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

Revista:
BRQ Business Research Quarterly

ISSN: 2340-9444

Año de publicación: 2021

Páginas: 234094442110074

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1177/23409444211007487 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: BRQ Business Research Quarterly

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

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

Referencias bibliográficas

  • 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