Social responsibility and personal success: Are they incompatible?

193

RES 1986:14:193-212

J BUSN

Social Responsibility and Personal Success: Are They Incompatible? Van R. Wood

Lawrence B. Chonko

Shelby D. Hunt

Texas Tech University

Baylor

Texas Tech University

University

Philosophies on corporate social responsibility can be categorized into 1) the classical view, 2) the activist-constrainer view, and 3) the managerial view. The latter two philosophies recognize that individuals, as business decision makers, are the key to implementing socially responsible corporate programs and that it is difficult to ask businesspeople to act in a socially responsible fashion if such actions impact negatively on personal success. Using a sample of over 1,000 practicing marketing professionals, the compatibility of social responsibility and personal success is explored by examining the relationship between social responsibility and marketers’ incomes, titles, and satisfactions with the job. The findings indicate that neither penalties nor rewards accrue to marketing executives for socially responsible actions. Implications for executives who want their companies to be viewed as being socially responsible are discussed. Social responsibility has historically been used to define the relationship of business Eberstadt [27] identified five historical periods during which social policy concerning business responsibility was reasonably clear and distinct: 1) Classical Greece, during which in the minds of the citizenry business existed to serve the public to achieve the greater good; 2) the Medieval Period (1000-1500 AD), during which the Catholic church, distrustful of the business system, maintained that if business had to exist, it should be used in the public interest; 3) the Mercantile Period (1500-1800), during which Calvinist doctrine, though highly tolerant of private commerce, demanded that business “act in the national interest” because the state supported it; 4) the Industrial Period (1800-1930), during which business had come to represent “absolute virtue,” in the dominant view of the social Darwinists, and states still retained power to compel business to perform some public duty; and 5) the Corporate Period (1930 to the present), during which large corporations, influencing not only politics and the economy, but the “quality of life,” are expected to be accountable for both their actions and their nonactions in the social arena. The vast majority of theoretical and empirical research on corporate social to broader society [32]. In analyzing this relationship,

Address correspondence to Van R. Wood, versity, Lubbock, Texas 79409.

College

of Business

Administration,

Texas

Tech Uni-

The authors express their sincere thanks to Roy Howell of Texas Tech University’s Department of Marketing for his valuable input into this paper. Also, special thanks are extended to the College of Business at TexasTech University for its research support throughout this project.

Journal of Business Research 14,193-212 (1986) 0 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1986 52 Vanderbilt Ave.. New York, NY 10017

0148-2963/86/$3.50

194

J BUSN RES 1986:14:193-212

V. R. Wood et al.

responsibility has been produced since the 195Os, during the Corporate Period. Almost all of these works have focused on the business organization or the firm (rather than on the individual) as the unit of analysis. Examples of such social commentaries include Levitt [47], McGuire [50], Friedman [29,30], Cohen [20,21], Wilkes and Wilcox [77]; Sethi [63,64], Aldag [3], Carrol [17], Nason and White [54], Laczniak [46], and Cassell [18]. Examples of empirical research on this topic include Jonas [42], Eilbert and Parket [28], Ackerman [2], Dilley and Weygant [24], Jacoby and Small [40], Miller and Sturdivant [51], Armstrong [6], Ross [62], Nevin, Hunt and Levas [55], and Fritzche and Becker [31]. The unit of analysis historically used in social responsibility research is the corporate entity. Yet corporations, as structures with no “real life” of their own, can have no sense of social responsibility per se. Only people can have a capacity for such responsibility [48, 761. Therefore, this paper contends that individual executives should also be a unit of analysis and a focus of studies dealing with corporate social responsibility. Peters [59] stated, “Society can best be served by businesspeople who possess a high level of social responsibility. But before we can develop higher levels of social responsibility in managers . . . we must understand the factors contributing to the development of high levels [of such responsibility]” (p. 229). Society cannot have socially responsible corporations without socially responsible businesspeople, no matter how society defines such responsibility. Peters implies that it is unrealistic on society’s part to ask businesspeople to be socially responsible if there is a penalty imposed for socially responsible behavior. Our investigation focuses on the social responsibility of marketing executives. We examine the relationship between social responsibility and marketers’ personal success and satisfaction on the job. Specifically, the study addresses two research questions: 1. To what extent are marketers penalized or rewarded in terms of professional success (income and promotions) for being socially responsible? 2. To what extent are marketers who are high in social responsibility more (or less) satisfied with their jobs than are those who are low in social responsibility? The project explores these questions using a sample of over 1,000 practicing marketing professionals. Before examining the results of the study, a discussion of the nature of social responsibility is appropriate.

The

Nature

of Social

Responsibility

A major obstacle to researching social responsibility in the corporate environment is the lack of a “uniform definition of the social role of business or what business social responsibility really is” [34]. As early as 1966, James M. Patterson, while studying marketing executives, noted that there were no concrete guidelines for version of the responsible social action, except for a “watered down” commercial Golden Rule [57]. No clear-cut delineation existed that could array the “good guys” on one side and the “bad guys” on the other side. Likewise, Sethi [63, p. 341 has argued:

J BUSN RES 1986:14:193-212

Social Responsibility

there are really no fixed criteria for determining what is socially responsible behavior and how much of it would be acceptable to the general public or special interest groups at a given point in time. Consequently social responsibility is no more than whatever public expectations are. .

Sethi [64, p. 581 later elaborated social responsibility:

on this by stating

that the concept

of corporate

has been used in so many contexts that it has lost all meaning. . . it has come to mean all things to all people. Business executives, academics, scholars, government regulators, and social activists view the corporation’s social role within their respective frames of reference.

Spicer [69] contended that the lack of a consensus as to what exactly is the correct definition of social responsibility is partially a by-product of three distinct views on the topic. They include 1) the classical view, 2) the activist-constrainer view, and 3) the managerial view. The classical view of corporate social responsibility maintains that professional managements’ first responsibility is to the shareholders for a return on their investment. The primary proponents of this view include Levitt [47], Friedman [29], and Drucker [26]. Their view is seen as being consistent with the values of a freeenterprise market economy in which profits and prices allocate resources toward productive ends desired by consumers. Consumers are seen as having the necessary information and intelligence to make the needed moral choices that reflect social responsibility. Bock [lo] noted that the expression of such moral choices is reflected by consumer dollar votes in the market place. In the classical view, if a corporate executive assumes a social responsibility, then he is acting not as an agent serving the interests of his principals (stockholders) but as a public employee or civil servant. Executives are hired to produce, sell, or finance a product, and not to decrease inflation or solve the problems of urban decay. Private business is viewed as lacking competence in areas such as the arts, public education, or civil rights. Levitt [47, p. 481 warned business to be cautious of accepting more responsibility than it had power to fulfill: If something does not make economic sense, sentiment or idealism should not be let in the door. Sentiment is a corrupting and debilitating influence in business. It fosters leniency, inefficiency, sluggishness, extravagances, and hardens the innovative arteries.

Thus, business should be highly reluctant to take responsibility in such areas. A staunch advocate of the classical view, Burck [16] believed that the term “responsibility, ” in the sense of corporate obligation to somehow better society, is misused. He maintained that the only responsibility of businessmen, or anyone else, is to obey the laws of the land; no more, no less. If society wants businesspeople to set up employee daycare centers, then it should pass a law to that effect and let the burden be shared by all business enterprises equally. Davis [23] claimed that even in cases in which the burden is equally shared, the consumer has the right to realize that a social response by business, such as decreasing pollution, is no “free ride.” Such actions take large amounts of economic resources and will eventually flow through the business system in the form of higher prices to the consumer.

196

J BUSN RES 1986:14:193-212

V. R. Wood

et al.

The classical view of corporate social responsibility has been championed by those concerned with corporate employee well-being. Drotning [25, p. 461 noted that in the name of social responsibility the manager is asked: to hire the least qualified, teach them to read and write, to tolerate tardiness, and even dispatch someone to fetch them from their beds when they fail to appear on the assembly line. He is asked. to accept what he has been trained to consider personal irresponsibility, and to cover the loss in productivity. . eating the costs within his existing budget.

All in all, the classical view has been supported from the standpoints of economic efficiency, stockholder rights, executive competency, consumer resource allocation, and employee well-being. The activist or constrainer view of corporate responsibility maintains that corporate accrual of massive socioeconomic power also carries with it an equally broad social responsibility. Proponents of this view, Keynes [44], Davis [22], Andrews [5], and Brummer [14] questioned the effectiveness of free-market competition to regulate great corporations that are capable of shaping their environments to a significant degree. Often labeled “constrainers, demanders, or interventionists,” defenders of this view argue that corporations are no longer effectively constrained by market forces, and they should therefore be subjected to various regulations aimed at eliminating their arbitrary power. In particular, legal restraints should be put upon corporations that abuse society, either through externalities of production (pollution), consumer endangerment, or the restriction of the market mechanism through the creation of monopolies [3]. The activists also argue that personal values and self-centeredness of corporate decision makers result in choices that are no more or less socially responsible than are the individual executives who are involved in such decisions. As Johnson [41, pp. 55-561 noted: Executives are hardly disinterested bystanders in the interactions of corporate life. Decisions made ostensibly for the benefit of employees, stockholders, consumers, or community may actually be motivated by the personal interests of the deciding executive. . The goal of many managers is to climb as high as possible up the corporate salary pyramid. A bigger job, larger income. . . may become the “gods” or ultimates of life for aspiring executives. With this kind of motivational focus, bending rules or keeping your mouth and eyes discreetly shut to illegal or irresponsible practices is a small price to pay for personal success.

Activists maintain that corporate culture must be changed by legal or other means of intervention so that individuals of integrity are not penalized when their loyalties include more than their personal or corporate goals. The third view of corporate social responsibility is the managerial view. Proponents of this view, also labeled “foreboders,” maintain that executives of large corporations have to respond to multiple constituencies and goals to remain viable [lo, 561. Proponents of this third view warn of the consequences of corporations that emphasize only the short-run goals of the firm. They discern two categories of responsible business behavior in society. One category is the “moral minimum” of not harming society and of avoiding social injury that might accompany corporate activities; the second category is an “affirmative duty” to attack social problems such as poverty, discrimination, and urban decay [45, 651.

Social Responsibility

J BUSN RES 1986:14:193-212

The managerial view thus encourages executives to invest in social and other innovations as long as acceptable shareholder returns have been generated. This view is a response to the other two views, which are seen as being at the extremes of a continuum of corporate responsibility philosophies. The defenders of the managerial view, Morel1 [52], Gray [3], and Bowie [ll], pointed to such factors as potential governmental intervention and long-run deterioration of profits that may accompany societal illness if corporations fail to invest in social projects. Corporations, in order to avoid being forced to make social investments, are advised to “be progressive” or “lead the industry” in such endeavors [49]. It is argued that corporations would be acting reasonably to develop an “intermediary position” that balances obligation, prudence, and goodwill rather than run the risk of societal intervention. Like the activists, the managerial view also recognizes individuals: corporate decision makers are the key to implementing a socially responsible position. In order for corporations to take a positive approach to societal concerns and to anticipate the resulting social pressures, they must not, at the very least, penalize managers for acting in a socially responsible manner. More to the point, corporations must reward managers for their social responsiveness, as well as for their “bottom-line” performance [2]. As Holmes [37, p. 361 asks: How can organizations obtain management support for corporate social responsibility if their careers do not in some explicit way depend on it? If a manager doesn’t need pollution control equipment or minorities to run his business profitably, but corporate headquarters want him to do such things, then they obviously must not penalize him for such actions, but rather they probably should reward him.

A strongly committed executive is seen as a prerequisite for a socially responsible corporation. As summarized in Table 1, three distinct views on the nature of corporate social responsibility have been proposed. Recent thought, related to corporate social responsibility, indicates that the latter two views (activist and managerial) are more the norm in society today than is the classical view [lo]. Both the activist and managerial view recognize the relationship between corporate social responsiveness and the degree of executive penalty or reward for being responsive. However, no empirical research on this relationship has been conducted. The research project reported here investigates the penalties-rewards that accrue to marketing executives for being socially responsible. Method

Data Collection To explore the two research questions posed in this study, a self-administered questionnaire was sent to 4,282 marketing practitioners. This represents a systematic sample of one out of every four marketing practitioners in the listed American Marketing Association directory. Educators and student members were excluded from the sample. The questionnaire was pretested using a convenience sample of 200 marketers, also listed from the AMA directory. The final set of mailings consisted of the questionnaire itself; a covering letter; a stamped, pre-addressed

198

.IBUSN

RES 1986:14:193-212

V. R. Wood et al.

Table 1. Summary A. Classical

responsibility

orientation

B. Activist

Social

Responsibility

To stockholders only, to maximize return on investment. Free-market economy; prices and profits regulate resource use; economic efficiency is foremost.

View

Corporate

responsibility

Value orientation

C. Managerial Corporate

of Corporate

View

Corporate Value

of Views

To society as a whole; to ensure a “livable environment; to constrain of arbitrary corporate power.

use

Regulated market economy; use of legal constraints to protect society from corporate abuses.

View responsibility

Value orientation

To multiple constituencies, not just to stockholders; social problems seen as corporate problems, and corporations have a responsibility to help alleviate such problems while achieving an acceptable return on investment. Free-market economy with selfregulation by corporations; to be progressive and take initiative in attacking social problems rather then risk government-imposed regulation and controls.

reply envelope; a prenotification postcard sent one week prior to the questionnaire; and a follow-up postcard sent one week after the questionnaire. Data were collected in summer 1982. A total of 1,076 usable questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 25.1%. Response rates in this range are not uncommon when using marketing practitioners as a sample. Myers, Massy, and Greyser [53] obtained a response rate of 28.5% in their survey of the American Marketing Association membership, and a straightforward membership survey of AMA practioners conducted by the association reported only a 41% response rate [4]. These studies had the sponsorship of either or both the American Marketing Association and the Marketing Science Institute, which probably accounts for their greater response rates. The characteristics of the respondents in this study appear in Table 2. A direct comparison between our study and the American Marketing Association membership survey [4] was not possible due to coding differences on many of the items. On items coded similarly (i.e., educational level, age, sex, income), the two samples are very similar. The AMA membership survey had slightly more representation in the manufacturing and service industries, and slightly less representation in the “other” industries category. Some differences also existed in the job titles reported in the two studies; these discrepancies are probably due to variations in coding procedures. For example, the AMA membership survey did not report a vicepresident category and the current study does.

J BUSN RES 1986:14:193-212

Social Responsibility Table 2. Characteristics

of Sample”

Characteristic

Characteristic

Activity of Organization 1. Manufacturing a. Consumer products b. Industrial/institutional

Educational Level of Sample 1. No college degree 2. Bachelor’s degree 3. Master’s degree 4. Doctorate

products

14 15

2. Services a. Market research b. Advertising c. Consulting

14 10 5

3. Finance,

10

insurance,

real estate

4. Other

100 Major 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

31

5. No answer

1 100

Job Title 1, Other: Junior analyst, sales representative, trainee 2. District manager/director, analyst 3. Division Manager/director, product manager 4. Corporate manager/director 5. Vice-president 6. President, owner 7. No answer

I 18

Field of Study General business Business marketing Business accounting Business management Business statistics Business finance Engineering Other technical (e.g., Phy rsics) Social sciences Humanities Other (e.g., Education)

Income 1. Less than $10,008 2. $10,080 to $19,999 3. $20,000 to $29,999 4. $30,000 to $39,999 5. $40,000 to $49,999 6. $50,000 to $59,999 7. $6O,ooO to $69,999 8. $70,000 to $79,999 9. $80,000 to $89,999 10. $90,008 to $99,999 11. $100,000 or more

37 7 41 7 8

for (Number

1 7 21 25 17 10 7 4 3 1 A

100

100 Size of Firm Worked Employees) 1 2 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 1,000 or more

20 24 1 2 2 1 8 9 15 10 9 100

16 29 18 11 1 100

Career Emphasis 1. Marketing management 2. Sales 3. Marketing research 4. Advertising 5. Staff positions

3 39 53 5

Age

of

20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older

2 7 5 7 5 11 9 10

Median

Age

Sex Male Female

AA

100

18 40 22 16 4 100 37

70 30 100

Marital Status Married Single

72 28 100

“Numbers in table are percentages N = 1,076.

unless otherwise

noted

200

J BUSN

RES 1986:14:193-212

V. R. Wood et al.

Trend analysis provides a basis for investigating the direction of nonresponse bias [7]. Respondents to the current study were compared on the constructs of job satisfaction, age, and income in order to determine whether or not responses between early and late respondents differed. Using the date a questionnaire was received as a basis, respondents were divided into two groups. A total of 711 (66%) were placed in the early-response group (those returned within two weeks group (those of the mailout), and 365 (349’ o ) were placed in the late-response received after two weeks). No significant response differences (utilizing t tests) were found. Measures Many of the measures of constructs (i.e., education, age, sex) are self-explanatory and be found in Table 2. The measures of social responsibility, job satisfaction, and success require some elaboration. Social Responsibility. To date, scale development to measure executives’ social responsiveness is, for all practical purposes, nonexistent. Past research in this area has concentrated primarily on institutional or organizational involvement in socially responsible acts [l, 2, 24, 28, 42, 641. Such works have attempted to measure the social responsiveness of organizations with respect to pollution control, minority employment, employee health and safety, education or the arts, civil rights, urban renewal, truth in advertising, and similar issues. A study by Brenner and Molander [13] indicated that “executives have stated it is possible for one to move up through the ranks solely by honest, decent measures” (p. 63), but no scale development was involved in reaching this conclusion. The paucity of past empirical research and measurement in this area necessitated an exploratory stance in this study. Two basic approaches can be identified to measure marketers’ social responsiveness. The first approach involves developing an institutional or organizational scale using items such as pollution control, minority employment, and the like. The second is an executive- or people-oriented approach, by which marketers’ social responsiveness is measured in a more general, behavioral sense. Given the fact that this research was measuring social responsibility across a broad spectrum of industries in which marketers hold a variety of titles and positions of responsibility, the former, more specific measurement approach was thought inappropriate. An item concerning pollution control, although relevant to some marketers in heavy manufacturing industries, would not be relevant to marketers in a service-oriented industry such as advertising or retailing. For this reason, the latter, behavioral approach, was utilized. We conceptualize the socially responsible manager as one who would have a strong concern for the broader interests of society when making decisions. This concern should manifest itself in a willingness at times to sacrifice corporate goals, interests, and needs to those of society and an unwillingness at times to harm society for corporate gain. Such a manager should also have a high concern for acting honestly and ethically. Accordingly, marketers were asked to respond in Likert format (with 1 = Strongly Agree and 7 = Strongly Disagree) to the following five items: 1. I often place my duty to society

above

my duty to my company.

Social Responsibility

J BUSN RES 1986:14:193-212

201

2. I often place my duty to my company above my duty to society (reverse scored). 3. Honesty is the best policy in all cases. 4. One should take action only when sure it is morally right. 5. In order to succeed in my company, it is often necessary to compromise one’s ethics (reverse scored). These statements are consistent with an earlier study by Peters [59] that conceptualized socially responsible, marketing decision makers in a similar vein. However, unlike the Peters [59] conceptualization of social responsibility, our items measure marketers’ perceptions of the frequency with which they engage in what they perceive to be socially responsible behaviors. Peters, on the other hand, using items such as “Generally speaking, I think that students who protest and demonstrate on campus should be expelled from school,” mistakenly equates a narrow concern for specific societal actions with the theoretical construct of social responsibility. Indeed, reasonable people can differ as to whether it is more, or less, socially responsible to agree or disagree with these kinds of scale items. These five items were factor analyzed using Version VI of the LISREL software for confirmatory factor analysis (Appendix A). Note that only Items 1 and 2 load heavily on the first factor when a unidimensional, five-item construct was expected. This counterintuitive result suggests that behaving in a socially responsible manner is perceived by marketers to be dimensionally distinct from 1) being honest, 2) taking action only when it is morally right, and 3) compromising one’s ethics. Only the items specifically mentioning “society” appear to capture the essence of social responsibility for marketers. Therefore, considering the exploratory character of this research, our measure of social responsibility consisted of the following items: 1) I often place my duty to society above my duty to my company, and 2) I often place my duty to my company above my duty to society (reverse scored). Although any two-item measure may be questioned on reliability grounds, our measure of social responsibility appears to reflect a reasonable degree of face validity. Note that logical consistency does not necessitate always disagreeing with Item 2 in order to agree with Item 1. It is possible to “often” place duty to society over duty to company and at the same time “often” place duty to company over duty to society. Nevertheless, one would expect the two items to be positively correlated. The correlation coefficient between the two items is .64, indicating a reasonable degree of internal consistency in responses. To explore convergent validity, the social-responsibility measure was correlated with a measure of Machiavellianism originally developed by Christie and Geis [19] and with a measure of marketers’ commitment to their organizations developed by Hunt, Chonko and Wood [39]. The Machiavellianism scale measures the degree to which people manifest a manipulative leadership style, whereas the commitment scale measures the degree of loyalty that people would have to an organization given incentives to change to other companies for employment. If the index is a valid measure of social responsibility, then those marketers who perceived themselves as being more committed to their organization and more Machiavellian in their leadership style would in turn score lower on the social responsibility index. The correlation between social responsibility and Machiavellianism was - .16 (significant at .OOl). The correlation between social responsibility and commitment

202

.I BUSN

RES lY86:14:193-212

V.

R. Wood et al.

was - .14 (significant at .OOl). This suggests that marketers high in social responsibility are low in Machiavellianism and commitment to their organization. For exploratory purposes, the measure appears to have a reasonable degree of validity.

Satisfaction. Job satisfaction is a construct that has been studied in psychology, sociology, and management [8, 9, 60, 61, 71, 72, 731. Seven measures of job satisfaction were used in this research. These measures are consistent with previous satisfaction measures from other research works [38, 671. The first measure consisted of a 14-item index of job satisfaction, shown in Appendix B. Seven of the items shown were developed by the authors from pretest responses, and they focused on various elements of the respondents’ jobs. Also, seven items were selected from the Job Characteristics Inventory [67]. An alpha coefficient of .89 was obtained for the total satisfaction scale. When the 14 satisfaction items were factor analyzed, the following four factor solutions resulted: 1) satisfaction with information, 2) satisfaction with variety and freedom, 3) satisfaction with ability to complete tasks, and 4) satisfaction with pay and security. Alpha coefficients for each of the four factors were .93, .88, .80, and 56, respectively. These four factors were also used as separate measures of job satisfaction, thus constituting our second through fifth measures of this construct. The sixth measure was a single item: global assessment ‘of satisfaction (“In general, 1 am satisfied with my job”). The seventh measure of satisfaction also consisted of a single item, designed to assess career satisfaction: “If I had it to do over again, I would choose a career outside the marketing area.” Success. Two measures of success were used in this study: income and job title. Respondents were asked to check one of 11 income categories, ranging from under $10,000 to over $100,000 in increments of $10,000 (see Table 2). The second measure of success was each respondent’s job title. Respondents were asked to identify their current job title, their firm’s industry, and their primary job responsibility. Using this information, respondents were placed in the following hierarchy of job categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Junior analyst, sales representative, District manager/director, analyst. Division manager/director, product Corporate manager/director. Vice-president. President, owner.

trainee. manager.

Results

Descriptive Statistics The means and standard deviations of the variables investigated are displayed in Table 3. Using mean values for descriptive purposes, Table 3 indicates that the average respondent falls into the $30,000 to $39,999 income bracket, lies between the division manager and corporate manager positions of employment, is almost

.I BUSN RES 1986:14:193-212

Social Responsibility Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations

of Research Variables Mean (x)

Variables 1. Social Responsibility 2. Job Satisfaction

Deviation

7.76

2.47

40.95

14.26

(2 items)

(14 items)

Standard

3. Satisfaction Items)

with Information

13.69

6.40

4. Satisfaction

with Variety

(6 items)

12.91

6.23

5. Satisfaction

with Closure

(4 items)

4.65

2.37

6. Satisfaction

with Pay (2 items)

6.78

3.06

2.42

1.42

7. General

Job Satisfaction

8. Satisfaction (1 item)

with Marketing

203

(STD)

(4

(1 item) Career

1.65

2.53

9. Income

4.87 ($30,00&$39,999)

10. Title

1.44

3.39 (Division

Manager-Corporate

2.18

Manager)

11. Age

39.19 (years)

10.31

12. Education

17.37 (years)

1.19

N = 1,076.

forty years of age (x = 39.19), and has a relatively high degree of education (Z% = 17.37 years). In terms of perceptions, the average respondent tended to fall in the middle of the social-responsibility scale, indicating neither a strong agreement nor disagreement with the issues addressed. Mean scores also indicate the average respondent to be relative high in perceived satisfaction with job variety, job closure, the job in general, and marketing as a career. The other three measures of satisfaction display neither high nor low ratings, but tend to fall in the midrange of the scales.

Professional Success, and Social Responsibility Are marketers penalized or rewarded in terms of professional success (income and promotions) for being socially responsible? Preliminary analysis revealed age, sex, and education were related to our measures of professional success (income and title). Therefore, in Table 4, we used these as control variables. Income and title were the dependent variables in the two separate stepwise regression analyses. Age, sex, and education were first entered into the regression analysis as independent control variables. Significant results for age indicates that older marketing executives receive more income and have higher titles than do younger marketers. Results for sex show men holding higher titles and receiving more income than their female counterparts. Likewise, marketers with more education receive more income and hold higher titles than do lesser educated marketers. Social responsibility was then entered into the analysis to investigate the influence it had on marketers’ incomes and titles. Results clearly indicate that although the control variables (age, sex, and education) were significant at the .05 level or less, social responsibility was not significant with respect to either income or title. These results imply that marketers’ degree of social responsibility as measured in this

204

J BUSN

RES 1986:14:193-212

Table 4. Regressions:

V. R. Wood et al. Social Responsibility

and Marketing

Income as a Dependent Characteristics

4

b’

Variable”

AR=

F’

Success Title as a Dependent P

b’

Variable”

AR=

Fd

Age

.43’

.37

.18

175.32’

.3Y

.35

.15

146.9Y

Sed Education Social Responsibilitf

.33 .OF

.23 .06

.05 ,003

65.53’ 4.95g

.21’ .w

.14 .06

.02 ,006

23.38 5.w

.04

.05

.002

3.12

.O@

- .05

.003

3.64

Constant R’

-0.58 .24

F

81.87

“Higher numbers mean higher incomes and titles. %imple correlation coefficients. ‘Standardized regression coefficients (beta). %alue for regression coefficients. ‘Significant at .Ol level. ‘Male = 1, female = 0. %ignilicant at .05 level. “mmated score on social-responsibility index, lower number explained variance

5.01 .18 55.7Y

indicates

higher social responsibility

study have little, if any, influence on their professional success levels. Responding directly to the first research question posed, our results indicate that marketers are neither penalized nor rewarded (in terms of income or title) for being socially responsible. This finding must be tempered with the realization that our measures were cross-sectional, not longitudinal, and therefore our findings are associative, not causal. Job Satisfaction and Social Responsibility Are marketers who are high in social responsibility more (or less) satisfied with their jobs than those who are low in social responsibility? Even though the results revealed that social responsibility is not related to success in marketing, it could still be related to job satisfaction. That is, marketers high in social responsiveness may be more (or less) satisfied with performing the kinds of tasks required in marketing positions. To explore this issue data were gathered on the seven previously discussed measures of satisfaction: 1) an index of job satisfaction, 2) a global measure of general job satisfaction, 3) a measure of satisfaction with marketing as a career, and satisfaction with 4) information, 5) job closure, 6) variety, and 7) pay. Table 5 displays the results of the stepwise regressions with the seven measures of satisfaction as dependent variables and income, age, sex, education, and social responsibility as independent variables. Income was a major influence on all measures of satisfaction and was a needed control variable. Income was highly significant and accounted for the majority of the variance explained for all seven measures of satisfaction. Clearly, as marketers’ income increases, their self-ratings on satisfaction increase. The independent variables age, sex, and education, although at times statistically significant, account for very little of the variance explained in

Social Responsibility

J BUSN RES 1986:14:193-212

our dependent variables. Although they were useful control variables in the income and title regressions, they add little to our understanding of marketers’ levels of satisfaction. Social responsibility appears to have little or no influence on marketers’ job satisfaction. Two minor exceptions are revealed in Table 5. After controlling for income, age, sex, and education, social responsibility is shown to be significantly and positively related to variety satisfaction (.05) and career satisfaction (.Ol). Marketers who indicated they were more socially responsible tend to perceive a somewhat higher degree of satisfaction with the variety in their jobs and with their careers. However, this finding should again be tempered by the fact that although social responsibility is statistically significant, from a substantive point of view it adds very little to the amount of explained variance in either variety or career satisfaction (A R2 = .006 and .Ol, respectively). Being socially responsible appears, then, to neither increase nor decrease marketers’ perceptions of job satisfaction. Responding directly to the second research question, our research results indicate that marketers high in social responsibility are no more (or less) satisfied than are those who are low in social responsibility.

Discussion The degree to which our results can be generalized is a legitimate concern. In this study, sample population consisted of practitioner-members of the American Marketing Association. The quality of the sample drawn from this population indicates that our findings reasonably portray the characteristics of this population. However, to what extent is the American Marketing Association representative of all the marketers in our society? Clearly, the AMA is more representative of the universe of marketers than are other professional associations, because other professional associations related to marketing are more narrow in scope. Examples of more narrowly focused associations include the American Association of Advertising Agencies and the national associations of wholesalers and purchasing agents. Be that as it may, people who join the American Marketing Association are likely to view marketing more as a profession than “just a job.” Therefore, the AMA membership probably overrepresents marketing professionals and underrepresents those on the lower rungs of the marketing employment ladder. Also, the AMA membership has a professional code of ethics and, therefore, our sample may overrepresent marketers who have a high concern for socially responsible conduct. Although the findings should probably be generalized only to the universe of professional marketers, the issue may be moot. After all, it is the professionals in marketing who, by job definition, are in positions to act (or not act) in a socially responsible manner in areas of greatest concern. Assessing the degree of consistency of our findings with past research is made difficult by the absence of previous studies on the issues investigated here. Past research has tended to focus on companies, rather than on executives, as the unit of analysis. The research that has been done with respect to the penalties or gains to companies that act in a socially responsible manner have produced mixed results. Vance [75], for example, reported a negative association between company’s social involvement and subsequent gains, whereas Burck [15], Bowman and Haire [12], and Heinze [35] report a positive association. One study, Sturdivant and Ginter

206

J BUSN RFS 19x%:14:193-212

Table 5. Regressions:

V. R. Wood et al. Social Responsibility

and Job Satisfaction

Index of Total Satisfaction” Characteristics

+’

Income

.2Y

.23

.06

43.38

.13’

Age

.13

.04

,001

1.41

.oo

Sei

.05

- .02

,000

,041

.02

,007

5.88

.oo

,002

1.89

.02

Education

-.OfY - .07

Social Responsibilityh Constant R’ (Model) F (Model)

b’

Satisfaction with Information

.06R

.04

AR’

F’

4

Satisfaction with Job Closure b’

AR’

F’

.14

.02

16.87

4

b

AR’

F’ 2.90

.08

.06

.002

,000

0.035

.ll

.09

.02

7.42

- .02

,000

0.38

,001

,001

0.99

- .Ol

,000

0.19

- .05

.05

,002

2.51

,000

0.075

.03

.Ol

,000

0.24

.OO

,008

42.10

14.78

.06

.02

.02

4.01*

4.02R

14.39

-.03

4.73

“See Appendix A for measures, lower numbers indicate higher satisfaction. “Simple correlation coefficient. ‘Standard regression coefficients (beta). %alues for regression coefficients. ‘Significant at .Ol level. ‘Male = 1, female = 0. “Significant at .05 lcvcl. ‘Summated score on social-responsibility index, lower numbers indicate higher social responsibility. 3 = explained variance.

[74], found that “the best managers (managers of corporations classified as ‘best’ in corporate social performance) reflect a greater concern for individual rights and a greater responsiveness to demands for change in the social and economic system” (p. 36). However, the researchers did not look at the penalties or rewards for socially responsible actions. The exploratory nature of this work logically calls for follow-up research. Our behavioral measure of social responsibility is a limitation in this study and, subsequently, future research to refine our measure is needed. Our finding that being socially responsible is not correlated in marketers’ minds with being honest, acting when it is morally right, and not compromising one’s ethics is counterintuitive. Apparently, social responsiveness is a distinct dimension to marketers that needs further study. However, given that we analyzed a sample of 1000 marketers across many industries and areas of job responsibility, and given the exploratory nature of this study, we believe that our two-item measure of social responsibility does enable us to provide some insight into this significant area and does enable this study to provide a solid base for future research. To this end, scale development is needed on the more micro dimensions of social responsibility within specific industries or marketing-career emphases. Such refinement could further our knowledge with respect to specific socially responsible actions taken by marketers and the subsequent rewards or penalties. The scenario approach might also be useful here to identify preferred behaviors and outcomes. Further research is recommended on the decision-making process involved in socially responsible decision making. Are decision processes of marketing executives deontological or teleological in nature [46]? What trade-offs do marketing executives make between socially responsible and socially irresponsible behaviors

J BUSN RES 1986:14:193-212

Social Responsibility

Satisfaction with variety $

Satisfaction with

b’

AR=

F’

Satisfaction With Career

General Satisfaction

Pay $

b‘

AR2

.23’

.26

F”

207

$

b’

AR’

F’

$

b’

AR’

F’

.02

17.1y

.22

.19

.05

31.74’

.05

57.07’

.2(r

.19

.04

30.93

.12’

.15

.06

,003

3.65

.oy -.Ol

,000

0.08

.13

.05

,001

2.33

.02

-.03

.OO

1.21

.oo

0.06

.Ol - .05

,002

2.71

.03

- .03

,000

0.90

.Ol

-.002

.OO

0.00

,006

4.75#

.Ol

10.71’

- .05 -.05

,005

3.27

-.OT

.Ol

10.18

0.012

- .07K-.05

,003

3.32

- .ltT - .08

,078

.OO

- .06 - .07 .09

.0X .006

6.3ff

14.91 .06 14.36’

-.08 .03

-.lO

,003 .ooo

5.41 .06 14.98

.15

-.lO

.Ol

7.04’

1.74 .04 7.4T

2.77 .05 11.35

and outcomes [70]? How do marketing executives adjust these trade-offs as relevant role partners change? Are the actions of top managers effective in reducing all types of socially irresponsible behavior or are they useful in defining selective socially irresponsible behaviors [68]? Such questions remain unanswered. Conclusion Two views dominate social responsibility today, the activist and managerial views. Both recognize the relationship between positive corporate responsiveness to societal ills and the degree of executive penalty or reward for acting in a socially responsible manner. The research reported here is a first step toward empirically investigating this relationship. Our findings indicate that neither penalties nor re& wards seem to accrue to marketing executives for socially responsible actions. Such findings indicate that executives who want their companies to be viewed as socially responsible may want to create an organizational climate in which socially responsible actions are rewarded. For indeed, as noted, by the activist and managerial views on corporate social responsibility, only people (i.e., executives) can make decisions that affect the many problems facing society; corporations that, by nature, have only a “legal” life cannot make decisions. If responsible corporations are the goal, responsible decision makers are the primary, if not the only, means to that goal.

Appendix A. Confirmatory

Factor Analysis of Social Responsibility Factor

V,

I often place my duty to society

V,

I often place my duty to my company (reversed scored).

above

V,

Honesty

is the best policy in all cases.

Items Loadings

my duty to my company. above

my duty to society

.ll

J BUSN RES 1986:14:193-212

V. R. Wood

V,

One should

V,

In order to succeed in my company it is often necessary compromise one’s ethics (reversed scored).

take action

only when sure it is morally

Goodness of fit index is ,957. xX with 5 degrees of freedom is 115.32 (Prob. Correlation

right.

.I8

to - .06

level = 0.0).

Matrix

of Social Responsibility

VI

V2

Item

1.00

VZ

0.64

1.00

VZ

0.11

0.03

1.00

V,

0.18

0.11

0.25

1.00

V,

0.07

0.05

0.18

0.08

Analysis

of Satisfaction

2. I receive enough information about my job performance. 3. I receive enough feedback how well I’m doing.

2

3

4

.87

.19

.13

.22

.88

.I4

.15

.13

.92

.09

.ll

.I2

.65

.29

.31

.15

.13

.07

.I7

.17

.45

.14

.18

.32

.22

.ll

.02

.I2

.17

.46

.12

.20

.47

.06

from

from my supervisor

on

in my job to find out

with Varietyh

5. I am satisfied offers.

with the variety

6. I am satisfied with the freedom want on my job.

of activities

is enough

9. I have enough job.

variety freedom

10. My job has enough thought and action.

my job

I have to do what I

7. I am satisfied with the opportunities provides me to interact with others.

Satisfaction

1

from my supervisor

4. There is enough opportunity how I am doing.

8. There

Loadings”

with Information*

1. I am satisfied with the information I receive my superior about my job performance.

Satisfaction

1.00

Items Factor

Satisfaction

VT

V4

V3

V,

Appendix B. Factor

my job

in my job. to do what I want in my

opportunity

for independent

with Closure’

11. I am satisfied with the opportunities my job gives me to complete tasks from beginning to end.

.17

.21

.ll

12. My job has enough work I start.

.12

.lO

.I2

opportunity

et al.

to complete

the

J BUSN RES 1986:14:193-212

Social Responsibility

209

Satisfaction with Pay 13. I am satisfied with the pay I receive for my job. 14. I am satisfied with the security my job provides me.

.17

Eigenvalue

.lO

.14 .ll

3.71

2.68

.05

.51

.15 cl .66 1.34

1.10

“Varimax rotation. R* for each of the four factors is 41.0, 13.5, 8.5, 7.8, respectively %ems 1-14 are combined to form the index of total satisfaction.

References 1. Abbott,

Walter., and Monsen, R. Joseph, On Measurement of Corporate Responsibility: Self-Reported Disclosures as a Method of Measuring Corporate Involvement, Academy of Management Journal 22 (1979): 501-515.

2. Ackerman,

Robert W., How Companies Review 51 (July-August 1973): 88-98.

3. Aldag, Decision

Respond

to Social Demands,

Ramon J., and Jackson, Donald W., Jr., A Managerial Making, MSU Business Topics (1975): 33-40.

4. American

Marketing Association, Membership Higginbotham Associates, Houston.

5. Andrews,

Kenneth R., Can the Best Corporation Review 51 (May-June 1973): 58.

6. Armstrong, 5 (September

7. Armstrong, Surveys,

Scott J., Social Irresponsibility 1977): 185-213.

Differences, (November

Interpersonal, and Situational 1978): 517-531.

9. Bagozzi,

Richard D., Performance Examination of Their Antecedents 1980): 65-77.

by

Harvard Business

Journal of Business Research

Scott J., and Overton, Terry S., Estimating Non-Response Journal of Marketing Research 14 (August 1977): 396-402.

8. Bagozzi, Richard D., Sales Force Performance

for Social

1982). Conducted

Be Made Moral?

in Management,

Harvard Business

Framework

Survey (March

Social Social

Bias in Mail

and Satisfaction as a Function of Individual Factors, Journal of Marketing Research 15

and Satisfaction and Simultaneity,

10. Bock, Robert H., Modern Values and Corporate Topics 28 (Spring 1980): 5-17.

in an Industrial Sales Force: An Journal of Marketing 44 (Spring MSU. Business

Social Responsibility,

11. Bowie, Norman, Changing the Rules, in Ethical Theory and Business. Tom Beauchamp and Norman Bowie, eds., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1977, pp. 147-150.

12. Bowman,

E. H., and Haire, M.A., A Strategic Posture Towards Responsibility, California Management Review 18 (1975): 49-58.

13. Brenner, Steven N., and Molander, Earl A., Harvard Business Review 55 (January-February 14. Brummer, James J., In Defense (May 1983): 111-112. 15. Burck, Gilbert, 63-168. 16. Burck, Gilbert 114-218.

DuPont

Is the Ethics 1977): 57-71.

of Social Responsibility,

of Corporate

of Business

Changing?

Fortune (January

Responsibilities,

Style and Corporate

1973):

Fortune (June 1973):

17. Carrol, Archie B., A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Academy of Management Review 4 (1979): 497-505. 18. Cassell, Frank H., Reflections on Management of Business Ethics 2 (May 1983): 123-126.

Social

Journal of Business Ethics 2

“Gave Away” Billions-and-Prospered,

(1973), The Hazards

Corporate

Performance,

Social Policy, Journal

210

J BUSN RES 1986:14:193-212

V. R. Wood

19. Christie, Richard, and Geis, Academic Press 1970. 20. Cohen, Dorothy, Surrogate 36 (July 1972): 10-15. 21. Cohen, Journal

Florence

Indicators

L., Studies in Machiavelfianism.

and Deception

Dorothy, The Concept of Unfairness of Marketing 38 (July 1974): 8-13.

in Advertising,

As It Relates

et al.

New York,

Journal of Marketing

to Advertising

Legislation,

22. Davis, Keith, Understanding the Social Responsibility Puzzle: What Does the Businessman Owe to Society? Business Horizons 10 (Winter 1967): 45-50. 23. Davis, Keith, 1975): 19-24.

Five Propositions

Business Horizons

for Social Responsibility,

24. Dilley, Steven C., and Weygandt, Jerry J., Measuring Social Responsibility: Test, The Journal of Accountancy 136 (September 1973): 62-70.

An Empirical

25. Drotning, Phillip T., Why Nobody Takes Corporate Social Responsibility Business and Society Review 3 (Autumn 1972): 43-48. 26. Drucker, (Autumn

Peter F., The Concept 1972): 104-109.

18 (June

Seriously,

Business and Society Review 3

of the Corporation,

27. Eberstadt. Nicholas N., What History Tells Us About Corporate Responsibility, in Managing Corporate Social Responsibility. Archie B. Carrol, ed., Boston, 1977, pp. 1722. 28. Eilbert, Henry, and Parket, I. Robert, The Current Status Responsibility, Business Horizons 16 (August 1973): 5-14. 29. Friedman,

Milton,

Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago,

University

of Corporate of Chicago

30. Friedman, Milton, The Social Responsibility of Business Is To Increase New York Times Magazine (September 13, 1970): 658-669. 31. Fritzche, David J., and Becker, Helmut, Ethical Behavior Journal of Business Ethics 2 (November 1983): 291-299. 32. Goodpaster, Kenneth E., The Concept Ethics 2 (February 1983): l-22. 33. Gray, Elisha, II, Changing 1968): 26.

Values in the Business

The

Managers,

Journal of Business

Business Horizons 11 (August

Society,

34. Gross, Charles W., and Verma, Harish L., Marketing Horizons 20 (October 1977): 75-82.

Press 1962.

Its Profits,

of Marketing

of Social Responsibility,

Social

and Social Responsibility,

35. Heinze, D.C., Financial Correlates of Social Involvement and Economic Review 7 (1976): 48-51.

Measures,

Business

Akron Business

36. Hoffman, Michael W., and Moore, Jennifer Mills, What is Business Ethics?-A to Peter Drucker, Journal of Business Ethics 1 (November 1982): 293-300.

Reply

37. Holmes, Robert, The Concept of Corporate Responsibility, in Ethical Theory and Business. Tom Beauchamp and Norman Bowie, eds., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 151-160. 38. Hunt, Shelby D., and Chonko, Lawrence of Marketing 48 (Summer 1984): 30-42.

B., Marketing

and Machiavellianism,

Journal

39. Hunt, Shelby D., Chonko, Lawrence B., and Wood, Van R., Organizational and Marketing, Journal of Marketing 50 (Spring 1985): 26-39.

Commitment

40. Jacoby, Jacob, and Small, C., The FDA Approach Journal of Marketing 39 (October 1975): 65-73.

Advertising,

41. Johnson, 53-59.

Harold

J., Ethics

42. Jonas, Gary F., Management 16-48. 43

and Executives, Incentives

to Defining

Misleading

Business Horizons 24 (May-June

for Social Action,

The MBA (February

1981): 1967):

Keim, Gerald D., Corporate Social Responsibility: An Assessment of the Enlightened Self Interest Model, Proceedings, Academy of Management (1977): 285-289.

J BUSN RES 1986:14:193-212

Social Responsibility

211

in Essays in Persuasion. 44. Keynes, J.M., The End of Laissez Faire, republished York, 1931, Harcourt, Brace and Company pp. 314-315. 45. Konrad, Armin Richard, Business Ethics 1 (August 1982): 195-200. 46.

Managers

Laczniak, Gene R., Framework For Macromarketing 3 (Spring 1983): 7-18.

47. Levitt, Theodore, (September-October

and Moral Sanctuaries,

Analyzing

The Dangers of Social Responsibility, 1958): 41-50.

Rita C., Corporate Responsibility 48. Manning, Business Ethics 3 (February 1984): 77-84. 49. McAdam, T.W., How to Put Corporate SocietyiReview Innovation 6 (1973): 8-16. 50. McGuire,

Joseph

Marketing

W., Business and Society. New York,

Journal of Business Journal

Ethics,

of

Harvard Business Review 36

and Corporate Responsibility

New

Journal of

Personhood,

into Practice,

Business and

1963, p. 143.

F.D., Consumer Responses to Socially Questionable 51. Miller, K.E., and Sturdivant, Corporate Behavior: An Empirical Test, Journal of Consumer Research 4 (July 1977): l-7. 52. Morrell, p. 20.

Ben,

The Role of American Business in Social Progress. Indianapolis,

1956,

53. Myers, John G., Massy, William F., and Greyers, Stephen A., Marketing Research and Knowledge Development: An Assessment for Marketing Management. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1980. 54. Nason, Robert W., and White, Phillip D., The Visions of Charles C. Slater: Social Consequences of Marketing, Journal of Macromarketing 1 (Spring 1981): 55-61. 55. Nevin, John R., Hunt, Shelby D., and Levas, Michael G., Legal Remedies for Deceptive and Unfair Practices in Franchising, Journal of Macromarketing (1) (Spring 1981): 2334. 56. Pattan, John E., The Business of Ethics and the Ethics of Business, Ethics 3 (February 1984): 1-19.

Journal of Business

57. Patterson, James M., What Are the Social and Ethical Responsibilities Executives? Journal of Marketing 30 (July 1966): 12-15.

of Marketing

James M., Social Responsibility in Marketing Personnel: Meaning and 58. Patterson, Measurement, Proceedings, American Marketing Association (August 1972): 224-229. 59. Peters, William H., Two Measures of Print Advertising’s Journalism Quarterly 50 (Winter 1973): 702-707.

Social Responsibility

Level,

60. Porter, Lyman, W., Steers, Richard M., Mowday, Richard T., and Boulian, P.V., Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Among Psychiatric Technicians, Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (1974): 603-609. 61. Pruden, Henry O., and Reece, Richard M., Interorganizational Role-Set Relations and the Performance and Satisfaction of Industrial Salesmen, Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (December 1972): 601-609. 62. Ross,

Irwin,

How Lawless

63. Sethi, Prakash S., Getting 4 (1973): 31-38.

Are Big Companies? a Handle

Fortune (December

on the Social Audit,

1980): 56-64.

Business and Society Review

64. Sethi, Prakash S., Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: Framework, California Management Review 17 (Spring 1975): 58-64.

An

Analytical

65. Simon, John, Powers, Charles W., and Gunneman, Jon P., The Ethical Investor: Universities and Corporate Responsibility. Yale University Press New Haven, 1972. 66. Simpson, James R., Ethics and Multinational Corporations Journal of Business Ethics 1 (November 1982): 237-237.

vis-a-vis Developing

Nations,

67. Sims, Henry P., Jr., Szilagyi, Andrew D., and Kelley, Robert T., The Measurement of Job Characteristics, Academy of Management Journal 19 (June 1976): 195-212.

212

J BUSN RES 1986:14:193-212

V. R. Wood et al.

68. Smith, M. R., and Carrol, Archie B., Organizational of Business Ethics 3 (May 1984): 95-100.

Ethics:

A Stacked

Deck, Journal

for Corporate Social Performance: Some Problems 69. Spicer, Barry H., Accounting Issues, Journal of Contemporary Business 7 (Winter 1978): 151-170. 70. Starr, William C., Code of Ethics-Towards Business Ethics 2 (May 1983): 99-106. and 71. Staw, Barry M., Attitudes Organizational Reward: A Natural Psychology 29 (1974): 742-751. 72.

a Rule-Utilitarian

Justification,

and

Journal of

Behavioral Consequences of Changing a Major Field Experiment, Journal of Personality and Social

Steers, Richard, Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Administrative Science Quarterly 22 (1977): 46-56.

Commitment,

73. Steven, J.M., Beyer, J.M., and Trite, H.M., Assessing Personal, Role, and Organizational Predictors of Management Commitment, Academy of Management Journal 21 (1978): 380-396. Frederick 74. Sturdivant, Management Attitudes (Spring 1977): 30-39.

D., and Ginter, James L., Corporate Social Responsiveness: and Economic Performance, California Management Review, 20

75. Vance, S. L., Are Socially Responsible Review 64 (1975): 18-24. 76. Wilbur, James B., The Foundation Ethics 1 (May 1982): 145-155.

Corporations of Corporate

Good Investment Responsibility,

Risk? Management Journal of Business

77. Wilkes, Robert E., and Wilcox, James B., Recent FTC Actions: Implications Advertising Strategist, Journal of Marketing 38 (January 1974): 55-61.

for the