Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal

National cultural values, sustainability beliefs, and organizational

initiatives
Jasmine Tata Sameer Prasad
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jasmine Tata Sameer Prasad , (2015),"National cultural values, sustainability beliefs, and organizational initiatives",
Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 2 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCM-03-2014-0028
Downloaded on: 15 April 2015, At: 11:49 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 41 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Jesse Olsen, (2015),"Societal values and individual values in reward allocation preferences", Cross Cultural Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 2 pp. -
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

Michael Minkov, Michael Harris Bond, Vesselin Blagoev, (2015),"Do different national samples yield similar dimensions of
national culture?", Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 2 pp. -
jeevan Jyoti, Sumeet Kour, (2015),"Assessing the cultural intelligence and task performance equation: mediating role of
cultural adjustment", Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 2 pp. -

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 235889 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all.
Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio
of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of
online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on
Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 National cultural values, sustainability beliefs, and organizational initiatives

Introduction

Sustainability has become an important issue for businesses today. Organizations strive to implement

sustainability initiatives as part of their corporate strategy by adopting and implementing “activities that meet

the needs of the enterprise and its stakeholders today while protecting, sustaining, and enhancing the human,

[social], and natural resources that will be needed in the future” (Labuschagne

et al., 2005, p. 374). Implementing sustainability initiatives in different countries and regions of the world,
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

however, is not an easy task. Organizations need to be cognizant of the socio-cultural differences

underpinning the interpretation and evaluation of sustainability initiatives across countries. Socio-cultural

values can influence how people utilize their natural resources as well as their willingness to pursue

sustainability practices (Cohen & Nelson, 1994); “if people are more culturally conscious of [social and]

environmental conditions, a higher level of sustainability [results]” (Park et al., 2007, p. 105). Hence,

sustainability may be context-specific, with national culture playing a significant role in influencing how

a society expects organizations and businesses to implement social and environmental issues (Ringov &

Zollo, 2007). Given such cultural differences, organizations need to tailor their sustainability initiatives to

the local context.

The objectives of this research are to add to the emerging literature on sustainability in

organizations and to provide a prescription to multinationals implementing cross-country sustainability

initiatives. Our model fulfils these objectives by examining mediating variables, such as sustainability

beliefs and perceptions, that explain the relationship between national cultural values and organizational

sustainability initiatives. Two sustainability beliefs and perceptions are examined in the model:

importance or the perceived benefits of sustainability and inconvenience or the perceived costs of

sustainability. The model also includes two moderating variables: the sustainability orientation of

organizations and organizational capacity to engage in sustainability initiatives.

 This model addresses three main limitations of the current literature. First, although several articles

(e.g., Jackson & Apostolakau, 2009; Mueller et al., 2007; Rao, 2000) have conducted comparisons of

sustainability practices between two or more countries, most have not specifically examined the influence of

national culture on those practices. For example, Jackson & Apostolakau (2009) compared sustainability

practices across 16 countries and Rao (2000) across four countries, but neither study specifically included

national culture in their analyses. The few studies that do include culture as a variable show inconsistent

findings; for example, some studies (Husted, 2005, Vachon, 2010) found that cultural values such as

individualism positively influenced sustainability, whereas others (Waldman et al., 2006) found that they
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

negatively influenced sustainability. The model developed in this paper can help clarify such inconsistencies

in the literature on national culture and sustainability. Second,

the few studies on culture and sustainability have only examined whether or not there is a link between

national culture and sustainability, they have not investigated how national cultural values influence

sustainability initiatives. Our model identifies explanatory mechanisms that clarify how culture can

influence sustainability through the mediating influence of sustainability beliefs and perceptions and how

these differences in beliefs can result in different sustainability initiatives. Third, the studies on national

cultural values and sustainability have largely focused on sustainability at the societal level. It is

important to also understand how national culture can influence sustainability at the organizational level.

Our model elucidates the factors that contribute to an organization’s implementation of various

sustainability initiatives. This is especially important for multinational corporations that operate in

different countries and regions of the world because such organizations need to pay special attention to

the environmental and social impact of global operations and ensure that such issues are an integral part

of their strategic decision making process. Overall, our model can help researchers and managers better

understand the meaning of sustainability in the context of international business, and increase their

understanding of potential antecedents of successful sustainable development efforts across countries and

cultures.
 Conceptual model

The Brundtland Commission defined sustainability as “that which meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on

Economic Development, 1987, p. 8). This definition has been adapted by scholars for the organizational

context. Sustainable organizations can be considered those that “can sustain financial, human, social, and

environmental resources over the long-term” (Bradbury, 2003, p. 173); these organizations play a

significant role in sustainability in various ways: through the transfer of sustainability technology,

through the education and training of employees, and through the development of local communities.
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

Our model proposes that national cultural values can influence sustainability beliefs and

perceptions, which in turn influence the sustainability initiatives implemented by organizations. Thus,

sustainability beliefs and perceptions can act as mediators in the relationship between national culture and

organizational sustainability initiatives, and provide one possible explanation for how cultural values can

influence sustainability initiatives. In addition, the model suggests that the relationship between

sustainability beliefs and sustainability initiatives is moderated by the sustainability orientation of

organizations and by organizational capacity (i.e., the information and resources available to the

organization about sustainability issues and practices). The model goes on to propose relationships

between five dimensions of national cultural values (power distance, individualism-collectivism,

masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term versus short-term orientation), sustainability

beliefs (perceived importance and perceived inconvenience of sustainability), and the scope, type, and

number of sustainability initiatives. (See Figure I for the model).

_____________________

Insert Figure I about here.

_____________________

The next section examines the various components of the model and describes the literature

relating to each component. In addition, it discusses the relationships among the main constructs and

formulates propositions that depict those relationships.

 National cultural values

“Culture . . . consists of ways of perceiving, thinking, and deciding that have worked

in the past and have become institutionalized in standard operating procedures,

customs, scripts and unstated assumptions that guide behavior” (Triandis, 1995, p. 12).

Culture is defined as beliefs and values that are widely shared in a specific society at a particular

point in time (Ralston, 1993), as shared behavior patterns (Mead, 1976), as values, ideas and other

symbolic behavior-shaping systems transmitted in a given society (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952), and “as

the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one group of people from another” (Hofstede,
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

2001, p. 40). An important aspect of culture is that it consists of shared knowledge, beliefs, values, and

goals that guide human activity (Hofstede, 2001).

Several theory-based schemas (e.g., Hofstede, 1980, 2005; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961;

Inkeles & Levinson, 1969) have specified dimensions of national culture. We use Hofstede’s schema

since this is the one used by most research examining culture and sustainability (e.g., Cox et al., 2011, Ho

et al., 2012, Husted, 2005, Park et al., 2007, Ringov & Zollo, 2007, Vachon, 2010). Hofstede identified

five cultural dimensions that can be used to differentiate among national cultures: power distance,

individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, long-term versus short-term orientation, and

uncertainty avoidance. Each of these dimensions is briefly described below:

Power distance.

This dimension of national culture refers to the degree of inequality of power within an

organization or society; it is “the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations

within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede, 1997, p. 28). This is not

only endorsed by followers, but also by leaders. High power distance systems are hierarchical ones that

are established through the values of both parties who desire superiors to exert power and make decisions.

In low power distance cultures, people are less likely to tolerate such inequalities and more likely to

disagree with more powerful others.

 Individualism-collectivism.

This refers to the extent to which cultures focus on the self versus the group. Individualistic

cultures emphasize individual initiative, individual rights, and freedom of choice. In such cultures, ties

between individuals are loose and membership in groups can change frequently. Collectivistic cultures

emphasize group goals, sharing, duties and obligations; individuals in such cultures place the interests of

the group over their own interests.

Masculinity-femininity.
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

These values reference a focus on material success rather than quality of life (Hofstede, 1980);

they are the social manifestation of the elements of individual personality and behavior frequently

associated with human gender (Park et al., 2007). In cultures high in masculinity there is a focus on the

pursuit of material goals and dominance. In contrast, cultures high in femininity emphasize nurturance,

affiliation, helpfulness and quality of life.

Orientation toward time.

This describes how cultures differ in the degree to which they focus on the future. In long-term

oriented cultures, there is a greater emphasis on future-oriented values such as perseverance, thrift, and

willingness to subordinate oneself for a purpose (Hofstede, 1993). In short-term oriented cultures values

such as personal stability, expectation of quick results, and keeping up with others are considered to be

more important.

Uncertainty avoidance.

This dimension of national culture is defined as the “extent to which members of a culture feel

threatened by uncertainty and unknown situations” (Hofstede, 1997, p. 113); it refers to the degree to

which a culture tolerates ambiguity and situational demands. In high uncertainty avoidance cultures
 people prefer to avoid ambiguous situations and feel uncomfortable without the structure of rules and

regulations; low uncertainty avoidance cultures reflect openness to change and propensity to take risks.

Researchers have examined country-level differences in aspects of sustainability such as

environmental innovation, environmental management, social involvement, and fair labor practices. For

example, Rao (2000) found differences in environmental management systems between the Philippines,

Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, and Jackson and Apostolakou (2009) found differences in environmental

and social sustainability practices across 16 countries. In contrast, Lindell and Karagozoghu (2001) found no

differences in the degree of environmental orientation between the U.S. and Nordic countries, and Mueller et
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

al. (2007) found no significant differences in sustainability practices between German and New Zealand

companies. Other researchers have investigated country-level

variability in people’s attitudes about the environment and conservation. For example, Kellert (1996) found

that people in Japan were less interested in ecological processes and wildlife conservation, whereas those in

Germany were more interested in the protection of wildlife. The research discussed above,

however, did not measure cultural values nor did it connect sustainability practices to national culture.

A few scholars have examined the relationship between national cultural values and

sustainability. The results of these studies, however, show inconsistent findings. (See Table I for a

summary.) For example, Husted (2005) measured social and institutional capacity for environmental

sustainability with GNPC (Gross National Product per Capita) and population growth as control

variables. He found individualism, masculinity and power distance to be related to institutional capacity

and concluded that “egalitarianism, individualism and feminine values appear to constitute ‘green’ or

‘sustainable’ values” (p. 356). Park et al. (2007) examined the influence of culture on the relationship

between GNPC and environmental sustainability. They found that cultures high in femininity and low in

power distance had higher levels of environmental sustainability, but did not find any influence of

individualism. Similarly, Cox et al. (2011) found a relationship between power distance and the

interaction of GDPC (Gross Domestic Product per Capita) and environmental sustainability, and but did

not identify any relationships with uncertainty avoidance or masculinity.

 ____________________

Insert Table I about here

____________________

As indicated in Table I, the current literature does not provide a clear picture of how national

cultural values influence sustainability practices. For example, Husted (2005) and Vachon (2010) found a

positive relationship between individualistic values and sustainability, whereas Waldman et al. (2006)

found a negative relationship. Further, Park et al. (2007) and Ringov and Zollo (2007) found no

significant relationship between individualism and sustainability. Similarly, Ho et al. (2012) found a
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

positive relationship between masculinity cultural values and environmental sustainability, whereas Park

et al. (2007) and Ringov and Zollo (2007) found a negative relationship; Vachon (2010) found no

significant relationship. We suggest that these inconsistent findings might be better understood by

examining how national cultural values influence sustainability initiatives through the mechanism of

sustainability beliefs and perceptions.

The influence of national cultural values on sustainability beliefs and perceptions

The values inherent in national cultural systems can influence beliefs and perceptions, and provide

guidelines as to what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behavior and practice (Rokeach, 1973). Values

are broad-based, whereas beliefs, attitudes and perceptions are oriented toward specific objects and situations

(Ajzen, 1991). Behaviors can be considered manifestations of values and attitudes. The literature suggests

that specific beliefs and attitudes often mediate the relationship between values and behavior (Alwitt & Ritts,

1996). Thus, national cultural values held by members of a society can influence more specific beliefs

specific to the functioning of organizations (Waldman et al., 2006).

National culture consists of fundamental values that people have about the world around them.

These influence the formation of their beliefs and perceptions about sustainability, along with their

propensity to engage in sustainable behavior and practices. Broad constructs such as national cultural values

are unlikely to directly influence organizational sustainability practices; rather, national culture is
 more likely to affect specific constructs such as beliefs and attitudes, which in turn influence behavior and

practices (McCarty & Shrum, 2001). Similar to McCarty and Shrum, we propose that two sustainability

beliefs and perceptions (importance and inconvenience) will act as mediators of the relationship between

national cultural values and sustainability initiatives. Importance refers to the perceived benefits of

engaging in sustainability initiatives (e.g., long-term benefits to the environment and society);

inconvenience refers to the perceived costs of sustainability (e.g., time and resources).

Researchers have examined the influence of national culture on beliefs and attitudes about

sustainability and have identified country-level variability in people’s attitudes about the environment.
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

Lindell and Karogozoghu (2001) examined managerial attitudes and values toward the environment, and

Leszuzynska (2010) measured ecological awareness as knowledge, values and attitudes concerning

environmental issues. Park et al. (2007) proposed that “[culture can] influence how people utilize their

natural resources and environments by shaping their attitudes and perceptions” (p. 105). Indeed, the

impact of culture on normative beliefs about morally-correct behavior can act as mechanisms for

environmental beliefs and behavior (Cohen & Nelson, 1994). Such beliefs are reflected in perceptions of

appropriate conduct in a society and can significantly differ across cultures. Hence it is proposed:

Proposition 1: National cultural values will influence beliefs and perceptions about the

importance and inconvenience of sustainability.

Next, we examine the influence of Hofstede’s five dimensions of national cultural values on

sustainability beliefs and perceptions. Table II provides examples of sustainability beliefs and perceptions

for each dimension.

____________________

Insert Table II about here

____________________
 Power distance and sustainability beliefs and perceptions

Values concerning power and hierarchies can influence beliefs and perceptions of sustainability.

People in high power distance cultures are more likely to accept social inequities as an inevitable part of

society and less likely to perceive sustainability as important. In such cultures, people tend to accept that

with authority comes inequality and are more willing to put up with inequality (Williams & Zinkin,

2008). Power distance values indicate that those in positions of power are, by their very position, more

equal than others and thus entitled to unique privileges according to their rank and status (Waldman et al.,

2006). High power distance societies are likely to be “prone to the manipulative use of power, a lack of
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

equal opportunities for minorities and women, a lack of personal or professional development within the

organization” (Waldman et al., 2006, p. 826). These values are likely to result in high level managers in

position of power who lack concern for the communities in which they operate (Carl et al., 2004) as well as

the welfare of employees, and are less likely to perceive sustainability as an important issue. Societies with

high power distance are more likely to accept poor working conditions which can lead to social

inequity in organizations (Scholtens & Dam, 2007). Such societies are characterized by organizations that

are highly structured and hierarchical, with organizational decisions based on favoritism and loyalty

rather than merit. Therefore, such cultures are less likely to perceive human rights or employee equity as

important.

Katz et al. (2001) argued that “a higher level of power distance suggests less concern about the

environment than the opposing case. Historically, cultures with higher levels of power distance have not

emphasized human intervention in the natural environment” (p. 158). Hence, the respect for authority

embedded in high power distance cultures can result in less capacity for debate and weaker business

responses to environmental and social problems (Katz et al., 2001), as opposed to low power distance

cultures. In support of this, empirical research has found that societies with higher levels of power

distance present a greater degree of acceptance of polluted environments. Power distance has also been

negatively linked to environmental performance as measured by the Environmental Sustainability Index

 developed by the World Economic Forum (Cox et al., 2011; Husted, 2005; Park et al, 2007). Similarly,

Vachon (2010) found that higher power distance was linked to fewer corporate environmental practices.

In contrast, in low power distance cultures, social and human sustainability initiatives are more

likely to be openly discussed and perceived as important. Such cultures stress egalitarianism and put social

pressure on managers to minimize inequities, whether in terms of society or the environment. In such

cultures, sustainability is more likely to be perceived as important. Therefore, it was proposed:

Proposition 2: Beliefs and perceptions about the importance of sustainability are likely to

be stronger in low power distance cultures than in high power distance cultures.
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

Individualism-collectivism and sustainability beliefs and perceptions

The relationship between individualism-collectivism and sustainability beliefs and practices is a

complex one. Managing the environment for sustainability is a collective enterprise in which benefits to the

collective should outweigh costs to the few. Collectivists, who place the interests of the group first,

are more likely to believe in the importance of sustainability. Collectivists’ beliefs and attitudes promote a

willingness to share scarce resources, support what is best for society as a whole and are more consistent

with protection of the environment and development of society (McCarty & Schrum, 2001). Thus,

individuals in collectivistic cultures are more likely to perceive sustainability as an important goal for

society.

In contrast, the self-interest emphasis in individualistic cultures is less likely to be consistent

with beliefs that support sustainability. Managers from individualistic cultures are less likely to

demonstrate concern about the impact of their firm on society (Ringov & Zollo, 2007). In such cultures

managers might believe that shareholders should be put ahead of other stakeholders (Hampden-Turner &

Trompenaars, 2000), whereas in collectivistic cultures there is likely to be focus on other stakeholders

such as employees and the community, as well as on shareholders. In support of this, researchers found

that French-Canadians (more collectivistic) expressed greater concern for the environment and expressed

more pro-environmental beliefs and attitudes compared to Anglo-Canadians (more individualistic)

 (Laroche et al., 2002; Mourali et al., 2005). Owens and Viders (2006) examined attitudes and behavior

toward the environment in 30 countries and found that pro-environmental attitudes and willingness to pay

higher taxes to support the environment were related to civic cooperation, a component of collectivism.

Ng and Burke (2010) found that individuals higher in collectivism had more positive attitudes toward the

environment.

In addition, individualistic cultures tend to emphasize the relationship between self-interests and

practices. Such values stress “contractual relationships based on the principles of exchange. People

calculate profit and loss before engaging in a behavior” (Sinha & Verma, 1987, p. 124). Since
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

sustainability initiatives are less likely to result in immediate benefits, individualistic cultures are more

likely to focus on the immediate costs and times involved in sustainability initiatives, and perceive such

initiatives as inconvenient. Collectivistic cultures are more likely to focus on benefits to the collective as a

whole and less likely to perceive sustainability as inconvenient. In support of this, McCarty and Schrum

(2001) examined the influence of individualistic and collectivistic values on environmental beliefs and

found that individualism was related to beliefs about the inconvenience of recycling. Hence, it

was proposed:

Proposition 3: Beliefs and perceptions about the importance of sustainability are likely to

be stronger in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures.

Proposition 4: Beliefs and perceptions about the inconvenience of sustainability are

likely to be stronger in individualistic cultures than in collectivistic cultures.

Masculinity-femininity and sustainability beliefs and perceptions

Cultures with values high in femininity that emphasize nurturance, affiliation, helpfulness and

quality of life are more likely to believe in the importance of initiatives that promote the environment and

benefit society. In such cultures there is a greater belief in helping the weak as measured by aid to

developing countries, and life satisfaction takes precedence over job satisfaction (Katz et al., 2001). In

contrast, cultures high in masculinity tend to focus on the relative importance of assertiveness,
 materialism and individual achievement, managers from such cultures are less likely to focus on caring

for the needs of the community, cooperation with local communities, and social support, and are less

likely to hold beliefs about the importance of sustainability. In support of this, Husted (2005) found that

masculinity cultural values negatively influence the social and environmental capacity of nations. Park et

al. (2007) found that masculinity was negatively related to a country’s Environmental Sustainability

Index.

Masculinity values focus on the pursuit of material benefits and create “a preference for economic

growth over environmental conservation” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 32). This is likely to result in beliefs about
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

sustainability as an inconvenient obstacle to economic expansion. People in such cultures may ignore

environmental risks and skirt inconvenient regulations (such as environmental regulations) that interfere

with achieving material success. For example, in Mexico, environmental protection may be a salient issue

due to the number of multinationals, but economic issues often take priority (Katz et al., 2001), perhaps

because of high masculinity cultural values. Thus, it was proposed:

Proposition 5: Beliefs and perceptions about the importance of sustainability are likely to

be stronger in cultures high in femininity than in cultures high in masculinity.

Proposition 6: Beliefs and perceptions about the inconvenience of sustainability are

likely to be stronger in cultures high in masculinity than in cultures high in femininity.

Long-term versus short-term orientation and sustainability beliefs and perceptions

In long-term oriented cultures, managers believe in the importance of making sacrifices that bring

in future benefits to the organization and to society; in short-term cultures managers may be more likely

to believe in the here and now and focus on immediate returns, even at the expense of future gains.

Sustainability, by its very definition, is inherently long-term oriented, and managers in such cultures are

more likely to believe in giving up immediate benefits so as to achieve environmental protection for the

benefit of future generations. Societies with high long-term orientations also value long term commitment

and respect for tradition, and believe in the importance of future benefits over immediate gratification. In
 such cultures, greater attention is paid to developing employees and communities, building relationships,

and maintaining bonds. Hence, such cultures are likely to hold beliefs about the importance of social and

environmental sustainability.

In contrast, short-term oriented cultures may underscore short-term gratification and immediate

returns on time and effort. People in such cultures are likely to prefer immediate economic gains at the

expense of future environmental benefits. Since the costs of sustainability are more likely to be

immediate, and the benefits may not be realized until well into the future, short-term oriented cultures,

with their focus on the here and now, are likely to hold beliefs about the inconvenience of sustainability.
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

Therefore, it was proposed:

Proposition 7: Beliefs and perceptions about the importance of sustainability are likely to

be stronger in long-term oriented cultures than in short-term oriented cultures.

Proposition 8: Beliefs and perceptions about the inconvenience of sustainability are

likely to be stronger in short-term oriented cultures than in long-term oriented cultures.

Uncertainty avoidance and sustainability beliefs and perceptions

High uncertainty avoidance cultures are likely to desire predictability which can result in less

likelihood of deviating from societal norms and a greater likelihood of conforming to those norms. Such

cultures are likely to have organizational barriers to innovation (Ringov & Zollo, 2007). Since

sustainability is likely to result in significant changes to organizational procedures, the thought of

implementing sustainability may bring to mind the large number of inconveniences associated with new

ways of doing things and changes in protocol. Hence, sustainability is likely to be perceived as risky,

costly, and inconvenient in high uncertainty avoidance cultures.

Empirical studies examining sustainability in the context of uncertainty avoidance show mixed

results. Some have found no significant link between uncertainty avoidance and environmental activities

(Hewett et al., 2006; Husted, 2005; Park et al., 2007). Other studies have found a few significant results;

for example, Scholtens and Dams, (2007) determined that uncertainty avoidance was positively linked to
 human rights practices but negatively linked to environmental innovation, and Vachon (2010) found that

uncertainty avoidance was negatively linked to environmental, human, and social sustainability. We posit

that these mixed findings may be due to differences in the perceived inconvenience of sustainability in

high and low uncertainty avoidance cultures. Perhaps managers from high uncertainty avoidance cultures

examine the risks inherent in either implementing or not implementing sustainability initiatives and

implement sustainability programs based on their sustainability beliefs. Thus, it was proposed:

Proposition 9: Beliefs and perceptions about the inconvenience of sustainability are

likely to be stronger in high uncertainty avoidance cultures than in low uncertainty

Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

avoidance cultures.

The influence of sustainability beliefs and perceptions on organizational sustainability initiatives

Sustainability beliefs and perceptions, in turn, influence how people in different cultures interpret the

meaning of sustainability and implement those practices. Hence, national cultural values can influence

organizational sustainability initiatives through the mediating influence of beliefs and perceptions about the

importance and inconvenience of sustainability. Next, we discuss three categories of sustainability initiatives

(environmental, social, and human) which can be influenced by beliefs and perceptions.

Environmental sustainability includes corporate environmental management. It emphasizes

operating within the carrying capacity of the ecosystem by reducing environmental pollution, resource

consumption, and the ecological footprint (Lindgreen et al., 2009), and consists of practices engaged in by

an organization that minimize its harm to the land, water, and air. Organizations may reduce the risk of

environmental accidents by training employees on processes, and engage in monitoring the environmental

impact of products, services and processes, or they can develop new, alternate processes that reduce waste

and emissions by using non-traditional materials (Lindgreen et al., 2009; Chow & Chen, 2012).

Social sustainability can be thought of as enhancing social welfare and promoting healthier

societies. This domain of sustainability consists of reducing social inequalities and improving quality of
 life; it includes a concern for the common good. It consists of practices that improve the health and safety

of communities, and focus on social impact and human rights (Bansal, 2005).

Human sustainability has been identified as a separate domain by a few scholars. This refers to

how organizational processes influence the physical and mental wellbeing of organizational members.

Pfeffer (2010) argued that “the health status of the workforce is a particularly relevant indicator of human

sustainability and well-being because there is evidence that many organizational decisions about how they

reward and manage their employees have profound effects on human health and mortality” (p. 36).

Human sustainability consists of practices such as working conditions, working hours, and the provision
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

of benefits such as health insurance (Pfeffer, 2010).

Beliefs and perceptions about sustainability influence the propensity to engage in sustainability

behaviors. Hence, beliefs about the importance of sustainability are likely to result in a higher level of

implementation of environmental, social, and human sustainability initiatives that safeguard the environment

for the future and help local communities. Such organizations are more likely to implement a

larger number of sustainability initiatives, as well as initiatives of a broader scope. Hence, it was

proposed:

Proposition 10: Beliefs and perceptions about the importance of sustainability are likely

to positively influence the quantity and scope of environmental, social, and human

sustainability initiatives implemented by organizations.

In contrast to beliefs about the importance of sustainability, beliefs about the inconvenience of

sustainability are likely to negatively influence sustainability practices. The focus on costs and other

inconveniences may come at the expense of sustainability; it can reduce responsiveness to environmental

problems and result in slower adaptation of costly environmental technology by firms, especially if the

benefits of such technology do not result in immediate material gain (Husted, 2005). Beliefs about the

inconvenience of sustainability can also hinder development programs such as those aimed at improving

communities and alleviating poverty because individuals who oversee those programs may not be as

concerned about program outcomes as about inconvenience; their professional advancement is more
 likely to be connected to the influence of high level sponsors than their job performance (Husted, 2005).

Environmental issues can be ignored in the name of efficiency; for example, political power holders in

some countries accept the environmental waste of other countries, thus increasing their own political or

material benefits to the detriment of their people (Lopez & Mitra, 2000). In organizations, instructions

from management to cut corners and use unsafe environmental practices are more likely when such

practices are perceived as costly and inconvenient. Therefore, it was proposed:

Proposition 11: Beliefs and perceptions about the inconvenience of sustainability are

likely to negatively influence the quantity and scope of environmental, social, and
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

human sustainability initiatives implemented by organizations.

Moderating effects of sustainability orientation and organizational capacity

Our model proposes that the relationship between sustainability beliefs and perceptions and

organizational sustainability initiatives is moderated by two constructs: sustainability orientation and

organizational capacity. Each of these is discussed below.

Sustainability orientation

This refers to the extent to which an organization demonstrates readiness to implement sustainability

initiatives. It is manifested through system alignment (i.e., the degree to which the company’s structure,

systems and processes are aligned around sustainability), centrality of sustainability to business strategy, and

the extent to which sustainability forms a core part of organizational identity (Wirtenberg et al., 2009).

Organizations differ in the extent to which they have developed systems to deal with environmental and social

issues and have established technologies to use in implementing sustainability. Some organizations may lack a

coherent sustainability strategy and systematic thinking about managing the social and environmental impact

of their processes. Others may have well-developed systems in place that enable them to examine the impact

of their processes and activities on sustainability. These organizations do not view sustainability narrowly as

an operations issue or human resources issue

 or legal issue; they look at it as a system-wide design and alignment that needs to be implemented in the

entire organization, and engage in actions such as capital investments, life cycle analyses, social and

environmental audits, employee training, labor practices, community outreach, supplier certifications,

public reporting, and risk management (Epstein, 2008).

An organization’s sustainability orientation is also manifested through the extent to which

sustainability is a core part of its identity. Organizational identity involves facets that describe the

enduring characteristics of an organization (Albert & Whetten, 1985) and plays an important role in the

success of the organization. For some organizations, sustainability is a core characteristic of

Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

organizational identity and consists of key facets of environmental, social, and human sustainability.

Because sustainability orientation can influence the ways in which sustainability issues and actions within

organizations are defined and interpreted, this can constrain or motivate organizational actions and

decision-making processes. Thus, a strong sustainability orientation, as manifested through organizational

systems alignment, and the centrality of sustainability to organizational strategy and identity, can enhance

the influence of the importance of sustainability on organizational sustainability initiatives. Similarly, a

weak sustainability orientation can attenuate this relationship. Therefore, it was proposed:

Proposition 12: Sustainability orientation is likely to moderate the relationship between

beliefs and perceptions about the importance and inconvenience of sustainability and the

quantity and scope of environmental, social, and human sustainability initiatives

implemented by organizations.

Organizational capacity

Organizations also differ in the extent to which they have the ability to implement sustainability

initiatives. A number of factors are essential to be able to implement such initiatives: human capacity,

availability of information, cooperation and collaboration from the various groups and individuals who are

essential to the initiative, as well as the finances to implement the initiatives (Wirtenberg et al., 2009).

Organizations need to have management and employees knowledgeable in sustainability issues, suppliers
 certified to sustainability standards, as well as funds available for developing and implementing effective

sustainability programs. Some organizations have the ability to analyze the risks, costs and benefits of

environmental and social issues and make well-informed decisions about current and future operations

and current and future risks. Other organizations struggle with developing measures and metrics of

sustainability (Epstein, 2008). Added to this, the benefits of sustainability can often be only measured

over a long time frame which makes it difficult for organizations to be able to measure the impact of

social and environmental programs and to quantify the benefits of such programs. Hence, the degree to

which an organization has the informational and analytical capacity to evaluate these issues may influence
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

the relationship between sustainability beliefs and perceptions and implementation of sustainability

initiatives. Thus, it was proposed:

Proposition 13: Organizational capacity is likely to moderate the relationship between

beliefs and perceptions about the importance and inconvenience of sustainability and the

quantity and scope of environmental, social, and human sustainability initiatives

implemented by organizations.

Discussion

This paper presents a model of the relationships between national cultural values, beliefs and

perceptions about sustainability, and organizational sustainability initiatives. The model suggests that

cultures low in power distance and high in collectivism, femininity, and long-term orientation are likely to

hold stronger beliefs about the importance of sustainability, and that cultures high in individualism,

masculinity, short-term orientation and uncertainty avoidance are likely to hold stronger beliefs about the

inconvenience of sustainability. Beliefs about the perceived importance and inconvenience of

sustainability are likely to influence the scope and number of sustainability initiatives implemented by

organizations, with beliefs about the importance of sustainability having a positive impact and beliefs

about the inconvenience of sustainability having a negative impact. The model also suggests that the

relationship between sustainability beliefs and perceptions and organizational sustainability initiatives is
 moderated by the sustainability orientation of the organization and by organizational capacity, such that

high levels of sustainability orientation and organizational capacity are likely to strengthen the link

between sustainability beliefs and organizational initiatives, and low levels of sustainability orientation

and organizational capacity are likely to weaken the relationship between beliefs and initiatives.

Suggestions for future research

The model developed in this paper can be the basis for future empirical studies examining the impact

of cultural values on sustainability initiatives. For example, researchers could conduct studies through which
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

they obtain measures of cultural value dimensions, beliefs and perceptions of the importance and

inconvenience of sustainability, and the quantity and scope of the sustainability initiatives

implemented by organizations. Measures of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions are available to researchers

(e.g., in Hofstede 2001), but scales would have to be developed to measure the other variables based on the

current literature. For example, Wirtenberg et al.’s work on sustainability orientation and

Chow and Chen’s (2012) measures of corporate sustainable development could be used as starting points

in the development of scales. Data could then be obtained by surveying the top management teams of

organizations. It might also be possible to obtain proprietary data about organizational sustainability

initiatives from independent agencies such as SAM (as indicated in Jackson & Apostolakou, 2009).

Once the data are obtained, multilevel path analyses might be necessary to test the proposed

model. Since some constructs (national cultural values and sustainability beliefs) would be measured at

the country level and others (organizational sustainability initiatives, sustainability orientation, and

organizational capacity) at the organizational level, hierarchical or cross-level techniques (e.g., HLM)

would be necessary to test the model (Luke, 2004). In order to model both within-level and between-level

relationships, it would be necessary to simultaneously estimate two models: one identifying within-group

relationships at the lower level, and a second to see how these within-group relationships vary between

groups. A mixed model would provide the versatility to capture interactions between the two levels and

path analyses would assess the influence of the mediator variables (Luke, 2004).
 Our model developed several propositions that specify separate connections between each

dimension of national culture and beliefs about the perceived importance and perceived inconvenience of

sustainability. Societies, however, can be categorized on several socio-cultural dimensions; hence, it is

important to understand the combined effect of the dimensions of national culture on sustainability

beliefs. The analyses described above could also be used to test whether the influence of the cultural

dimensions is additive or interactive. Finally, future researchers can also investigate the influence of other

underlying factors, such as economic conditions and educational levels, on sustainability beliefs and

practices.
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

Implications for practice

Our model suggests that business practices need to be aligned with prevailing cultural norms.

Managers should anticipate and minimize potential conflicts arising because of cultural differences, and

multinational organizations can adapt their approaches to sustainability based on host country

expectations. Since multinational corporations operate in different countries, they engage in relations with

partners, suppliers, and distributors in those countries. These relationships, however, are not without

conflict. Multinationals and their partners may have conflicting ideas about various issues, including

sustainability initiatives and programs. These conflicts and differences often arise due to cultural

incongruence. Because of differing cultural backgrounds, people may perceive and evaluate the world

differently, and react to sustainability issues in a manner that is often incomprehensible to those from

another culture. Hence, the cultural background of business partners, suppliers and consumers will

influence their sustainability beliefs and their evaluation of the sustainability initiatives engaged in by the

organization. Therefore, it is important to identify and understand the influence of cultural values on

sustainability beliefs as well as the effectiveness of sustainability initiatives.

A multinational operating in a country with strong beliefs about the inconvenience of

sustainability will have to behave in a manner that does not jeopardize its reputation and formulate

appropriate sustainability strategies that allow the company to conduct its operations in a manner
 acceptable to the host country, as well as its global stakeholders. The same multinational, when operating

in a country with strong beliefs about the importance of sustainability will have to recognize that

standards for environmental, social and human sustainability are well recognized and respect them.

Hence, the ability of multinationals to implement global sustainability programs and standards depends

on cultural values, and it is important for managers, especially those in multinationals, to understand how

national culture can influence sustainability in different countries.

International aid agencies have been plowing vast resources in order to ensure better

environmental, social and human outcomes in developing countries. As they venture into new projects,
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

the aid agencies need to be cognizant of local beliefs and perceptions of the importance and

inconvenience of sustainability. These agencies will need to rely on local NGOs to delivery environment,

social and human services. However, the international aid agencies will have to assess the local NGOs’

capacity (knowledge, information, resources) to effectively deliver the proposed services. In addition,

they need to assess the NGOs’ organizational identity, strategic centrality and systems alignment towards

sustainability. Since many NGOs in the developing world might lack such sophistication, international

development agencies might need to first invest in training programs to help local NGOs build their

organizational capacity and have the proper sustainability orientation.

Implications for policy

As countries enter into free-trade pacts, sustainability is often a core issue of contention among

the different countries, reflecting the variance in culture and hence beliefs and perceptions of the

importance and inconvenience of sustainability. Since sustainability policies and programs are most likely

to be effective if they are tailored to the national culture, it may be necessary for free-trade agreements to

allow a degree of flexibility in allowing countries to adapt sustainability initiatives to the appropriate

cultural context. For example, sustainability education programs in collectivist countries could be allowed

to portray environmental degradation as a threat to the interests of the collective whole as well as to

family and the close community. Social conformation is important is such cultures, therefore
 environmental and social sustainability programs may need to be presented as socially-accepted and

normative practices. In high power distance cultures, sustainability may need to be connected to the

interests of those in power such as business leaders, whereas in high masculinity societies sustainability

will have to be linked to material gain and economic prosperity. After all, sustainability initiatives are

successful only to “the extent that they can be integrated into the local cognition” (Ho et al., 2001, p.

437).

Conclusion
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

As multinationals attempt to implement sustainability initiatives across countries and cultures,

they lack a prescriptive model to tap from the literature. The current literature does not present a clear

picture of the relationship between national culture and organizational sustainability. Most studies have not yet

investigated the specific impact of culture on sustainability practices, nor have they identified mechanisms that

can explain how national cultural values influence sustainability initiatives. Our research

bridges this gap in the literature by developing a conceptual model that explains the relationships between

national culture and organizational sustainability initiatives through the mediating influence of

sustainability beliefs and perceptions. In addition, the influence of organizational capacity and

sustainability orientation is included in the model. The model adds to the emerging literature on

sustainability and culture, helps researchers and organizations understand how socio-cultural values can

impact sustainability, and guides multinationals in the implementation of their sustainability initiatives

across the world.

 References

Ajzen, I. (1991), “The Theory of Planned Behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179–211.

Albert, S. and Whetten, D.A. (1985), “Organizational identity” in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds.),

Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, Greenwich, CT, pp. 263-295.

Alwitt, L. F. and Pitts, R. E. (1996), “Predicting purchase intentions for an environmentally sensitive

product” Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 49-64.

Bansal, P. (2005), “Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development”.

Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 197–218.

Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations”, Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-1182.

Bradbury, H. (2003), “Sustaining inner and outer worlds: A whole-systems approach to developing

sustainable business practices in management”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 27 No.

2, pp. 172-186.

Carl, D., Gupta, V., and Javidan, M. (2004) “Power distance” in R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.

W. Dorfman and V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership and organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks,

CA, pp. 513-563.

Chow, W. S., and Chen, Y. (2012), “Corporate sustainable development: Testing a new scale based on the

mainland Chinese context”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 519-533.

Cohen, D. V. and Nelson, K. (1994), “Multinational Ethics Programs: cases in Corporate Practice,” in

Hoffman, W.M., Kamm, J. W., Frederick, R.E. and Petry, Jr., E. S. (Eds.), Emerging Global

Business Ethics, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.

Cox, P. L., Friedman, B. A., and Tribunella, T. (2011), “Relationships among cultural dimensions,

national gross domestic product, and environmental sustainability”, Journal of Applied

Business and Economics, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 46-56.

 Epstein, M. J. (2008), Making sustainability work, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.

Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, F. (1997), “Response to Geert Hofstede,” International Journal of

lntercultural Relations Vol. 21, pp. 149-159.

Hewett K, Money R.B. and Sharma S, (2006), “National culture and industrial buyer–supplier

relationships in the United States and Latin America”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 386–402.

Ho, F. N., Wang, H. D., and Vitell, S. J. (2012), “A global analysis of corporate social performance: The

effects of cultural and geographic environments”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 107, pp. 423-
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

433.

Hofstede, G.H. (1980), Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values, Sage

Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hofstede, G. (1993), “Cultural constraints in management theories”, Academy of Management Executive,

Vol. 7, pp. 81-93.

Hofstede, G.H. (1997), Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Hofstede, G.H. (2001), Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organizations across nations (2nd edition), Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Husted B.W. (2005), “Culture and ecology: a cross-national study of the determinants of environmental

sustainability”, Management International Review Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 349–371.

Jackson, G. and Apostolakou, A. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility in western Europe: An

institutional mirror or substitute?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 94 No.3, pp. 371-394.

Katz J.P., Swanson D.L., Nelson L.K. (2001), “Culture-based expectations of corporate citizenship: a

propositional framework and comparison of four cultures”, International Journal of

Organizational Analysis Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 149–171.

Kellert, S. R. (1996), The Value of Life, Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Kroeber A. L., Kluckhohn C. K. M. (1952), Culture, Meridian Books, New York, NY.
 Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., and van Erck, P. C. R. (2005), “Assessing the sustainability performances

of industries”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13, pp. 373–385.

Laroche, M., J. Bergeron, M.-A. Tomiuk and Barbero-Forleo, G. (2002), “Cultural Differences in

Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviours of Canadian Consumers”,

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 267–283.

Leszczynska, A. (2010), “Manager’s attitude toward environment” Industrial Management and Data

Systems, Vol. 110 No. 8, pp. 1234-1108.

Lindell, M. and Karagozoglu, N. (2001), “Corporate environmental behavior -- A comparison between

Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

Nordic and US firms” Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 38-52.

Lindgreen, A., Antioco, M., Harness, D., and van der Sloot, R. (2009). “Purchasing and marketing of

social and environmental sustainability for high-tech medical equipment”, Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 85, pp. 445–462.

Lopez, R. and S. Mitra, (2000), “Corruption, Pollution, and the Kuznets Environmental Curve,” Journal

of Environmental Economics and Management Vol. 40, pp. 137-150.

Luke, D. A. (2004), Multilevel modeling, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

McCarty, J. A. and Shrum, L. J. (2001), “The Influence of Individualism, Collectivism and Locus of

Control on Environmental Beliefs and Behavior”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing Vol.

20 No. 1, pp. 93–104.

Mead M. (1973), Coming of Age in Samoa, Modern Library, New York, NY.

Mourali, M., Laroche, M. and Pons, F. (2005), “Individualistic Orientation and Customer Susceptibility to

Interpersonal Influence”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 164–173.

Mueller, J., Klandt, H., MacDonald, G. and Finke-Schuermann, T. (2007), “The chihuahua sustainability

practice: Lots of shivering but no real action”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 227-237.

Ng, E. S., and Burke, R. J. (2010), “Predictor of business students’ attitudes towards sustainable business

practices”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95, pp. 603-615.

 Owens, A. and J. Videras, (2006), “Civic Cooperation, Pro-Environmental Attitudes, and Behavioral

Intentions”, Ecological Economics Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 814–829.

Parboteeah, K.P., Addae, H.M., and Cullen, J.B. (2012), “Propensity to support sustainability initiatives:

A cross-national model”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 105, pp. 403-413.

Park H. Russell C. and Lee J. (2007), “National culture and environmental sustainability: a cross-

national analysis”, Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 104–121.

Pfeffer, J, (2010), “Building sustainable organizations: The human factor”, Academy of Management

Perspectives, Vol. 12, pp. 34-45.

Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

Ralston, D.A. (1993), “Differences in managerial values: A study of U.S., Hong Kong and PRC

managers”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.249-275.

Rao, P. (2000), “Exploring environmental management systems and their impact in South East Asia”,

Asia Pacific Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 74-88.

Ringov, D., and Zollo, M. (2007), “Corporate responsibility from a socio-institutional perspective: The

impact of national culture on corporate social performance”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 7 No.

4, pp. 476–485.

Rokeach, M., (1973), The Nature of Human Values, Free Press, New York, NY.

Scholtens B. and Dam L. (2007), “Cultural values and international differences in business ethics”,

Journal of Business Ethics Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 273–284.

Sinha, J. and Verma, J. (1987), “Structure of collectivism” in C. Kagitcibasi (Ed.), Growth and progress

in cross-cultural psychology, Sets, Berwyn, PA, pp. 123-129.

Triandis, H. (1995), Individualism and collectivism, Westview Press, Boulder, CO,

Trompenaars, F. (1994), Riding the waves of culture, Irwin, New York, NY.

Vachon, S. (2010), “International operations and sustainable development: Should national culture

matter?”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 18, pp. 350-361.

Vachon, S. and Mao, Z. (2008), “Linking supply chain strength to sustainable development: A country-

level analysis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1552-60.
 Waldman, D. A., de Luque, M. S., Washburn, N., House, R.J. et al. (2006), “Culture and leadership

predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15

countries”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 823-837.

Williams, G., and Zinkin, J. (2008), “The effect of culture on consumers’ willingness to punish

irresponsible corporate behavior: Applying Hofstede’s typology to the punishment aspect of

corporate social responsibility”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 210-

225.

Wirtenberg, J., Russell, W. G., and Lipsky, D. (2009), The sustainable enterprise fieldbook, Greenleaf
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

Publishing, New York, NY.

World Commission on Economic Development, (1987), Our common future, Oxford University Press,

Oxford, U.K.
 Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

Table I.

Summary of findings in the literature

Authors Sustainability issues measured Power Individualism Masculinity Uncertainty Long-term

distance avoidance orientation
Cox et al. (2011) Environmental Sustainability Index x - n.s. n.s. n.s.
Gross Domestic Product per Capita

Ho et al. (2012) Intangible value asset - environmental + - + +

Intangible value asset - human/social - - - -

Husted (2005) Societal and institutional capacity for - + - n.s.

environmental sustainability

Parboteeah et al. Environmental behavioral intentions from - - n.s. +

(2012) World Values Survey

Park et al. (2007) Environmental Sustainability Index - n.s. - n.s.

Ringov & Zollo Intangible value asset - environmental - n.s. - n.s.
(2007) and human/social

Vachon (2010) Green corporatism - + n.s. -

Environmental innovation n.s. + n.s. -
Fair labor practices n.s. + n.s. -
Social involvement n.s. + n.s. -
Waldman et al. Importance in decision making assigned - -
(2006) to environment and employee wellbeing
Importance in decision making assigned - -
to welfare of community

- significant negative relationship

+ significant positive relationship
n.s. no significant relationship
 Table II.
Examples of sustainability beliefs and perceptions across national cultural dimensions
Cultural dimension Beliefs concerning the importance Beliefs concerning the
of sustainability
Power distance (low power distance)
Environmental inequities should
be minimized.
Social inequities (within
communities and among
employees) should not be
tolerated.
Individualism-collectivism (high collectivism)
Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)
Concern for the needs of local
community and society.
Importance of collective
distribution of resources and
collective action.
Masculinity-femininity (high femininity)
Crucial to nurture society and the
environment.
Gender equity important.
Long-term orientation (high long-term)
Important to sacrifice today for
future benefits.
Safeguard environment for future
generations.
Uncertainty avoidance
inconvenience of
sustainability
(high individualism)
Sustainability not in self-
interest
Sustainability programs are
not connected to
professional advancement.
(high masculinity)
Costs of environmental
programs prohibit their use.
Economic gain more
important than
environmental and societal
issues.
(high short-term)
Costs outweigh benefits in
the near future
(high uncertainty avoidance)
Sustainability requires
inconvenient changes in
ways of doing things
 Downloaded by West Virginia University At 11:49 15 April 2015 (PT)

Figure I.

A conceptual model of national cultural values, sustainability perceptions, and sustainability initiatives

Organizational capacity
- knowledge
- information
- resources

Beliefs and perceptions

about the importance of
National cultural values Quantity and scope of
sustainability sustainability initiatives
- power distance
- collectivism - environmental
- femininity - social
- long-term orientation - human
- uncertainty avoidance
Beliefs and perceptions
about the inconvenience of
sustainability

Sustainability orientation
- organizational
sustainability identity
- strategic centrality
- systems alignment