Personal Values and Corporate Philanthropy
- a theoretical model for the role senior executives’ personal values
play in decisions regarding corporate philanthropy.
Graham R Jones
School of Commerce
The Flinders University of South Australia
GPO Box 2100
Adelaide South Australia 5001
Telephone: 61-8-8201-2006
Facsimile: 61-8-8201-2644
Email: Graham.Jones@flinders.edu.au
SCHOOL OF COMMERCE
RESEARCH PAPER SERIES:
00-23
ISSN: 1441-3906
ABSTRACT
Corporate philanthropy is increasingly emerging as an issue that demands a
response from corporate Australia. There are many issues of interest in the
area of corporate philanthropy but the influence of individual senior executives
on individual corporations’ decision- making process is of interest to those
making the decisions and those who are seeking the support of corporate
Australia.
This study seeks to review the prior literature and develop a
theoretical decision-making model that includes senior executives’ personally
held values as an essential component. In particular, it attempts to present a
model that demonstrates the implicit role that personally held values play
when a corporation makes philanthropic decisions.
2
INTRODUCTION
Corporate philanthropy is increasingly emerging as an issue that demands a
response from corporate Australia. There are many issues of interest but the
influence of individual senior executives on individual corporations’ decisionmaking process is of interest to those making the decisions and those who
are seeking the support of corporate Australia as they respond to the variety
of social needs that present themselves in Australia at the end of the 20 th
century.
There has been little research done in Australia in the area of
corporate philanthropy and in particular the influence of senior executives on
the decision-making process.
This study sought to review the prior literature and develop a theoretical
decision-making model that includes senior executives’ personally held values
as an essential component. In particular, it attempts to present a model that
demonstrates the implicit role that personally held values play when a
corporation makes philanthropic decisions.
Ideally, the personal values and personal characteristics of individual
executives should be understood in order to determine whether the decisions
made by corporations are as free from personal bias as possible. A further
study was undertaken that sought to test the model presented in this paper.
This is the subject of another paper. The area of bias in decisions regarding
corporate philanthropy due to the personally held values of senior executives
is an area for future study.
3
REVIEW OF PRIOR LITERATURE
Personal Values
Organisational change is fundamental to what is currently happening in
corporate philanthropy in Australia.
In order to understand organisational
change, researchers need to concentrate on understanding its ‘content,
context and process’ (Laughlin, 1991 p. 210 citing Pettigrew, 1987; Kimberly,
1998). Those studying change need to be aware that change does not take
place in a vacuum - it is not ‘context-free’ (Laughlin, 1991 p. 210). Laughlin
understands organisations in terms of interpretative schemes.
Level 1 of
these schemes is beliefs, values and norms. These beliefs, values and norms
‘are created and sustained by the past and/or current organisational
participants’ (Laughlin, 1991 p. 211).
The matter of values, attitudes and beliefs being fundamental to corporate
culture and corporate decision making is demonstrated by a number of writers
(England, 1973 & 1980; Deal & Kennedy, 1992; Elkington, 1997; Francis,
1997; Keene, 1998). Values1 are enduring beliefs that relate to sought after
life consequences or human behaviours and they act as a means of
evaluating standards (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz 1992). As Elkington (1997 p.
152) stated: ‘Even the World Bank has now appointed an executive with a
brief to explore the links between values, even spirituality, and the bottom
lines of companies and the health of entire national economies’ (Elkington,
4
1997 p. 152). In terms of natural systems theory2, it is individuals who have
values, and these values are as human within the corporation as they are in
society generally (Llewellyn, 1994).
Individuals demonstrate considerable differences in personality, attitudes and
values (Middlemist & Hill, 1981) and therefore the influence these factors
have on an individual’s behaviour is difficult to determine, but researchers
have sought to understand these personal characteristics and particularly how
they interact in the decision-making process (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995).
Kreitner & Kinicki (1995, p. 308 citing Beach & Mitchell, 1978) highlighted the
impact of the characteristics of the decision-maker on the decision-making
process. Beach & Mitchell demonstrate that characteristics of the decisionmaker ‘affect behaviour (therefore decision-making) and performance’
(Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995, p. 308 citing Beach & Mitchell, 1978).
This
relationship can be seen in figure 1.
1
Values - for the purposes of this study this definition of values drawn from Rokeach (1973)
and Schwartz (1992) will be used.
2
Natural Systems Theory: “A fundamental assumption of such theory was that ‘people,
social life, language, interactions and interpretations are just as normal as human inside
organisations (Llewellyn, 1994, p. )
5
Characteristics of Decision Task
*The Decision Problem
*The Decision Environment
Strategies to Select
a Solution
Generating
Alternatives
Characteristics
of Decision
Maker
*Knowledge
*Ability
*Motivation etc.
Figure 1
A contingency Model for the Selection of Decision Strategies
Source: Beach & Mitchell (1978, p. 440f)
In figure 2 below, Robbins (1988) also illustrates that there are a number of
personal characteristics that influence an individual’s behaviour.
Robbins
(1988 p. 320) states ‘people enter an organisation with a set of attitudes and a
substantially established personality … [and] … how they see the world …
[and this] influences what they learn on the job and eventually their individual
work
behaviour’.
6
Motivation
Attitudes
Perception
Learning
Individual
Behaviour
Personality
Ability
Figure 2
Key Variables Affecting Individual Behaviour
Source: Robbins, (1988, p. 321)
Robbins has demonstrated a number of key variables that can be classified
into ‘attitudes’ and ‘personality’. The figure above demonstrates how these
variables affect the behaviour of individuals, and therefore their decisionmaking, and that these variables are foundational in an individual’s behaviour
(Robbins, 1988).
Values and Executives
Rokeach has shown by way of his ‘Value Survey’ that there is a degree of
commonality across the community at large, as to both the terminal3 and the
instrumental4 values individually held, although in real terms individuals may
differ widely in terms of the combination of the actual values held (Rokeach,
1973 cited in Middlemist & Hitt 1981). These values have been tested in large
3
Terminal Values are end states such as salvation and peace of mind. These are intrapersonal while world peace and brotherhood are interpersonal. These terminal values may
be self-centred or society-centred (Rokeach, 1973 p. 7f)
4 Instrumental Values are moral and competence based in nature.
Moral instrumental
values refer to certain values which when violated cause pangs of conscience or feelings of
guilt. Competence or self-actualisation instrumental values, when violated cause shame
about personal adequacy rather than feelings of guilt about wrongdoing (Rokeach, 1973 p. 8).
7
samples and the results demonstrate a high correlation within professions,
race, vocation and gender (Rokeach, 1973).
Stogdill (1948) studied the personal factors that are associated with
leadership. In 1948 he published a survey of literature that ‘concerned only
those studies in which some attempt had been made to determine the traits
and characteristics of leaders’ (Davidson, 1999 p. 2). Davidson evaluated
twenty-two studies where an actual attempt was made to study values.
Davidson’s study included work by Allport, Rokeach (1968 & 1973), Schwartz
(1996) and Hall (Davidson, 1999). When reviewing the literature relating to
executive decision-making it is clear that the literature supports the theory that
group decisions are on the whole qualitatively and quantitatively superior to
the decision-making performance of the average individual (Kreitner & Kinicki,
1995). However, research has demonstrated that groups are inherently less
risk averse in their decision-making than individuals and therefore ‘the
strategy of entrusting important choices to committees … may be in error’
(Baron & Byrne, 1987 p. 394).
Boards make corporate decisions.
The
composition of these decision-making bodies has been researched to
determine the effect of ‘insider v outsider’ membership (Coffey & Wang, 1998;
Coffey & Fryxell, 1991; Lerner & Fryxell, 1994). The influence of the personal
characteristics of senior executives on these decisions has not been studied
in depth, other than Buchholtz et al (1999) and to some extent the work of
Hambrick and various associates (Hambrick & Brandon, 1988; Hambrick &
Finkelstein, 1987; Hambrick & Mason, 1984) which is considered later in this
paper.
8
Philanthropy
As the climate in the United States is changing (Smith, 1994; Weeden, 1998)
researchers have undertaken numbers of studies where the underlying
motivations for corporate philanthropy have been investigated (Coffey &
Fryxell, 1991; Lerner & Fryxell, 1994; Pava & Krausz, 1996; MacMillian,
1996).
Classical philanthropy was doing good for the sake of doing good. This is not
to deny that there have always been sectarian interests but with the
increasing pressure on companies to maximise shareholder value, the 1990s
has seen a shift towards corporations linking philanthropy to their strategic
goals (Shaw & Post, 1993; Reder, 1994; Smith, 1994; Kadlec, 1997; Davies,
1998). Staunch opposition to any form of corporate philanthropy is grounded
in Friedman’s argument that corporations fulfil their social-responsibility by
maximising profits for their shareholders (Friedman, 1970).
Reder in the Business and Society Review states ‘Shareholders who agree
with Milton Friedman that corporate charity steals from their potential returns
should look up a study by two Dickson College economics professors,
Stephen E Erfle and Michael J Fratanuono. The study examined correlations
between various categories of social responsibility and financial performance.
Among the main factors that positively related to profitability was philanthropy’
(Reder, 1994, p. 40).
9
There is an increasing awareness amongst the leader s of the business
community that corporate philanthropy helps rather than hinders the ‘bottomline’ (Smith, 1994).
This has led to real growth in strategic philanthropy
(Davies, 1998; Smith, 1994).
Carroll (1979) highlights four levels of corporate social responsibility. These
four levels are economic, legal, ethical and discretionary. Managers have to
fulfil their legal and economic responsibilities and in addition they are
expected to fulfil their ethical obligations.
Philanthropy falls in the
discretionary area (Carroll, 1979). According to Buchholtz et al (1999, p. 169)
‘it is open to the board and top management whether the corporation will give
to the community’. Wood (1991, p. 698) speaks of corporate philanthropy in
terms of the firm’s action inventory ‘last in, first out’.
Those issues that are
seen to be of least importance are the first to be removed from the board’s
agenda (Wood, 1991). Being discretionary, boards, who are under pressure
due to increased demands from shareholders, may, when it comes to
philanthropy, both in theory (Lazere, 1997), and in their actual day to day
practice, choose not to give philanthropically (Burlingame & Young, 1996).
This places individual executives in a complex position when their values and
past practices have indicated that they would prefer to continue to give
(Buchholtz et al, 1999). Directors’ current action is affected by a range of
contextual factors that have developed over time such as ‘firm resources,
managerial discretion and managerial values’ (Buchholtz et al, 1999, p. 177).
10
The American philanthropic literature focuses on a variety of issues specific to
the corporation and its goals and modus operandi, but the issue raised by
Solomon (1992), when researching corporate roles and personal values, has
not been followed up. Buchholtz et al (1999) argues that although corporate
philanthropy is a corporate activity, this activity is driven by the decisions of
board members and executives. Sikula (1973, p.17) maintains that values are
‘important determinants of individual, group, and organisational behaviour’.
Solomon (1992) argues that as philanthropy is inherently an act of giving, the
goodwill and generosity at its heart, are indicators of the characteristics of the
persons making the decisions (Solomon 1992). Solomon (1992) maintains
that these are good characteristics, which show through in the nature of the
decision.
Buchholtz et al (1999) built a model that presents managerial values as
mitigating factors on the presupposition, as mentioned above, that present
philanthropic activity is affected by factors that have been produced over time.
The factors they isolated as pre-existing were firm resources, managerial
discretion and managerial values. This is shown in Figure 3.
11
Firm
Resources
Managerial
Discretion
Corporate
Philanthropy
Managerial
Values
Figure 3.
The Partially Mediating Effect of Managerial Values on the Relationship Between
Managerial Discretion and Corporate Philanthropy
Source: Buchholtz et al (1999, p. 174)
Review of existing models
In developing their model Buchholtz et al. (1999) looked at data over a threeyear period.
These researchers used the Pearce and Zahra 15-item
discretion scale to measure managerial discretion. The question that they
wanted answered was ‘how much latitude the board allowed top managers in
matters of philanthropy’ (Buchholtz et al, 1999, p. 178). The definition of
managerial values is somewhat different to the definition applied by Rokeach
and indeed that which was applied in this study (Rokeach, 1968, 1973).
The impact of individual manager’s values on decisions was researched by
Brunkan. Brunkan (1991) in Hansen (1991, p. 244) says ‘Values, beliefs, and
personal standards become significant as an individual assumes major
responsibility in a corporation. There should be a close match between the
individual’s values and those of the corporation if the manager is to thrive. ….
Getting a handle on a person’s values is important because it is frequently
12
these values that influence long-term goals and decisions … the individual’s
value system becomes much more important in decision making’.
Buchholttz et al see corporate philanthropy as part of a wider understanding
of decision-making and they state that ‘Corporate philanthropy is also
consistent with virtue ethics, a system of thought that focuses on the quality of
an individual’s character’ (Buchholtz et al 1999, p. 169).
England and Lee (1971) based their decision making model on the work of
Simon (1959) who suggested two ‘broad categories: (a) rational decisionmaking and (b) non-rational decision-making models’ (England & Lee, 1971,
p. 432). England (1975) has developed the following model as shown in
figure 4. In this model values are at the heart of the process of change.
Decisions are made based on the values that the individual executive holds.
In England’s terms, values are translated into actions.
England (1975, p. 123) says ‘The value differences between managers in the
five countries and the value diversity within each country do not overshadow
the important fact that there is a common pattern of translation of values into
behaviour and behaviour outcomes across countries’.
England’s model
shows the type of relationships that exist between managerial values and
various organisational, personal and behavioural variables. ‘Decision-making
behaviour is related to value patterns in ways which permit generalisations
across countries. Among all these relationships, the important generalisation
that emerges is that values get translated from states of intentionality into
13
behaviour outcomes in a similar way across countries’ (England, 1975, p.
123).
Organisational Size
Organisational
Level
Related in a
CountrySpecific Manner
Influence
Values
AGE
In a CountrySpecific
Manner
VALUES
Values are
related to
and/or
Influence in A
Similar
Fashion
Across
Countries
Personal
Success
DecisionMaking
Behaviour
Not Related
To Values
Job
Satisfaction
Types of
Industries
Figure 4
Relationship of Values to Organisational, Personal and Behavioural Variables
Source: England (1975 p. 124)
14
Cognitive
Base
Limited
Field of
Vision
Selective
Percep
-tion
Interpretation
The Situation
(all potential
environmental
and
organisational
stimuli)
Manager
-ial
Perceptions
Strategic
Choice
Values
Figure 5
Strategic Choice Under Conditions of Bounded Rationality
Source: Hambrick & Mason (1984, p. 195)
15
The senior executive faced with decisions about how to allocate philanthropic
dollars is making a strategic decision.
Figure 5 above, illustrates that
corporate decision-makers face decisions that are complex. The decisions
are made up of a range of factors, many of which are not immediately
obvious. Hambrick & Mason (1984) state that managers faced with strategic
decisions bring values5 and a cognitive base6 to the process. The perceptual
process can be conceptualised by taking a sequential view as demonstrated
in Figure 5 (Hambrick & Snow, 1977). The decision-maker's field of vision is
limited, in that no one person can hold all the relevant facts. In seeking to
make decisions, all executives, according to Hambrick and Mason (1984)
suffer from selective perception, ie: executives don’t include all the
phenomena that are in their field of vision in their decision-making process. In
addition, values reside within the cognitive base and eventually, all the
perceptions combine with their values to provide the basis for their strategic
choices (Hambrick & Mason, 1984).
This study proposes that values are actually embedded in the being of the
decision-maker. When decisions are made, the decision-maker’s values play
a key role without the decision-maker being cognisant of the interactive role
that they play. Thus, Hambrick and Mason's (1984) model has been adapted
to reflect this, and is discussed in the following section.
5
Values - are defined as "principles for ordering consequences attached to alternatives according to
preference" (Hambrick & Mason, 1984, p. 195)
6
Cognitive Base - is defined by Hambrick & Mason (1984) "1. Knowledge or assumptions about
future events. 2. Knowledge of alternatives, and 3. Knowledge of consequences attached to
alternatives." (Hambrick & Mason, 1984, p. 195)
The
Situation
(all
potential
environmen
tal and
organisatio
nal stimuli)
Limited
Field of
Vision
The Being of the
decision-maker
Selective
Perception
Interpretation
Managerial
Perceptions
Strategic
Choice
Values
Come into
play
Information
base
undergirded by
the individuals
values
Values interact
subconsciously
Figure 6
Strategic decision-making that involve conscious and subconscious interaction of an executive’s
personal values.
Adapted from Hambrick & Mason (1984, p. 195)
(modifications are shown in italics)
IMPROVING THE MODELS
The model proposed is a coalescing of the five models shown in figures 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5 and is presented as Figure 6. The process has been modified, in that
values are seen in this study as being embedded in the being of the decisionmaker. They are subconscious or 'passive participants' in all the processes of
thought that are involved in decision-making until it comes to strategic choices
where it is necessary to make value judgements.
philanthropic venture should be supported financially?
For example, which
At this point in the
decision-making process the executive may well become aware of her/his
values.
The line through the centre of the model in figure 6, indicates the
subconscious interaction of the person's values, whereas the line outside
indicates the conscious interplay of the person's values in strategic decisions
where there is the potential for a conflict between their embedded values and the
actions that they are about to take. Values are the ‘Ghosts’ as Elkington (1997)
calls them in that they lie deep within the ‘being’ of decision-makers. They are in
terms of Hambrick & Mason (1984) equally powerful with the cognitive base but
they act without the known interaction of the executive making the decision.
Hambrick and Mason maintain that the person’s values are part of the
individual’s cognitive base and that they feed through to the decision-making
process, being filtered and interpreted as they progress (Hambrick & Mason,
1984). Numerous writers would agree that values are ‘an intrinsic part of our
lives and behaviours and that we are often unaware of them’ (Guth & Tagiuri,
1965 p. 123) and in addition that we are unable to clearly articulate them.
18
Our values, according to Guth and Tagiuri (1965, p. 123) ‘along with other
factors, clearly determine our choices, as can be proved by presenting men with
equally 'reasonable' alternative possibilities and comparing the choices they
make’. Hambrick and Mason (1984) see an organisation as being the reflection
of its top management.
They hold that strategic choices are predicted by a
manager's personal characteristics (Hambrick & Mason, 1984).
This study
contends that values become interwoven with all of what the person is, and it
could be said that the individual decision-maker is the sum total of their personal
values and other personal factors. In terms of Hambrick and Mason (1984) and
the position adopted in this study, corporations could be said to be the sum total
of their individual decision-makers. Davidson (1999, p. 11) in referring to Hall
says ‘Hall’s work typically uses individuals such as the President, the CEO, board
members, or other designated leaders, and makes a composite of their value
surveys’.
Hall, according to Davidson (1999) focused on only the top four
commonly held values among the top decision-makers. Davidson (1999), like
Elkington (1997), maintains that corporations need to understand the powerful
dynamic that lies within the values of those who make the corporations decisions.
In day to day life people's values are 'passive participants' in that the individual is
not aware of the role their values are playing in the process of life.
When
decisions are made it is contended that values play a passive role except when
the decision-maker is called upon to make strategic decisions where value
19
judgements are called for. The allocation of scarce resources is such a decision,
particularly when there are competing demands. Philanthropic causes are just
such demands.
A crucial question that corporations have to ask is ‘to what
extent do the individually held values of their executives pre-determine the
corporation's decisions?’
Hambrick and Mason (1984, p. 195) make the comment, ‘If strategic choices
have a large behavioural component, then to some extent they reflect the
idiosyncrasies of decision makers’. This study postulates that unlike Hambrick
and Mason, who maintain that values are part of the decision-makers’ cognitive
base, values are part of the essence of the person, they act on their daily lives as
has been said, like 'Ghosts' (Elkington, 1997) and the decision-maker only really
becomes aware of them when they are challenged, such as when a strategic
choice that involves a conflict of their values has to be made (Bernthal, 1965 in
Greenwood, 1965). Many decision-makers, even at this point, may not be aware
as to why they are experiencing inner turmoil over the decision.
This is in keeping with Guth and Tagiuri (1965) who maintain that many people
are unaware of the values they hold and clearly they are unable to give any clear
statement of what their values are, and would not be able to formulate their
values into any coherent value system.
20
The context in which we live ultimately rates individual freedom and human
dignity above economic profit, thus human values are placed above economic
values (Bernthal, 1965 in Greenwood, 1965).
‘The value judgements the
business manager faces then, are largely those in which his decision affects
other human beings’ Bernthal (1965 in Greenwood, 1965, p. 135).
Clearly,
decisions as to whether or not to donate are decisions that affect the well being
of other human beings. No two decision-makers have precisely the same values
on all issues (Filley et al, 1981), therefore the influence of these personalised
values on the decision-making process is of significance in the context of
strategic decision-making and in terms of this study, of particular interest when
the decision relates to the corporation's decision to donate to philanthropic
causes.
21
REFERENCE LIST
Baron. R. A. and D. Byrne 1987. Social Psychology: Understanding Human
Interaction. 5th ed. Allyn & Bacon Inc.
Beach, L. R. and Mitchell 1978 ‘A Contingency Model for the Selection of
Decision Making Strategies.’ Academy of Management Review 7, pp 439444
Buchholtz, A. K., A. C. Amason , and M. A. Rutherford. 1999. ‘Beyond
Resources: The Mediating Effect of Top Management Discretion and
Values on Corporate Philanthropy.’ Business and Society 38(2):168-87.
Burlingame, D. F. and D. R. Young . 1996. Corporate Philanthropy at the
Crossroads. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Carroll, A. B. 1979. ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social
Performance.’ Academy of Management Review 4:497-505.
Coffey, B. S. and G. E. Fryxell. 1991. ‘Institutional Ownership of Stock and
Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance.’ Journal of Business Ethics
10:437-44.
Coffey, B. S. &. J. Wang. 1998. ‘Board Diversity and Managerial Control As
Predictors of Corporate Social Performance.’ Journal of Business Ethics
17(14):1595-603.
Davidson, P. L. 1999. ‘Values Audit for Organisational Destochastisation.’ 14
pages .
Davies, H. 1997. ‘Corporate Giving: A Dialogue.’ Philanthropy:18-19.
Deal, T. E. and A. A. Kennedy. 1992. Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals
of Corporate Life. Sydney: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
Elkington, J. 1997. ‘Chapter 6 - Values: Ghost in the System.’ Cannibals With
Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, Capstone
Publishing Limited.
England, G. W. 1975. The Manager and His Values. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
England, G. W. and R. Lee. 1971. ‘Organisational Goals and Expected
Behaviour Among America, Japanese and Korean Managers - A
Comparative Study.’ Academy of Management Journal 14425-38.
Filley, A. C., R. J. House, and S. Kerr . 1981. Managerial Process and
Organisational Behaviour. Illinios, USA: Scott, Foresman & Company.
22
Francis, I. 1997. Future Direction: The Power of the Competitive Board. 1st ed.
Melbourne: FT Pitman Publishing.
Friedman, M. 1970. ‘The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its
Profits.’ New York Times Magazine 33.
Greenwood, W. T. 1965. Management and Organisational Behaviour Theories:
An Interdisciplinary Approach. Cincinnati, Ohio: South Western Publishing
Company.
Guth, W. D. and R. Tagiuri. 1965. ‘Personal Values and Corporate Strategy.’
Harvard Business Review 43(5):123-32.
Hambrick, D. C. and C. C. Snow. 1977. ‘A Contextual Model for Strategic
Decision Making in Organisations.’ Academy of Management Proceedings
)R. L. Taylor, M. J. O'Connell , R. A. Zawacki , and D. D. Warrick (ed).
Hambrick, D. C. and S. Finkelstein. 1987. ‘Managerial Discretion: A Bridge
Between Polar Views of Organisational Outcomes.’ Research in
Organisational Behaviour 9:369-406.
Hambrick, D. C. and G. Brandon 1. 1988. ‘Executive Values.’ Pp. 3-34 in The
Executive Effect: Concepts and Methodologies for Studying Top
Managers., D. C. e. Hambrick. Greenwich: JAI.
Hambrick, D. C. and P. A. Mason . 1984. ‘Upper Echelons: The Organisation As
a Reflection of Its Top Managers.’ Academy of Management Review
9(2):193-206.
Hansen, C. P. 1991. ‘A Handbook of Psychological Assessment in Business.’ 1st
ed. vol. ISBN 0-89930-565-2, New York: Quorum Books.
Kadlec, D. 1997. ‘The New World of Giving.’ Time Magazine. 45-46.
Keene, D. S. 1998. ‘The Environmental Consciousness of Accountants:
Environmental Worldviews, Beliefs, and Pro-Environmental Behaviours’.
AAANZ 1998 Conference, Adelaide, South Australia.
Kimberley, N. 1998. ‘Change and the Impact on Role - a Role Analysis of Three
Senior Executives of a Major Public Sector Organisation.’ Monash
University Working Paper 82/98. 1-12 Photocopy in the file.
Kreitner, R and A. Kinicki. 1989. Organisational Behaviour. Chicago, USA:
Richard D Irwin.
Laughlin, R. C. 1991. ‘Environmental Disturbances and Organisational
Transitions and Transformations: Some Alternative Models.’
Organisational Studies:209-32.
23
Lazere, C. 1997. ‘Ethically Challenged.’ CFO: The Magazine for Senior Financial
Executives 13(4):40-41.
Lerner, L. D. and G. E. Fryxell. 1994. ‘CEO Stakeholder Attitudes and Corporate
Social Activity in the Fortune 500.’ Business and Society 33:58-81.
Llewellyn, S. 1994. ‘Managing the Boundary: How Accounting Is Implicated in
Maintaining the Organisation.’ Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal 7(4):4-23.
MacMillian, G. S. 1996. ‘Corporate Social Investments: Do They Pay?’ Journal of
Business Ethics:309-14.
Middlemist, R. D. and M. A. Hitt. 1981. Organisational Behaviour: Applied
Concepts. Chicago, USA: Science Research Associates Inc.
Pava, M. L. and J. Krausz . 1996. ‘The Association Between Corporate SocialResponsibly and Financial Performance: The Paradox of Social Cost.’
Journal of Business Ethics 15:321-57.
Reder, A.. 1995. ‘The Wide World of Corporate Philanthropy.’ Business and
Society Review. 92, pp 36-42
Robbins, S. P. 1988. Management. 3rd ed. Edgewood Cliff, USA: Prentice-Hall.
Rokeach, M. 1968. Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. San Francesco, USA: JosseyBass Inc.
———. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York, USA: The Free Press.
Schwartz, S. H. 1996 ‘Value Priorities and Behaviour: Applying a Theory of
Integrated Values Systems.’ The Psychology of Values: Ontario
Symposium, Volume 8. (Mahwah, NJ., )C. Seligman and J. M. M. P. Z. E.
Olson Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schwartz, S. H. 1992. ‘Universals in the Content and Structure of Values:
Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in Twenty Countries.’ Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology 25:1-65.
Shaw, Bill and Fredrick R. Post. 1993. ‘A Moral Basis for Corporate
Philanthropy.’ Journal of Business Ethics 12:725-51.
Sikula, A. F. 1973. ‘The Values and Value Systems of Government Executives.’
Public Personnel Management 25:16-22.
Simon, H. A. 1959. ‘Theories in Decision-Making in Economics Behavioural
Science.’ American Economic Review (49).
24
Smith, C. 1994. ‘The New Corporate Philanthropy.’ Harvard Business
Review:105-16.
Solomon, R. 1992. ‘Corporate Roles, Personal Values: An Aristotelian Approach
to Business Ethics.’ Business Ethics Quarterly 2:317-40.
Stogdill, R. ‘Personal Factors Associated With Leadership: A Survey of the
Literature.’ The Journal of Psychology 25:35-71.
Weeden, C. 1998. Corporate Social Investing. San Francesco: Berret-Koehler.
Wood, D. J. 1991. ‘Corporate Social Performance Revisited.’ Academic of
Management Review 16(4):691-718.
25