The Communication of Corporate Social Responsibility: United States and European Union Multinational Corporations

This study explores corporate social responsibility (CSR) by conducting a cross-cultural analysis of communication of CSR activities in a total of 16 U.S. and European corporations. Drawing on previous research contrasting two major approaches to CSR initiatives, it was proposed that U.S. companies would tend to communicate about and justify CSR using economic or bottom-line terms and arguments whereas European companies would rely more heavily on language or theories of citizenship, corporate accountability, or moral commitment. Results supported this expectation of difference, with some modification. Specifically, results indicated that EU companies do not value sustainability to the exclusion of financial elements, but instead project sustainability commitments in addition to financial commitments. Further, U.S.-based companies focused more heavily on financial justifications whereas EU-based companies incorporated both financial and sustainability elements in justifying their CSR activities. In addition, wide variance was found in both the prevalence and use of specific CSR-related terminology. Cross-cultural distinctions in this use create implications with regard to measurability and evidence of both strategic and bottom-line impact. Directions for further research are discussed. Laura P. Hartman is a Professor of Business Ethics and Legal Studies in the Management Department in the College of Commerce at DePaul University, as Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs of the University and as Research Director of DePaul’s Institute for Business and Professional Ethics. She is also an invited professor at INSEAD (France), HEC (France), the University of Melbourne, the Université Paul Cezanne Aix Marseille III and the Grenoble Graduate School of Business. She has been published in, among other journals, Business Ethics Quarterly, Business & Society Review, Business Ethics: A European Review, and the Journal of Business Ethics. Robert S. Rubin is an Assistant Professor in the Management Department at DePaul University’s Kellstadt Graduate School of Business. He received his PhD in organizational psychology from Saint Louis University. His current research interests include transformational leadership, leader cynicism, social and emotional individual differences, and management education and development. K. Kathy Dhanda is an Associate Professor at the Department of Management at DePaul University. Her areas of research include sustainable supply chains, environmental networks, marketable permit modeling, sustainable management, and public policy.     

Asset market games of survival: a synthesis of evolutionary and dynamic games

The paper examines a game-theoretic model of a financial market in which asset prices are determined endogenously in terms of a short-run equilibrium. Investors use general, adaptive strategies (portfolio rules) depending on the exogenous states of the world and the observed history of the game. The main goal is to identify portfolio rules, allowing an investor to “survive,” i.e., to possess a positive, bounded away from zero, share of market wealth over an infinite time horizon. The model under consideration combines a strategic framework characteristic for stochastic dynamic games with an evolutionary solution concept (survival strategies), thereby linking two fundamental paradigms of game theory.     

Risk, uncertainty, and learning in adoption of a crop innovation

Risk and uncertainty have often been suggested as causes of poor adoption of rural innovations, but empirical evidence has been scarce. This study focuses on a new crop‐type, chickpeas, in Western Australia to gather such evidence. The empirical models developed are based on a theoretical framework that conceptualizes adoption as a dynamic decision process involving information acquisition and learning‐by‐doing by growers who vary in their managerial abilities, risk preferences, and their perceptions of the profitability and riskiness of the innovation. Learning encompasses improvements in skill as well as reductions in uncertainty. An annual face‐to‐face survey of over 100 farmers was conducted over 3 years, eliciting the farmers' risk attitudes and their subjective distributions of yields and prices. Two limited dependent variable models, Tobit and Probit, are used to estimate the empirical model. There is a high degree of goodness‐of‐fit for both models. The study provides strong empirical support for the primarily economic character of the adoption decision, and highlight the importance of economic risk in the process. The two risk‐related factors with greatest impact on the adoption decision were risk aversion and relative riskiness of the innovation. Risk aversion tended to reduce adoption, and to do so to a greater extent as relative riskiness and scale increased. Results also reveal the key role that trialing of the innovation plays in adoption.     

Union membership and campaign contributions

Summary and Conclusions Laws governing labor relations in the United States are written in a manner which gives significant monopoly power to unions and also creates an incentive for workers to support union security arrangements. These laws would serve to reduce the gains which workers receive from unionization. They would also serve to increase the surplus which unions extract from their members. The argument that an important part of these laws is the creation of rents which can be transferred to the politicians who support laws. An examination of the effect of right-to-work laws on political contribution received by candidates for office indicates that, as the theory would predict, the existence of such laws serves to significantly reduce the contributions from unions. This reduction occurs largely because these laws reduce the number of union members who contribute; they do not seem to change the contributions per union member. The authors hypothesize that it is the monopolization which increases per member contributions, though testing this hypothesis is not possible. Nonetheless, it is the authors' belief that the empirical results have demonstrated the form of the laws mandating unions is explained by the interaction between the union and the politicians who support unionization.     

Prioritizing Brand Equity Methods From Customers’ Perspective for the Food Industry

Brand equity assessment is an important measurement of strategic value for internal use as well as for external stakeholders. Although there are a number of methods available for brand evaluation, it is still uncertain which approach is best. Yet almost no research exists that has prioritized the existing brand equity methods from the perspective of different stakeholders through a survey. In this article a model is developed for prioritizing brand equity methodologies from the viewpoint of customers as a stakeholder of brand equity. The developed model can help businesses to deploy a brand equity methodology that best considers the criteria of their customers as one of their key stakeholders. The criteria of this process are the expectations of customers from a brand. The priority of these criteria sets via a structured questionnaire filled by customers. Then the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) incorporates to prioritize the methodologies versus these criteria. This study set out to prioritize the brand equity pool to help practitioners and academics in assessing the alternative techniques and selecting the most relevant one that measures the most important criteria of brand in the eyes of customers.