of SR aspects (Dunlap et al. 1993; Schultz and Zelezny

1999; Giddings et al. 2002; Matten and Moon 2008) lets us use factor analysis to discover

items reliably representing four aspects of CSR.

Factor analysis of 25 items offers an initial 6-factor solution. Reducing the number of

factors does not significantly impact the loadings of 25 items on our 4 factors. Examination

of construct reliability, outlined in rotated component matrix, gives the following Cron-

bach’s a value for the studied constructs: (1) ethical behavior (a = 0.651), (2) concern for

economic results (a = 0.581), (3) concern for environment (a = 0.712), and (4) concern

for society (a = 0.648).

Ethical behavior includes the following items (Karp 1996; Epstein et al. 2008):

• Always submit to the principles defined by the regulatory system (ETH 1);

• Give priority to ethical principles over economic benefits (ETH 2);

• Refrain from bending the law, even if doing so could improve performance (ETH 3);

• Train the employees to obey the legal standards (ETH 4).

The following items present giving priority to economic results (Kemmelmeier et al.

2002; Cypher and Dietz 2008):

• Worry first and foremost about maximizing profits (EC 1);

• Not committed to ethical principles (EC 2);

• Ignore environmental issues, when jobs are at stake (EC 3);

• Agree that ethical responsibilities may negatively affect economic performance (EC 4);

• Always be concerned first about economic performance (EC 5).

The following items present concern for environment (Fransson and Garling 1999;

Cordano et al. 2010):

• Prevent environmental degradation caused by the pollution and depletion of natural

resources (EN 1);

• Adopt formal programs to minimize harmful impact of organizational activities on the

environment (EN 2);

• Minimize the environmental impact of all organizational activities (EN3);

• Assume total financial responsibility for environmental pollution caused by business

activities (EN 4).

The following items present concern for society (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978;

Kemmelmeier et al. 2002; Hardjosoekarto 2012):

• Allocate some resources to philanthropic activities (SOC 1);

• Contribute actively to the welfare of our community (SOC 2);

• Help solve social problems (SOC 3); and

• Play a role in society beyond the mere generation of profits (SOC 4).


123

Comparable researches about levels of environmental concern—i.e. Schultz and Zel-

ezny (1999) reported in their study Cronbach’s a coefficient between 0.47 and 0.80.

Nordlund and Garvill (2002) and Oreg and Katz-Gerro (2006) report similar values of

Cronbach’s a (the lowest a = 0.52; and a = 0.50, respectively), too.

Economic literature speaks that selected items are reliable to measure someone’s ori-

entation towards economic results (Ralston et al. 2007; Cypher and Dietz 2008). The

exploratory nature of our research allows conclusion, that items in both constructs are

reliable enough for measuring.

In terms of possible multicollinearity of SR aspects, both tolerance values exceed 0.10

and the VIF values are under 10. According to Ho’s suggestions (2006), multicollinearity

presents no problem in the examination of employees’ ethical perceptions on their SR

attitudes.

Research Results: Employees’ Ethical Perceptions and Their Attitudes Toward SocialResponsibility

Results about employees’ ethical, economic, environmental, and social attitudes show the

trend between years 2002 and 2010, for each SR aspect. First, employees’ ethical per-

ceptions are outlined. See Fig. 1.

Employees’ perceive that the enterprises’ most important duty is to train their

employees to obey legal standards, followed by enterprises’ duty to always obey the

principles defined by the regulatory system. The trade-off between ethical principles and

economic benefits gained a poor attention in last decade.

Data from the last decade reveals that employees emphasize especially the enterprise’s

pro-active role in building ethical behavior, while the employees’ role is not in the

forefront.

Results for the last decade show that on average employees’ ethical concerns about

giving priority to ethical principles over economic benefits (ETH 2), F(4,903) = 2.057,

p [ 0.05 and refraining from bending the law, even if that could improve performance

(ETH 3), F(4,904) = 1.068, p [ 0.05, tend to become more important, but the increase is

not significant. The other two ethical concerns (ETH 1 and ETH 4) on average remain

unchanged over the entire decade. These findings partially support hypothesis 1a.

Second, in terms of the enterprise’s economic orientation, employees find the most

important duty ‘worrying first and foremost about maximizing profits’, followed by

‘always concerning first about economic performance’. Despite the high importance of

economic performance the concern solely for economic performance has been decreasing

in the last decade. Enterprises, dealing with the trade-off between economic performance

and ethical principles have kept other duties relatively stable over the last decade.

In the last few years, evidently, employees allow for more compromising ethical

standards and environmental protection in favor of economic performance or their jobs.

See Fig. 2.

Results for the last decade reveal that on average employee’ concern solely for the

economic performance tends to decrease significantly (EC 1 and EC 5); EC 1,

F(4,902) = 5.991, p \ 0.001, and EC 5, F(4,904) = 4.711, p \ 0.05. Also other economic

trends on average show slight, but insignificant decrease. These findings partially support

hypothesis 1b.

Third, results about the environmental concern show that employees find the most

important duty of the enterprise, its adoption of formal programs to minimize the harmful


123

enterprises’ impact on environment, followed by preventing environmental degradation

caused by the pollution and depletion of natural resources.

Adopting such programs is in the forefront of environmental concern, while activities

reaching beyond government’s environmental regulation matter less in preserving the

natural environment, like minimizing their environmental impact, and assuming total

financial responsibility for environmental pollution.

Employees’ perceptions indicate their agreement that enterprises should act legally (i.e.

obey government environmental orientation). The importance of pro-environmental

behavior is found lower than required by the law.

Generally, people evidently concern for the environment recently more than in previous

years. This trend indicates clearly that employees start to realize that enterprises’

,00

,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

5,00

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

ETH 1

ETH 2

ETH 3

ETH 4

Fig. 1 Trends about employees’ ethical perceptions between years 2002 and 2010. Asterisk indicates thehorizontal axis presents years; vertical axis the level of agreeing/disagreeing with ETHs (1, strongly agree;9, strongly disagree)

,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

EC 1

EC 2

EC 3

EC 4

EC 5

Fig. 2 Trends about economic orientation between 2002 and 2010. Asterisk indicates the horizontal axiscovers years; vertical axis covers the level of agreeing/disagreeing with single items (1, strongly agree; 9,strongly disagree)


123

environmentally responsible behavior must tackle all their processes. Assuming total

financial responsibility for environment pollution recently became less important. See

Fig. 3.

Results for last decade reveal that on average employees’ environmental concerns tend

to increase (EN 1, EN 2, and EN 3). Increasing importance of minimizing the environ-

mental impact of all organizational activities, is significant in last decade,

F(4,903) = 9.934, p \ 0.001. The increasing importance of preventing environmental

degradation caused by the pollution and depletion of nature, F(4,904) = 1.096, p [ 0.05,

and adopting formal programs to minimize organizational harmful impact on the envi-

ronment, F(4,904) = 0.649, p [ 0.05, is insignificant. Assuming total financial responsi-

bility for environmental pollution has decreased in last observation (EN 4), but

insignificantly, F(4,904) = 0.663, p [ 0.05. These findings partially support hypothesis 1c.

Fourth, employees’ perception about enterprises role in concerning for society reveals

only some minor changes. Evidently, recently, employees’ favor enterprises’ to generation

of profits, over playing an important role in society, more than in years before. Further, also

perception about enterprise active contribution to the community has culminated recently.

These trends also result from striving for enterprise rationalization, due to the severe

economic conditions in recent years. See Fig. 4.

Results for the last decade reveal smallest fluctuations among the considered SR

aspects: employees’ social concerns changed insignificantly. Hence, we reject hypothesis

1d.

Fifth, based on ethical, economic, environmental, and social employees’ perception of

enterprises duties, we calculated trends. Comparison reveals that ‘concern solely for

economic performance’ is found a relatively less important enterprises’ duty than the other

SR aspects, especially in last two observations.

Concern for ethics and society has been relatively steady in the last decade, with some

ups and downs. Employees in last 4 years perceive concern for the environment slightly

more important than in previous observations. Concern for the environment has the highest

importance among aspects of SR enterprise behavior. See Fig. 5.

,00

,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

EN 1

EN 2

EN 3

EN 4

Fig. 3 Trends about employees’ environmental concern between year 2002 and 2010. Asterisk indicatesthe horizontal axis covers years; the vertical axis explains the level of agreeing/disagreeing with single items(1, strongly agree; 9, strongly disagree)


123

The general trend reveals on average equal employees’ ethical concerns with insig-

nificant changes, F(4,903) = 1.260, p [ 0.05. These findings suggest rejecting 1a.

The general trend of employees’ concern especially for the economic performance has

decreasing tendency with significant changes, F(4,901) = 4.533, p \ 0.05. These findings

support 1b.

The general trend of employees’ environmental concerns has increasing tendency with

insignificant changes, F(4,903) = 2.210, p [ 0.05. These findings suggest rejecting 1c.

The general trend of employees’ social concerns reveals on average equal concerns with

insignificant changes, F(4,904) = 0.243, p [ 0.05. These findings suggest rejecting 1d.

,00

,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

SOC 1

SOC 2

SOC 3

SOC 4

Fig. 4 Trends about employees’ concern for society between 2002 and 2010. Asterisk indicates thehorizontal axis covers years; vertical axis explains the level of agreeing/disagreeing with single item (1,strongly agree; 9, strongly disagree)

,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Ethics

Society

Environment

Economic

Fig. 5 Trends about ethical perceptions, environmental concern, economic orientation, and concern forsociety between 2002 and 2010. Asterisk indicates the horizontal axis covers years; vertical axis covers thelevel of agreeing/disagreeing (1, strongly agree; 9, strongly disagree)


123

Research Results: The Impact of Employees’ Ethical Attitudes on Their SR Concerns

Basic descriptive statistics and correlations between the studied variables are presented in

Table 1.

These findings suggest a deeper examination of the association between employees’

ethical attitudes and their SR concerns. We used hierarchical regression analysis; model 1

examines the impact of demographic variables on employees’ SR concerns, while model 2

presents the impact of employees’ ethical perceptions on their SR concerns.

First, we examine the impact of employees’ ethical perceptions on their attitudes toward

giving priority to economic results (see Table 2).

Results show that demographic variables accounted for 3.4 % of the variance in

employees’ attitudes toward giving priority to economic results. Entry of employees’

ethical perceptions increased explained variance in their attitudes toward giving priority to

economic results by 5.7 % points to a total of 9.2 %. This increase is significant by the F

Change test, F(1,877) = 55.447, p \ 0.001.

ANOVA results reveal that the selected demographic variables significantly influence

employees’ attitudes towards giving priority to economic results, F(6,878) = 5.211,

p \ 0.001. Entering of employees’ ethical perceptions reveals their significant influence on

employees’ attitudes towards giving priority to economic results, F(7,877) = 12.664,

p \ 0.001.

Standardized regression coefficients reveal: the more important are ethical standards for

employees, less they strive only towards economic performance (b = -0.242; p \ 0.001).

This results support hypothesis 2a.

The relationship between employees’ ethical perceptions and their attitudes about

giving priority to economic results is mediated by gender and working experiences. Thus,

females are less concentrated only on achieving economic performance than males

(b = 0.118; p \ 0.001); employees with more working experiences are less concerned

only for achieving economic performance (b = 0.192; p \ 0.05).

Second, we examine the impact of employees’ ethical perceptions on their attitudes

toward concern for environment (see Table 3).

The results show that demographic variables accounted only for 1.5 % of the variance

in employees’ attitudes toward environmental concern. Entry of employees’ ethical per-

ceptions increased the explained variance in employees’ attitudes toward concern for

environment by 26.8 points to 28.3 %. This increase is significant by the F change test,

F(1,878) = 328.765, p \ 0.001.

ANOVA results reveal: selected demographic variables significantly influence

employees’ attitudes toward environmental concern, F(6,879) = 2.191, p \ 0.05. Entering

of employees’ ethical perceptions reveals that they significantly influence employees’

attitudes toward environmental concern, F(7,878) = 49.544, p \ 0.001.


employees, more they concern about environment (b = 0.522; p \ 0.001). This supports

hypothesis 2b.

Single demographic variables do not significantly mediate the relationship between

employees’ ethical perceptions and their attitudes about environmental concern, although

their impact as a whole (as model 1) is significant.

Third, we examine the impact of employees’ ethical perceptions on their attitudes

toward concern for society (see Table 4).

Results show that demographic variables explained only 0.5 % of the variance in

employees’ attitudes toward concern for society. Entry of employees’ ethical perceptions


123

Ta

ble

1M

ean

s,st

andar

dd

evia

tio

ns,

and

corr

elat

ion

s

Var

iab

leM

SD

12

34

56

78

9

Ag

e3

8.4

59

.87

Gen

der

1.6

40

.48

-0

.173

**

Ed

uca

tio

n3

.35

0.8

00

.017

0.0

29

Po

siti

on

1.5

20

.84

0.1

63

**

-0

.13

2*

*0

.233

**

Wo

rkin

gex

per

ience

15

.90

9.6

10

.938

**

-0

.16

6*

*-

0.0

52

0.1

46

**

En

terp

rise

size

1.5

30

.72

0.0

66

*-

0.0

05

-0

.045

-0

.028

0.0

91

**

Eth

ics

3.1

01

.25

-0

.081

*-

0.0

17

0.0

13

-0

.006

-0

.11

1*

*-

0.0

72

*

Eco

nom

ics

5.2

11

.33

0.1

04

**

0.1

11

**

0.0

01

0.0

18

0.1

20

**

-0

.032

-0

.262

**

En

vir

on

men

t2

.83

1.4

2-

0.0

94

**

0.0

39

0.0

19

0.0

00

-0

.10

2*

*-

0.0

69

*0

.554

**

-0

.315

**

So

ciet

y3

.08

1.2

5-

0.0

18

-0

.02

80

.014

0.0

57

-0

.02

4-

0.0

26

0.6

93

**

-0

.217

**

0.5

35

**

n=

89

4–9

07

,d

ue

toth

em

issi

ng

val

ues

*p\

0.0

5

**

p\

0.0

01


123

increased the explained variance in their attitudes toward concern for society by 32.3

points to 32.8 %. This increase is significant by the F Change test, F(1,879) = 422.640,

p \ 0.001.

Table 2 Hierarchical regression analysis of employees’ ethical behavior on their attitudes toward givingpriority to economic results

Model R2 DR2 b t Sig.

Demographic variables 0.034 0.034

Age -0.076 -0.789 0.430

Gender 0.118 3.579 0.000

Education 0.012 0.356 0.722

Position in organization 0.014 0.406 0.685

Working experience 0.192 1.992 0.047

Organizational size -0.056 -1.734 0.083

SR aspect 0.092 0.057

Giving priority to economic results -0.242 -7.446 0.000

Table 3 Hierarchical regression analysis of employees’ ethical behavior on their attitudes toward envi-ronmental concern



Age -0.092 -1.076 0.282

Gender 0.051 1.744 0.081

Education 0.015 0.483 0.629

Position in organization -0.002 -0.059 0.953


Organizational size -0.030 -1.056 0.291

SR aspect 0.283 0.268

Environmental concern 0.522 18.132 0.000

Table 4 Hierarchical regression analysis of employees’ ethical behavior on their attitudes toward concernfor society



Age -0.083 -1.000 0.318

Gender -0.004 -0.137 0.891

Education 0.000 -0.011 0.992

Position in organization 0.045 1.566 0.118


Organizational size 0.015 0.547 0.585

SR aspect 0.328 0.323

Giving priority to economic results 0.573 20.558 0.000


123

ANOVA results reveal that selected demographic variables (model 1) have no signifi-

cant influence on employees’ attitudes toward concern for society, F(6,880) = 0.693,

p [ 0.05. Entering of employees’ ethical perceptions reveals that they significantly

influence employees’ attitudes toward concern for society, F(7,879) = 61.256, p \ 0.001.


employees, higher is their concern for the society (b = 0.573; p \ 0.001). This supports

hypothesis 2c.

Single demographic variables do not significantly mediate the relationship between

employees’ ethical perceptions and their attitudes about social concern.

Evidently, employees’ ethical perceptions most strongly impact their attitudes towards

societal and environmental concerns, while the impact on their attitudes regarding giving

priority to economic results is half of the other two. Demographic variables have some

mediating effect on the relationship between employees’ ethical perceptions and their

attitudes toward economic orientations (gender and working experiences). Other relations

are not influenced.

Conclusions

Enterprises can better assure their existence and long-term development, if they perma-

nently innovate their working.

To investigate the enterprises we can use numerous solutions, which can help us achieve

different levels of holism and realism of consideration of the selected topic. By creation of

more holistic consideration we can overcome the people’s lack of systemic thinking that

results from their narrow specialization and lack of capacity for interdisciplinary co-

operation including dealing with broader horizons and socially responsible business.

The possible solution for more holistic consideration of CSR and for necessary

employees’ behavior aimed at practicing SR lies in the creation of consideration, which

can enable research of behavior factors, including business ethics. Our postulated

hypotheses are tested by determining employees’ perception of ethical behavior, and

employees’ perception of the selected aspects regarding CSR in Slovenian organizations.

Summarizing the findings we can conclude that employees think that ethical and

environmental concern is important for CSR. Employees estimate economic and social

concern as less important for enterprise business. Trends about their concern for SR aspects

also enable us to conclude that there is a potential for increasing CSR in Slovenian

organizations. Employees’ perception about importance and influence of ethical behavior

for SR show, that employees’ ethical attitudes positively and significantly impact their

attitudes toward social and environmental concerns, and negatively and significantly

impact their attitudes toward giving priority to economic results. Their concrete actions

depend seriously on their VCEN.

References

Axelrod L, Lehman D (1993) Responding to environmental concerns: what factors guide individual action?J Environ Psychol 13(2):149–159

Beer S (1979) The heart of enterprises. Wiley, LondonBertalanffy L (1968) General systems theory, foundations, development, applications. Brazillier, New YorkBrooks L, Dunn P (2011) Business & professional ethics. South-Western College, Cincinnati


123

Buchanan D, Huczynski A (2010) Organizational behavior. Pearson, HarlowBurns D (2007) Systemic action research: the strategy for whole systems change. Policy Press, BristolClayton T, Radcliffe N (1996) Sustainability: a systems approach. Routledge, LondonCordano M, Welcomer S, Scherer R, Pradenas L, Parada V (2010) A cross-cultural assessment of three

theories of pro-environmental behavior: a comparison between business students of Chile and UnitedStates. J Environ Educ 41:224–238

Crane A, Matten D (2010) Business ethics: managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age ofglobalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Cypher J, Dietz J (2008) The process of economic development. Taylor & Francis, New YorkDavis G, Whitman N, Zald N (2008) The responsibility paradox. Stanf Soc Innov Rev 6(1):31–37Delios A (2010) How can organizations be competitive but dare to care? Acad Manag Perspect 24(3):25–36Dietz T, Fitzgerlad A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental values. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30(1):335–372Dunlap R, Van Liere K (1978) The new environmental paradigm: a proposed measuring instrument and

preliminary results. J Environ Educ 9(1):10–19Dunlap R, Gallup G, Gallup A (1993) Of global concern: results of the health of the planet survey.

Environment 35:7–39Dunphy D, Benveniste J, Griffiths A, Sutton P (2000) Sustainability: the corporate challenge of the 21st

century. Allen & Unwin, SydneyElkington J (2004) Enter the triple bottom line. In: Henriques J, Richardson J (eds) The triple bottom line:

does it all add up. Earthscan, London, pp 1–16England G (1967) Personal value systems of American managers. Acad Manag J 10(1):53–68Epstein M, Elkington J, Leonardo H (2008) Making sustainability work: best practices in managing and

measuring corporate social, environmental and economic impacts. Berrett-Koehler, San FranciscoEuropean Union (EU) (2011) Communication from the commission to the European parliament: a renewed

EU strategy 2011–14 for corporate social responsibility. European Commission, BrusselsFlood R (2010) The relationship of ‘‘systems thinking’’ to action research. Syst Pract Action Res

23(4):269–284Francois C (ed) (2004) International encyclopedia of systems and cybernetics. K.G. Saur, MunichFransson N, Garling T (1999) Environmental concern: conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and

research findings. J Environ Psychol 19:369–382Giddings B, Hopwood B, O’Brien G (2002) Environment, economy, and society: fitting them together into

sustainable development. Sustain Dev 10(4):187–196. doi:10.1002/sd.199Greenwood D, Levin M (1998) Introduction in action research: social research for social change. SAGE

Publications, Thousand OaksHo R (2006) Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. Chapman

& Hall/CRC, Boca RatonHardjosoekarto S (2012) Construction of social development index as a theoretical research practice in

action research by using soft systems methodology. Syst Pract Action Res. doi:10.1007/s11213-012-9237-9

Holme R, Watts R (2000) Corporate social responsibility: making good business sense. World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development, Geneva

ISO (2010) ISO 26000. http://www.iso.org/iso/discovering_iso_26000.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun 2012Karp D (1996) Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environ Behav 28(1):111–133Kemmelmeier M, Krol G, Hun Kim Y (2002) Values, economics, and pro-environmental attitudes in 22

societies. Cross-Cult Res 36:256–285Lewin K (1946) Action research and minority problems. J Soc Issues 2:34–36Matten D, Moon J (2008) ‘‘Implicit’’ and ‘‘explicit’’ CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative

understanding of corporate social responsibility. Acad Manag Rev 33:404–424Morton A (1999) Ethics in action research. Syst Pract Action Res 12(2):219–222Nordlund A, Garvill J (2002) Value structures behind pro-environmental behavior. Environ Behav

34:740–756OECD (2011) Guidelines for multinational enterprises. OECD, ParisOreg S, Katz-Gerro T (2006) Predicting pro-environmental behavior cross-nationally. Environ Behav

38:462–483Ralston D, Holt D, Terpstra R, Kai-Cheng Y (2007) The impact of national culture and economic ideology

on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. J Int Bus Stud28:177–207

Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. Free Press, New YorkSchultz W, Zelezny L (1999) Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: evidence for consistency

across 14 countries. J Environ Psychol 19:255–265


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.199

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-012-9237-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-012-9237-9

http://www.iso.org/iso/discovering_iso_26000.pdf

Schwartz M (2011) Corporate social responsibility: an ethical approach. Broadview Press, PeterboroughSwenson D, Rigoni D (1999) Ethical problem solving and systems theory: the complexity connection. Syst

Pract Action Res 12(6):573–584Thompson S, Barton M (1994) Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. J Environ

Psychol 14:149–157United Nations (UN) (2011) The UN guiding principles on business and human rights. UN Human Rights

Council, GenevaWalker B, Haslett T (2002) Action research in management—ethical dilemmas. Syst Pract Action Res

15(6):523–533


123

The Influence of Employees’ Ethical Behavior on Enterprises’ Social Responsibility

Documents

Transcript of The Influence of Employees’ Ethical Behavior on Enterprises’ Social Responsibility