The role of national culture as a lens for stakeholder evaluation of corporate social performance and its effect on corporate reputation

  1. Pérez-Cornejo, Clara 1
  2. de Quevedo-Puente, Esther 1
  3. Delgado-García, Juan-Bautista 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Burgos
    info

    Universidad de Burgos

    Burgos, España

    ROR https://ror.org/049da5t36

Zeitschrift:
BRQ Business Research Quarterly

ISSN: 2340-9444

Datum der Publikation: 2021

Seiten: 234094442110074

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.1177/23409444211007487 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: BRQ Business Research Quarterly

Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung

Zusammenfassung

Studies have shown that corporate social performance (CSP) is an antecedent of corporate reputation, acting as a signal that affects stakeholders’ perceptions and expectations about a firm’s future behavior. However, the perceptions, expectations, and interests of stakeholders may be affected by external factors, such as national culture, which shapes their beliefs about what role companies play in society. Drawing on institutional theory and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, we analyze how stakeholders’ national culture moderates the relationship between CSP and corporate reputation. The results of the analysis of an international sample for the period 2010 to 2016 show that low individualism (i.e., collectivism), low masculinity (i.e., femininity), low power distance, and low uncertainty avoidance intensify the positive relationship between CSP and corporate reputation. JEL CLASSIFICATION: M14, L14

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Aiken L. S., (1991), Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions
  • Brammer S., (2012), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation, pp. 297
  • Davidson R., (1993), Estimation and inference in econometrics
  • 10.1016/j.brq.2018.06.003
  • Fombrun C. J., (1996), Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image
  • Fombrun C. J., (2002), Corporate reputation: Research and practice
  • Goodenough W. H., (1994), Assessing cultural anthropology, pp. 262
  • Harrison D. M., (2006), Handbook of complementary methods in education research, pp. 411
  • Hofstede G., (2001), Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations
  • House R. J., (2004), Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies
  • 10.1515/9780691186740
  • 10.1515/9780691214429
  • 10.1257/jep.5.1.97
  • Schiffman L. G., (2008), Consumer behaviour: A European outlook
  • Schutz A., (1973), The structures of the life-world, 1
  • Schwartz S. H., (1994), Cross-cultural research and methodology series, Vol. 18. Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications, pp. 85
  • Scott W. R., (1995), Institutions and organizations
  • Snijders T. A. B., (1999), Multilevel analysis
  • Spence A. M., (1974), Market signaling: Informational transfer in hiring and related screening processes
  • 10.1037/0003-066X.51.4.407
  • Trompenaars F., (1993), Handbuch Globales Managen, Wie man kulturelle Unterschiede im Geschäftsleben versteht