The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7606.htm
CCM
22,2
278
Received 1 March 2014
Revised 27 June 2014
Accepted 24 July 2014
Cross Cultural Management
Vol. 22 No. 2, 2015
pp. 278-296
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7606
DOI 10.1108/CCM-03-2014-0028
National cultural values,
sustainability beliefs, and
organizational initiatives
Jasmine Tata
Quinlan School of Business, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois,
USA, and
Sameer Prasad
Department of Management, College of Business & Economics,
University of Wisconsin – Whitewater, Whitewater, Wisconsin, USA
Abstract
Purpose – Organizations are implementing sustainability initiatives in different countries with varied
socio-cultural systems. The literature on sustainability, however, does not present a clear picture of
how national culture can influence interpretations of the meaning of sustainability and how these
differences in interpretation can result in different sustainability practices. The purpose of this paper is
to build upon the current literature by identifying mechanisms (i.e. sustainability beliefs and perceptions)
that mediate the relationship between national cultural values and organizational sustainability
initiatives.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors examine the literature on culture and sustainability
practices, and develop a conceptual model that identifies how cultural values influence the
sustainability initiatives of organizations. Several propositions are identified that specify relationships
among the constructs, and guidelines are provided for testing the model in future research.
Findings – The model posits that national culture influences sustainability beliefs and perceptions,
which in turn influence the quantity and scope of sustainability initiatives. The relationship between
sustainability beliefs and organizational sustainability initiatives is moderated by sustainability
orientation and organizational capacity.
Originality/value – The model can help researchers and practitioners better understand the meaning
of sustainability in the context of international business by identifying the mechanisms that explain
the link between culture and sustainability. It can also help researchers generate hypotheses for future
research. Finally, the model can guide multinational corporations attempting to drive sustainability
programs through their subsidiaries as well as international developmental agencies trying to develop
programs in partnership with local non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Keywords Culture, Sustainability, Environment
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Sustainability has become an important issue for businesses today. Organizations
strive to implement sustainability initiatives as part of their corporate strategy by
adopting and implementing “activities that meet the needs of the enterprise and its
stakeholders today while protecting, sustaining, and enhancing the human, [social], and
natural resources that will be needed in the future” (Labuschagne et al., 2005, p. 374).
Implementing sustainability initiatives in different countries and regions of the world,
however, is not an easy task. Organizations need to be cognizant of the socio-cultural
differences underpinning the interpretation and evaluation of sustainability initiatives
across countries. Socio-cultural values can influence how people utilize their natural
resources as well as their willingness to pursue sustainability practices (Cohen and
Nelson, 1994); “if people are more culturally conscious of [social and] environmental
conditions, a higher level of sustainability [results]” (Park et al., 2007, p. 105). Hence, National
sustainability may be context specific, with national culture playing a significant role cultural values
in influencing how a society expects organizations and businesses to implement social
and environmental issues (Ringov and Zollo, 2007). Given such cultural differences,
organizations need to tailor their sustainability initiatives to the local context.
The objectives of this research are to add to the emerging literature on sustainability
in organizations and to provide a prescription to multinationals implementing 279
cross-country sustainability initiatives. Our model fulfils these objectives by examining
mediating variables, such as sustainability beliefs and perceptions, that explain the
relationship between national cultural values and organizational sustainability
initiatives. Two sustainability beliefs and perceptions are examined in the model:
importance or the perceived benefits of sustainability and inconvenience or the
perceived costs of sustainability. The model also includes two moderating variables:
the sustainability orientation of organizations and organizational capacity to engage in
sustainability initiatives.
This model addresses three main limitations of the current literature. First, although
several articles (e.g. Jackson and Apostolakau, 2010; Mueller et al., 2007; Rao, 2000)
have conducted comparisons of sustainability practices between two or more countries,
most have not specifically examined the influence of national culture on those practices.
For example, Jackson and Apostolakau, (2010) compared sustainability practices
across 16 countries and Rao (2000) across four countries, but neither study specifically
included national culture in their analyses. The few studies that do include culture as a
variable show inconsistent findings; for example, some studies (Husted, 2005; Vachon,
2010) found that cultural values such as individualism positively influenced
sustainability, whereas others (Waldman et al., 2006) found that they negatively
influenced sustainability. The model developed in this paper can help clarify such
inconsistencies in the literature on national culture and sustainability. Second, the few
studies on culture and sustainability have only examined whether or not there is a link
between national culture and sustainability, they have not investigated how national
cultural values influence sustainability initiatives. Our model identifies explanatory
mechanisms that clarify how culture can influence sustainability through the
mediating influence of sustainability beliefs and perceptions and how these differences
in beliefs can result in different sustainability initiatives. Third, the studies on national
cultural values and sustainability have largely focussed on sustainability at the societal
level. It is important to also understand how national culture can influence sustainability
at the organizational level. Our model elucidates the factors that contribute to an
organization’s implementation of various sustainability initiatives. This is especially
important for multinational corporations that operate in different countries and regions of
the world because such organizations need to pay special attention to the environmental
and social impact of global operations and ensure that such issues are an integral part
of their strategic decision-making process. Overall, our model can help researchers and
managers better understand the meaning of sustainability in the context of international
business, and increase their understanding of potential antecedents of successful
sustainable development efforts across countries and cultures.

Conceptual model
The Brundtland Commission defined sustainability as “that which meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
CCM needs” (World Commission on Economic Development, 1987, p. 8). This definition
22,2 has been adapted by scholars for the organizational context. Sustainable organizations
can be considered those that “can sustain financial, human, social, and environmental
resources over the long-term” (Bradbury, 2003, p. 173); these organizations play a
significant role in sustainability in various ways: through the transfer of sustainability
technology, through the education and training of employees, and through the
280 development of local communities.
Our model proposes that national cultural values can influence sustainability beliefs
and perceptions, which in turn influence the sustainability initiatives implemented by
organizations. Thus, sustainability beliefs and perceptions can act as mediators in the
relationship between national culture and organizational sustainability initiatives, and
provide one possible explanation for how cultural values can influence sustainability
initiatives. In addition, the model suggests that the relationship between sustainability
beliefs and sustainability initiatives is moderated by the sustainability orientation
of organizations and by organizational capacity (i.e. the information and resources
available to the organization about sustainability issues and practices). The model goes
on to propose relationships between five dimensions of national cultural values (power
distance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance,
and long-term vs short-term orientation), sustainability beliefs (perceived importance
and perceived inconvenience of sustainability), and the scope, type, and number of
sustainability initiatives (see Figure 1 for the model).
The next section examines the various components of the model and describes the
literature relating to each component. In addition, it discusses the relationships among
the main constructs and formulates propositions that depict those relationships.

National cultural values

Culture […] consists of ways of perceiving, thinking, and deciding that have worked in the
past and have become institutionalized in standard operating procedures, customs, scripts
and unstated assumptions that guide behavior (Triandis, 1995, p. 12).

Organizational capacity
- knowledge
- information
- resources

Beliefs and perceptions

about the importance of
National cultural values Quantity and scope of
sustainability
- power distance sustainability initiatives
- collectivism - environmental
- femininity - social
- long-term orientation - human
- uncertainty avoidance
Beliefs and perceptions
Figure 1. about the inconvenience of
sustainability
A conceptual model
of national cultural
values, sustainability
perceptions, and Sustainability orientation
- organizational
sustainability sustainability identity
initiatives - strategic centrality
- systems alignment
Culture is defined as beliefs and values that are widely shared in a specific society at a National
particular point in time (Ralston, 1993), as shared behavior patterns (Mead, 1973), cultural values
as values, ideas, and other symbolic behavior-shaping systems transmitted in a given
society (Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952), and “as the collective programming of the
mind that distinguishes one group of people from another” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 40).
An important aspect of culture is that it consists of shared knowledge, beliefs, values,
and goals that guide human activity (Hofstede, 2001). 281
Several theory-based schemas (e.g. Hofstede, 1980, 2005; Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck,
1961) have specified dimensions of national culture. We use Hofstede’s schema since
this is the one used by most research examining culture and sustainability (e.g. Cox
et al., 2011; Ho et al., 2012; Husted, 2005; Park et al., 2007; Ringov and Zollo, 2007;
Vachon, 2010). Hofstede identified five cultural dimensions that can be used to
differentiate among national cultures: power distance, individualism-collectivism,
masculinity-femininity, long-term vs short-term orientation, and uncertainty avoidance.
Each of these dimensions is briefly described below:

Power distance
This dimension of national culture refers to the degree of inequality of power within an
organization or society; it is “the extent to which less powerful members” of institutions
and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed
unequally” (Hofstede, 1997, p. 28). This is not only endorsed by followers, but also by
leaders. High power distance systems are hierarchical ones that are established through
the values of both parties who desire superiors to exert power and make decisions. In low
power distance cultures, people are less likely to tolerate such inequalities and more likely
to disagree with more powerful others.

Individualism-collectivism
This refers to the extent to which cultures focus on the self vs the group. Individualistic
cultures emphasize individual initiative, individual rights, and freedom of choice. In
such cultures, ties between individuals are loose and membership in groups can change
frequently. Collectivistic cultures emphasize group goals, sharing, duties, and obligations;
individuals in such cultures place the interests of the group over their own interests.

Masculinity-femininity
These values reference a focus on material success rather than quality of life (Hofstede,
1980); they are the social manifestation of the elements of individual personality and
behavior frequently associated with human gender (Park et al., 2007). In cultures high
in masculinity there is a focus on the pursuit of material goals and dominance.
In contrast, cultures high in femininity emphasize nurturance, affiliation, helpfulness,
and quality of life.

Orientation toward time

This describes how cultures differ in the degree to which they focus on the future.
In long-term-oriented cultures, there is a greater emphasis on future-oriented values
such as perseverance, thrift, and willingness to subordinate oneself for a purpose
(Hofstede, 1993). In short-term-oriented cultures values such as personal stability,
expectation of quick results, and keeping up with others are considered to be more
important.
CCM Uncertainty avoidance
22,2 This dimension of national culture is defined as the “extent to which members
of a culture feel threatened by uncertainty and unknown situations” (Hofstede, 1997,
p. 113); it refers to the degree to which a culture tolerates ambiguity and situational
demands. In high uncertainty avoidance cultures people prefer to avoid ambiguous
situations and feel uncomfortable without the structure of rules and regulations;
282 low uncertainty avoidance cultures reflect openness to change and propensity to
take risks.
Researchers have examined country-level differences in aspects of sustainability
such as environmental innovation, environmental management, social involvement,
and fair labor practices. For example, Rao (2000) found differences in environmental
management systems between the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, and
Jackson and Apostolakau (2010) found differences in environmental and social
sustainability practices across 16 countries. In contrast, Lindell and Karagozoghu
(2001) found no differences in the degree of environmental orientation between the USA
and Nordic countries, and Mueller et al. (2007) found no significant differences in
sustainability practices between German and New Zealand companies. Other
researchers have investigated country-level variability in people’s attitudes about the
environment and conservation. For example, Kellert (1996) found that people in Japan
were less interested in ecological processes and wildlife conservation, whereas those in
Germany were more interested in the protection of wildlife. The research discussed
above, however, did not measure cultural values nor did it connect sustainability
practices to national culture.
A few scholars have examined the relationship between national cultural values
and sustainability. The results of these studies, however, show inconsistent findings
(see Table I for a summary). For example, Husted (2005) measured social and
institutional capacity for environmental sustainability with gross national product per
capita (GNPC) and population growth as control variables. He found individualism,
masculinity and power distance to be related to institutional capacity and concluded
that “egalitarianism, individualism and feminine values appear to constitute “green” or
“sustainable” values” (p. 356). Park et al. (2007) examined the influence of culture on
the relationship between GNPC and environmental sustainability. They found that
cultures high in femininity and low in power distance had higher levels of
environmental sustainability, but did not find any influence of individualism. Similarly,
Cox et al. (2011) found a relationship between power distance and the interaction
of gross domestic product per capita (GDPC) and environmental sustainability, and but
did not identify any relationships with uncertainty avoidance or masculinity.
As indicated in Table I, the current literature does not provide a clear picture
of how national cultural values influence sustainability practices. For example, Husted
(2005) and Vachon (2010) found a positive relationship between individualistic values
and sustainability, whereas Waldman et al. (2006) found a negative relationship.
Further, Park et al. (2007) and Ringov and Zollo (2007) found no significant relationship
between individualism and sustainability. Similarly, Ho et al. (2012) found a positive
relationship between masculinity cultural values and environmental sustainability,
whereas Park et al. (2007) and Ringov and Zollo (2007) found a negative relationship;
Vachon (2010) found no significant relationship. We suggest that these inconsistent
findings might be better understood by examining how national cultural values
influence sustainability initiatives through the mechanism of sustainability beliefs and
perceptions.
 Power Uncertainty Long-term
National
Authors Sustainability issues measured distance Individualism Masculinity avoidance orientation cultural values
Cox et al. Environmental Sustainability − ns ns ns
(2011) Index × Gross domestic product
per capita
Ho et al. Intangible value asset – + − + +
(2012) environmental
283
Intangible value asset – human/social − − − −
Husted Societal and institutional capacity − + − ns
(2005) for environmental sustainability
Parboteeah Environmental behavioral − − ns +
et al. (2012) intentions from World Values
Survey
Park et al. Environmental Sustainability Index − ns − ns
(2007)
Ringov and Intangible value asset – − ns − ns
Zollo (2007) environmental and human/social
Vachon Green corporatism − + ns −
(2010) Environmental innovation ns + ns −
Fair labor practices ns + ns −
Social involvement ns + ns −
Waldman Importance in decision making − −
et al. (2006) assigned to environment and
employee well-being
Importance in decision making − − Table I.
assigned to welfare of community Summary of findings
Notes: −, Significant negative relationship; +, significant positive relationship; ns, no significant relationship in the literature

The influence of national cultural values on sustainability beliefs and

perceptions
The values inherent in national cultural systems can influence beliefs and perceptions,
and provide guidelines as to what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behavior
and practice (Rokeach, 1973). Values are broad based, whereas beliefs, attitudes and
perceptions are oriented toward specific objects and situations (Ajzen, 1991). Behaviors
can be considered manifestations of values and attitudes. The literature suggests
that specific beliefs and attitudes often mediate the relationship between values and
behavior (Alwitt and Ritts, 1996). Thus, national cultural values held by members
of a society can influence more beliefs specific to the functioning of organizations
(Waldman et al., 2006).
National culture consists of fundamental values that people have about the world
around them. These influence the formation of their beliefs and perceptions about
sustainability, along with their propensity to engage in sustainable behavior and
practices. Broad constructs such as national cultural values are unlikely to directly
influence organizational sustainability practices; rather, national culture is more
likely to affect specific constructs such as beliefs and attitudes, which in turn
influence behavior and practices (McCarty and Shrum, 2001). Similar to McCarty
and Shrum, we propose that two sustainability beliefs and perceptions (importance and
inconvenience) will act as mediators of the relationship between national cultural
values and sustainability initiatives. Importance refers to the perceived benefits of
engaging in sustainability initiatives (e.g. long-term benefits to the environment and
CCM society); inconvenience refers to the perceived costs of sustainability (e.g. time
22,2 and resources).
Researchers have examined the influence of national culture on beliefs and
attitudes about sustainability and have identified country-level variability in
people’s attitudes about the environment. Lindell and Karogozoghu (2001) examined
managerial attitudes and values toward the environment, and Leszczynska (2010)
284 measured ecological awareness as knowledge, values, and attitudes concerning
environmental issues. Park et al. (2007) proposed that “[culture can] influence how people
utilize their natural resources and environments by shaping their attitudes and
perceptions” (p. 105). Indeed, the impact of culture on normative beliefs about morally
correct behavior can act as mechanisms for environmental beliefs and behavior (Cohen
and Nelson, 1994). Such beliefs are reflected in perceptions of appropriate conduct in a
society and can significantly differ across cultures. Hence it is proposed:
P1. National cultural values will influence beliefs and perceptions about the
importance and inconvenience of sustainability.
Next, we examine the influence of Hofstede’s five dimensions of national cultural values
on sustainability beliefs and perceptions. Table II provides examples of sustainability
beliefs and perceptions for each dimension.
Power distance and sustainability beliefs and perceptions
Values concerning power and hierarchies can influence beliefs and perceptions of
sustainability. People in high power distance cultures are more likely to accept social
inequities as an inevitable part of society and less likely to perceive sustainability as
important. In such cultures, people tend to accept that with authority comes inequality

Cultural Beliefs concerning the importance of Beliefs concerning the inconvenience

dimension sustainability of sustainability

Power Low-power distance:

distance Environmental inequities should be
minimized
Social inequities (within communities and
among employees) should not be tolerated
Individualism- High collectivism High individualism
collectivism Concern for the needs of local community and Sustainability not in self-interest
society Sustainability programs are not
Importance of collective distribution of connected to professional
resources and collective action advancement
Masculinity- High femininity High masculinity
femininity Crucial to nurture society and the Costs of environmental programs
environment prohibit their use
Gender equity important Economic gain more important than
environmental and societal issues
Long-term High long term High short term
Table II. orientation Important to sacrifice today for future Costs outweigh benefits in the near
Examples of benefits future
sustainability beliefs Safeguard environment for future generations
and perceptions Uncertainty (high uncertainty avoidance)
across national avoidance Sustainability requires inconvenient
cultural dimensions changes in ways of doing things
and are more willing to put up with inequality (Williams and Zinkin, 2008). Power National
distance values indicate that those in positions of power are, by their very position, cultural values
more equal than others and thus entitled to unique privileges according to their rank
and status (Waldman et al., 2006). High power distance societies are likely to be “prone
to the manipulative use of power, a lack of equal opportunities for minorities and
women, a lack of personal or professional development within the organization”
(Waldman et al., 2006, p. 826). These values are likely to result in high level managers 285
in position of power who lack concern for the communities in which they operate
(Carl et al., 2004) as well as the welfare of employees, and are less likely to perceive
sustainability as an important issue. Societies with high power distance are more likely
to accept poor working conditions which can lead to social inequity in organizations
(Scholtens and Dam, 2007). Such societies are characterized by organizations that are
highly structured and hierarchical, with organizational decisions based on favoritism
and loyalty rather than merit. Therefore, such cultures are less likely to perceive human
rights or employee equity as important.
Katz et al. (2001) argued that “a higher level of power distance suggests less concern
about the environment than the opposing case. Historically, cultures with higher
levels of power distance have not emphasized human intervention in the natural
environment” (p. 158). Hence, the respect for authority embedded in high power
distance cultures can result in less capacity for debate and weaker business responses
to environmental and social problems (Katz et al., 2001), as opposed to low power
distance cultures. In support of this, empirical research has found that societies with
higher levels of power distance present a greater degree of acceptance of polluted
environments. Power distance has also been negatively linked to environmental
performance as measured by the Environmental Sustainability Index developed by the
World Economic Forum (Cox et al., 2011; Husted, 2005; Park et al., 2007). Similarly,
Vachon (2010) found that higher power distance was linked to fewer corporate
environmental practices.
In contrast, in low power distance cultures, social and human sustainability
initiatives are more likely to be openly discussed and perceived as important. Such
cultures stress egalitarianism and put social pressure on managers to minimize inequities,
whether in terms of society or the environment. In such cultures, sustainability is more
likely to be perceived as important. Therefore, it was proposed:
P2. Beliefs and perceptions about the importance of sustainability are likely to be
stronger in low power distance cultures than in high power distance cultures.
Individualism-collectivism and sustainability beliefs and perceptions
The relationship between individualism-collectivism and sustainability beliefs and
practices is a complex one. Managing the environment for sustainability is a collective
enterprise in which benefits to the collective should outweigh costs to the few.
Collectivists, who place the interests of the group first, are more likely to believe in the
importance of sustainability. Collectivists’ beliefs and attitudes promote a willingness
to share scarce resources, support what is best for society as a whole and are more
consistent with protection of the environment and development of society (McCarty
and Shrum, 2001). Thus, individuals in collectivistic cultures are more likely to perceive
sustainability as an important goal for society.
In contrast, the self-interest emphasis in individualistic cultures is less likely to be
consistent with beliefs that support sustainability. Managers from individualistic
cultures are less likely to demonstrate concern about the impact of their firm on society
CCM (Ringov and Zollo, 2007). In such cultures managers might believe that shareholders
22,2 should be put ahead of other stakeholders (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 2000),
whereas in collectivistic cultures there is likely to be focus on other stakeholders such
as employees and the community, as well as on shareholders. In support of this,
researchers found that French-Canadians (more collectivistic) expressed greater concern
for the environment and expressed more pro-environmental beliefs and attitudes
286 compared to Anglo-Canadians (more individualistic) (Laroche et al., 2002; Mourali et al.,
2005). Owens and Viders (2006) examined attitudes and behavior toward the environment
in 30 countries and found that pro-environmental attitudes and willingness to pay
higher taxes to support the environment were related to civic cooperation, a component
of collectivism. Ng and Burke (2010) found that individuals higher in collectivism had
more positive attitudes toward the environment.
In addition, individualistic cultures tend to emphasize the relationship between
self-interests and practices. Such values stress “contractual relationships based on the
principles of exchange. People calculate profit and loss before engaging in a behavior”
(Sinha and Verma, 1987, p. 124). Since sustainability initiatives are less likely to result
in immediate benefits, individualistic cultures are more likely to focus on the immediate
costs and times involved in sustainability initiatives, and perceive such initiatives as
inconvenient. Collectivistic cultures are more likely to focus on benefits to the collective
as a whole and less likely to perceive sustainability as inconvenient. In support of this,
McCarty and Shrum (2001) examined the influence of individualistic and collectivistic
values on environmental beliefs and found that individualism was related to beliefs
about the inconvenience of recycling. Hence, it was proposed:
P3. Beliefs and perceptions about the importance of sustainability are likely to be
stronger in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures.
P4. Beliefs and perceptions about the inconvenience of sustainability are likely to be
stronger in individualistic cultures than in collectivistic cultures.

Masculinity-femininity and sustainability beliefs and perceptions

Cultures with values high in femininity that emphasize nurturance, affiliation,
helpfulness, and quality of life are more likely to believe in the importance of initiatives
that promote the environment and benefit society. In such cultures there is a greater
belief in helping the weak as measured by aid to developing countries, and life
satisfaction takes precedence over job satisfaction (Katz et al., 2001). In contrast,
cultures high in masculinity tend to focus on the relative importance of assertiveness,
materialism and individual achievement, managers from such cultures are less likely to
focus on caring for the needs of the community, cooperation with local communities,
and social support, and are less likely to hold beliefs about the importance of
sustainability. In support of this, Husted (2005) found that masculinity cultural values
negatively influence the social and environmental capacity of nations. Park et al. (2007)
found that masculinity was negatively related to a country’s Environmental
Sustainability Index.
Masculinity values focus on the pursuit of material benefits and create “a preference
for economic growth over environmental conservation” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 32). This is
likely to result in beliefs about sustainability as an inconvenient obstacle to economic
expansion. People in such cultures may ignore environmental risks and skirt inconvenient
regulations (such as environmental regulations) that interfere with achieving material
success. For example, in Mexico, environmental protection may be a salient issue due to
the number of multinationals, but economic issues often take priority (Katz et al., 2001), National
perhaps because of high masculinity cultural values. Thus, it was proposed: cultural values
P5. Beliefs and perceptions about the importance of sustainability are likely to be
stronger in cultures high in femininity than in cultures high in masculinity.
P6. Beliefs and perceptions about the inconvenience of sustainability are likely to be
stronger in cultures high in masculinity than in cultures high in femininity. 287
Long-term vs short-term orientation and sustainability beliefs and perceptions
In long-term-oriented cultures, managers believe in the importance of making sacrifices
that bring in future benefits to the organization and to society; in short-term cultures
managers may be more likely to believe in the here and now and focus on immediate
returns, even at the expense of future gains. Sustainability, by its very definition, is
inherently long-term oriented, and managers in such cultures are more likely to believe
in giving up immediate benefits so as to achieve environmental protection for the
benefit of future generations. Societies with high long-term orientations also value long-
term commitment and respect for tradition, and believe in the importance of future
benefits over immediate gratification. In such cultures, greater attention is paid to
developing employees and communities, building relationships, and maintaining
bonds. Hence, such cultures are likely to hold beliefs about the importance of social and
environmental sustainability.
In contrast, short-term-oriented cultures may underscore short-term gratification
and immediate returns on time and effort. People in such cultures are likely to prefer
immediate economic gains at the expense of future environmental benefits. Since
the costs of sustainability are more likely to be immediate, and the benefits may not be
realized until well into the future, short-term-oriented cultures, with their focus on
the here and now, are likely to hold beliefs about the inconvenience of sustainability.
Therefore, it was proposed:
P7. Beliefs and perceptions about the importance of sustainability are likely to
be stronger in long-term-oriented cultures than in short-term-oriented
cultures.
P8. Beliefs and perceptions about the inconvenience of sustainability are likely to be
stronger in short-term-oriented cultures than in long-term-oriented cultures.
Uncertainty avoidance and sustainability beliefs and perceptions
High uncertainty avoidance cultures are likely to desire predictability which can
result in less likelihood of deviating from societal norms and a greater likelihood of
conforming to those norms. Such cultures are likely to have organizational barriers to
innovation (Ringov and Zollo, 2007). Since sustainability is likely to result in significant
changes to organizational procedures, the thought of implementing sustainability may
bring to mind the large number of inconveniences associated with new ways of doing
things and changes in protocol. Hence, sustainability is likely to be perceived as risky,
costly, and inconvenient in high uncertainty avoidance cultures.
Empirical studies examining sustainability in the context of uncertainty avoidance
show mixed results. Some have found no significant link between uncertainty
avoidance and environmental activities (Hewett et al., 2006; Husted, 2005; Park et al.,
2007). Other studies have found a few significant results; for example, Scholtens and
Dams, (2007) determined that uncertainty avoidance was positively linked to human
rights practices but negatively linked to environmental innovation, and Vachon (2010)
CCM found that uncertainty avoidance was negatively linked to environmental, human, and
22,2 social sustainability. We posit that these mixed findings may be due to differences in
the perceived inconvenience of sustainability in high and low uncertainty avoidance
cultures. Perhaps managers from high uncertainty avoidance cultures examine the
risks inherent in either implementing or not implementing sustainability initiatives and
implement sustainability programs based on their sustainability beliefs. Thus, it was
288 proposed:
P9. Beliefs and perceptions about the inconvenience of sustainability are likely to
be stronger in high uncertainty avoidance cultures than in low uncertainty
avoidance cultures.

The influence of sustainability beliefs and perceptions on organizational

sustainability initiatives
Sustainability beliefs and perceptions, in turn, influence how people in different
cultures interpret the meaning of sustainability and implement those practices. Hence,
national cultural values can influence organizational sustainability initiatives through
the mediating influence of beliefs and perceptions about the importance and
inconvenience of sustainability. Next, we discuss three categories of sustainability
initiatives (environmental, social, and human) which can be influenced by beliefs and
perceptions.
Environmental sustainability includes corporate environmental management. It
emphasizes operating within the carrying capacity of the ecosystem by reducing
environmental pollution, resource consumption, and the ecological footprint (Lindgreen
et al., 2009), and consists of practices engaged in by an organization that minimize its harm
to the land, water, and air. Organizations may reduce the risk of environmental accidents
by training employees on processes, and engage in monitoring the environmental impact
of products, services and processes, or they can develop new, alternate processes that
reduce waste and emissions by using non-traditional materials (Lindgreen et al., 2009;
Chow and Chen, 2012).
Social sustainability can be thought of as enhancing social welfare and promoting
healthier societies. This domain of sustainability consists of reducing social inequalities
and improving quality of life; it includes a concern for the common good. It consists of
practices that improve the health and safety of communities, and focus on social impact
and human rights (Bansal, 2005).
Human sustainability has been identified as a separate domain by a few scholars.
This refers to how organizational processes influence the physical and mental
well-being of organizational members. Pfeffer (2010) argued that “the health status of
the workforce is a particularly relevant indicator of human sustainability and well-
being because there is evidence that many organizational decisions about how they
reward and manage their employees have profound effects on human health and
mortality” (p. 36). Human sustainability consists of practices such as working
conditions, working hours, and the provision of benefits such as health insurance
(Pfeffer, 2010).
Beliefs and perceptions about sustainability influence the propensity to engage in
sustainability behaviors. Hence, beliefs about the importance of sustainability are likely
to result in a higher level of implementation of environmental, social, and human
sustainability initiatives that safeguard the environment for the future and help local
communities. Such organizations are more likely to implement a larger number of
sustainability initiatives, as well as initiatives of a broader scope. Hence, it was National
proposed: cultural values
P10. Beliefs and perceptions about the importance of sustainability are likely to
positively influence the quantity and scope of environmental, social, and human
sustainability initiatives implemented by organizations.
In contrast to beliefs about the importance of sustainability, beliefs about the 289
inconvenience of sustainability are likely to negatively influence sustainability practices.
The focus on costs and other inconveniences may come at the expense of sustainability; it
can reduce responsiveness to environmental problems and result in slower adaptation
of costly environmental technology by firms, especially if the benefits of such technology
do not result in immediate material gain (Husted, 2005). Beliefs about the inconvenience of
sustainability can also hinder development programs such as those aimed at improving
communities and alleviating poverty because individuals who oversee those programs
may not be as concerned about program outcomes as about inconvenience; their
professional advancement is more likely to be connected to the influence of high level
sponsors than their job performance (Husted, 2005). Environmental issues can be ignored
in the name of efficiency; for example, political power holders in some countries accept
the environmental waste of other countries, thus increasing their own political or material
benefits to the detriment of their people (Lopez and Mitra, 2000). In organizations,
instructions from management to cut corners and use unsafe environmental practices are
more likely when such practices are perceived as costly and inconvenient. Therefore, it
was proposed:
P11. Beliefs and perceptions about the inconvenience of sustainability are likely to
negatively influence the quantity and scope of environmental, social, and
human sustainability initiatives implemented by organizations.

Moderating effects of sustainability orientation and organizational

capacity
Our model proposes that the relationship between sustainability beliefs and perceptions
and organizational sustainability initiatives is moderated by two constructs:
sustainability orientation and organizational capacity. Each of these is discussed below.

Sustainability orientation
This refers to the extent to which an organization demonstrates readiness to implement
sustainability initiatives. It is manifested through system alignment (i.e. the degree to
which the company’s structure, systems and processes are aligned around sustainability),
centrality of sustainability to business strategy, and the extent to which sustainability
forms a core part of organizational identity (Wirtenberg et al., 2009). Organizations differ
in the extent to which they have developed systems to deal with environmental and
social issues and have established technologies to use in implementing sustainability.
Some organizations may lack a coherent sustainability strategy and systematic thinking
about managing the social and environmental impact of their processes. Others may have
well-developed systems in place that enable them to examine the impact of their processes
and activities on sustainability. These organizations do not view sustainability narrowly
as an operations issue or human resources issue or legal issue; they look at it as a system-
wide design and alignment that needs to be implemented in the entire organization,
and engage in actions such as capital investments, life cycle analyses, social and
CCM environmental audits, employee training, labor practices, community outreach, supplier
22,2 certifications, public reporting, and risk management (Epstein, 2008).
An organization’s sustainability orientation is also manifested through the extent to
which sustainability is a core part of its identity. Organizational identity involves facets
that describe the enduring characteristics of an organization (Albert and Whetten, 1985)
and plays an important role in the success of the organization. For some organizations,
290 sustainability is a core characteristic of organizational identity and consists of key facets
of environmental, social, and human sustainability. Because sustainability orientation
can influence the ways in which sustainability issues and actions within organizations
are defined and interpreted, this can constrain or motivate organizational actions and
decision-making processes. Thus, a strong sustainability orientation, as manifested
through organizational systems alignment, and the centrality of sustainability to
organizational strategy and identity, can enhance the influence of the importance of
sustainability on organizational sustainability initiatives. Similarly, a weak sustainability
orientation can attenuate this relationship. Therefore, it was proposed:
P12. Sustainability orientation is likely to moderate the relationship between beliefs
and perceptions about the importance and inconvenience of sustainability and
the quantity and scope of environmental, social, and human sustainability
initiatives implemented by organizations.
Organizational capacity
Organizations also differ in the extent to which they have the ability to implement
sustainability initiatives. A number of factors are essential to be able to implement such
initiatives: human capacity, availability of information, cooperation, and collaboration from
the various groups and individuals who are essential to the initiative, as well as the
finances to implement the initiatives (Wirtenberg et al., 2009). Organizations need
to have management and employees knowledgeable in sustainability issues, suppliers
certified to sustainability standards, as well as funds available for developing and
implementing effective sustainability programs. Some organizations have the ability to
analyze the risks, costs, and benefits of environmental and social issues and make well-
informed decisions about current and future operations and current and future risks. Other
organizations struggle with developing measures and metrics of sustainability (Epstein,
2008). Added to this, the benefits of sustainability can often be only measured over a long
timeframe which makes it difficult for organizations to be able to measure the impact of
social and environmental programs and to quantify the benefits of such programs. Hence,
the degree to which an organization has the informational and analytical capacity to
evaluate these issues may influence the relationship between sustainability beliefs and
perceptions and implementation of sustainability initiatives. Thus, it was proposed:
P13. Organizational capacity is likely to moderate the relationship between beliefs
and perceptions about the importance and inconvenience of sustainability and
the quantity and scope of environmental, social, and human sustainability
initiatives implemented by organizations.

Discussion
This paper presents a model of the relationships between national cultural values,
beliefs and perceptions about sustainability, and organizational sustainability
initiatives. The model suggests that cultures low in power distance and high in
collectivism, femininity, and long-term orientation are likely to hold stronger beliefs
about the importance of sustainability, and that cultures high in individualism, National
masculinity, short-term orientation, and uncertainty avoidance are likely to hold cultural values
stronger beliefs about the inconvenience of sustainability. Beliefs about the perceived
importance and inconvenience of sustainability are likely to influence the scope and
number of sustainability initiatives implemented by organizations, with beliefs about the
importance of sustainability having a positive impact and beliefs about the inconvenience
of sustainability having a negative impact. The model also suggests that the relationship 291
between sustainability beliefs and perceptions and organizational sustainability initiatives
is moderated by the sustainability orientation of the organization and by organizational
capacity, such that high levels of sustainability orientation and organizational capacity are
likely to strengthen the link between sustainability beliefs and organizational initiatives,
and low levels of sustainability orientation and organizational capacity are likely to
weaken the relationship between beliefs and initiatives.

Suggestions for future research

The model developed in this paper can be the basis for future empirical studies
examining the impact of cultural values on sustainability initiatives. For example,
researchers could conduct studies through which they obtain measures of cultural
value dimensions, beliefs and perceptions of the importance and inconvenience of
sustainability, and the quantity and scope of the sustainability initiatives implemented
by organizations. Measures of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions are available to
researchers (e.g. Hofstede 2001), but scales would have to be developed to measure the
other variables based on the current literature. For example, Wirtenberg et al.’s work on
sustainability orientation and Chow and Chen’s (2012) measures of corporate
sustainable development could be used as starting points in the development of scales.
Data could then be obtained by surveying the top management teams of organizations.
It might also be possible to obtain proprietary data about organizational sustainability
initiatives from independent agencies such as SAM (as indicated in Jackson and
Apostolakau, 2010).
Once the data are obtained, multilevel path analyses might be necessary to test the
proposed model. Since some constructs (national cultural values and sustainability
beliefs) would be measured at the country level and others (organizational sustainability
initiatives, sustainability orientation, and organizational capacity) at the organizational
level, hierarchical or cross-level techniques (e.g. HLM) would be necessary to test the
model (Luke, 2004). In order to model both within-level and between-level relationships, it
would be necessary to simultaneously estimate two models: one identifying within-group
relationships at the lower level, and a second to see how these within-group relationships
vary between groups. A mixed model would provide the versatility to capture
interactions between the two levels and path analyses would assess the influence of the
mediator variables (Luke, 2004).
Our model developed several propositions that specify separate connections
between each dimension of national culture and beliefs about the perceived importance
and perceived inconvenience of sustainability. Societies, however, can be categorized
on several socio-cultural dimensions; hence, it is important to understand the combined
effect of the dimensions of national culture on sustainability beliefs. The analyses
described above could also be used to test whether the influence of the cultural
dimensions is additive or interactive. Finally, future researchers can also investigate
the influence of other underlying factors, such as economic conditions and educational
levels, on sustainability beliefs and practices.
CCM Implications for practice
22,2 Our model suggests that business practices need to be aligned with prevailing cultural
norms. Managers should anticipate and minimize potential conflicts arising because
of cultural differences, and multinational organizations can adapt their approaches to
sustainability based on host country expectations. Since multinational corporations
operate in different countries, they engage in relations with partners, suppliers, and
292 distributors in those countries. These relationships, however, are not without conflict.
Multinationals and their partners may have conflicting ideas about various issues,
including sustainability initiatives and programs. These conflicts and differences often
arise due to cultural incongruence. Because of differing cultural backgrounds, people
may perceive and evaluate the world differently, and react to sustainability issues in a
manner that is often incomprehensible to those from another culture. Hence, the
cultural background of business partners, suppliers, and consumers will influence their
sustainability beliefs and their evaluation of the sustainability initiatives engaged in
by the organization. Therefore, it is important to identify and understand the influence
of cultural values on sustainability beliefs as well as the effectiveness of sustainability
initiatives.
A multinational operating in a country with strong beliefs about the inconvenience
of sustainability will have to behave in a manner that does not jeopardize its reputation
and formulate appropriate sustainability strategies that allow the company to
conduct its operations in a manner acceptable to the host country, as well as its global
stakeholders. The same multinational, when operating in a country with strong beliefs
about the importance of sustainability will have to recognize that standards for
environmental, social, and human sustainability are well recognized and respect them.
Hence, the ability of multinationals to implement global sustainability programs and
standards depends on cultural values, and it is important for managers, especially
those in multinationals, to understand how national culture can influence sustainability
in different countries.
International aid agencies have been plowing vast resources in order to ensure
better environmental, social and human outcomes in developing countries. As they
venture into new projects, the aid agencies need to be cognizant of local beliefs and
perceptions of the importance and inconvenience of sustainability. These agencies will
need to rely on local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to delivery environment,
social, and human services. However, the international aid agencies will have to assess
the local NGOs’ capacity (knowledge, information, resources) to effectively deliver the
proposed services. In addition, they need to assess the NGOs’ organizational identity,
strategic centrality, and systems alignment toward sustainability. Since many NGOs in
the developing world might lack such sophistication, international development
agencies might need to first invest in training programs to help local NGOs build their
organizational capacity and have the proper sustainability orientation.

Implications for policy

As countries enter into free-trade pacts, sustainability is often a core issue of contention
among the different countries, reflecting the variance in culture and hence beliefs and
perceptions of the importance and inconvenience of sustainability. Since sustainability
policies and programs are most likely to be effective if they are tailored to the national
culture, it may be necessary for free-trade agreements to allow a degree of flexibility in
allowing countries to adapt sustainability initiatives to the appropriate cultural context. For
example, sustainability education programs in collectivist countries could be allowed to
portray environmental degradation as a threat to the interests of the collective whole as well National
as to family and the close community. Social conformation is important is such cultures, cultural values
therefore environmental and social sustainability programs may need to be presented as
socially-accepted and normative practices. In high power distance cultures, sustainability
may need to be connected to the interests of those in power such as business leaders,
whereas in high masculinity societies sustainability will have to be linked to material gain
and economic prosperity. After all, sustainability initiatives are successful only to “the 293
extent that they can be integrated into the local cognition” (Ho et al., 2012, p. 437).

Conclusion
As multinationals attempt to implement sustainability initiatives across countries and
cultures, they lack a prescriptive model to tap from the literature. The current literature
does not present a clear picture of the relationship between national culture and
organizational sustainability. Most studies have not yet investigated the specific
impact of culture on sustainability practices, nor have they identified mechanisms
that can explain how national cultural values influence sustainability initiatives.
Our research bridges this gap in the literature by developing a conceptual model that
explains the relationships between national culture and organizational sustainability
initiatives through the mediating influence of sustainability beliefs and perceptions.
In addition, the influence of organizational capacity and sustainability orientation
is included in the model. The model adds to the emerging literature on sustainability
and culture, helps researchers and organizations understand how socio-cultural values
can impact sustainability, and guides multinationals in the implementation of their
sustainability initiatives across the world.

References
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 179-211.
Albert, S. and Whetten, D.A. (1985), “Organizational identity”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L.
(Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 263-295.
Alwitt, L.F. and Pitts, R.E. (1996), “Predicting purchase intentions for an environmentally
sensitive product”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 49-64.
Bansal, P. (2005), “Evolving sustainability: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable
development”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 197-218.
Bradbury, H. (2003), “Sustaining inner and outer worlds: a whole-systems approach to developing
sustainable business practices in management”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 172-186.
Carl, D., Gupta, V. and Javidan, M. (2004), “Power distance”, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M.,
Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership and Organizations, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA, pp. 513-563.
Chow, W.S. and Chen, Y. (2012), “Corporate sustainable development: testing a new scale based
on the Mainland Chinese context”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 519-533.
Cohen, D.V. and Nelson, K. (1994), “Multinational ethics programs: cases in corporate practice”, in
Hoffman, W.M., Kamm, J.W., Frederick, R.E. and Petry, E.S. Jr (Eds), Emerging Global
Business Ethics, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 151-162.
Cox, P.L., Friedman, B.A. and Tribunella, T. (2011), “Relationships among cultural dimensions,
national gross domestic product, and environmental sustainability”, Journal of Applied
Business and Economics, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 46-56.
CCM Epstein, M.J. (2008), Making Sustainability Work, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
22,2 Hampden-Turner, C.M. and Trompenaars, F. (2000), Building Cross-Cultural Competence, Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT.
Hewett, K., Money, R.B. and Sharma, S. (2006), “National culture and industrial buyer-supplier
relationships in the United States and Latin America”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 386-402.
294 Ho, F.N., Wang, H.D. and Vitell, S.J. (2012), “A global analysis of corporate social performance: the
effects of cultural and geographic environments”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 107 No. 4,
pp. 423-433.
Hofstede, G. (1993), “Cultural constraints in management theories”, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 81-93.
Hofstede, G. (2005), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
Hofstede, G.H. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G.H. (1997), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Hofstede, G.H. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Husted, B.W. (2005), “Culture and ecology: a cross-national study of the determinants of
environmental sustainability”, Management International Review, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 349-371.
Jackson, G. and Apostolakou, A. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe: an
institutional mirror or substitute?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 371-374.
Katz, J.P., Swanson, D.L. and Nelson, L.K. (2001), “Culture-based expectations of corporate
citizenship: a propositional framework and comparison of four cultures”, International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 149-171.
Kellert, S.R. (1996), The Value of Life, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Kluckhohn, F.R. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961), Variations in Value Orientations, Greenwood Press,
Westport, CT.
Kroeber, A.L. and Kluckhohn, C.K.M. (1952), Culture, Meridian Books, New York, NY.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C. and van Erck, P.C.R. (2005), “Assessing the sustainability
performances of industries”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 373-385.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., Tomiuk, M.-A. and Barbero-Forleo, G. (2002), “Cultural differences in
environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of Canadian consumers”, Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 267-283.
Leszczynska, A. (2010), “Manager's attitude toward environment”, Industrial Management and
Data Systems, Vol. 110 No. 8, pp. 1234-1108.
Lindell, M. and Karagozoglu, N. (2001), “Corporate environmental behavior - a comparison
between Nordic and US firms”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 38-52.
Lindgreen, A., Antioco, M., Harness, D. and van der Sloot, R. (2009), “Purchasing and marketing
of social and environmental sustainability for high-tech medical equipment”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 445-462.
Lopez, R. and Mitra, S. (2000), “Corruption, pollution, and the Kuznets environmental curve”,
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 137-150.
Luke, D.A. (2004), Multilevel Modeling, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
McCarty, J.A. and Shrum, L.J. (2001), “The influence of individualism, collectivism and locus of National
control on environmental beliefs and behavior”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 93-104.
cultural values
Mead, M. (1973), Coming of Age in Samoa, Modern Library, New York, NY.
Mourali, M., Laroche, M. and Pons, F. (2005), “Individualistic orientation and customer susceptibility
to interpersonal influence”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 164-173.
Mueller, J., Klandt, H., MacDonald, G. and Finke-Schuermann, T. (2007), “The chihuahua
295
sustainability practice: lots of shivering but no real action”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 7
No. 3, pp. 227-237.
Ng, E.S. and Burke, R.J. (2010), “Predictor of business students’ attitudes towards sustainable
business practices”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 603-615.
Owens, A. and Videras, J. (2006), “Civic cooperation, pro-environmental attitudes, and behavioral
intentions”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 814-829.
Parboteeah, K.P., Addae, H.M. and Cullen, J.B. (2012), “Propensity to support sustainability
initiatives: a cross-national model”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 403-413.
Park, H., Russell, C. and Lee, J. (2007), “National culture and environmental sustainability: a cross-
national analysis”, Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 104-121.
Pfeffer, J. (2010), “Building sustainable organizations: the human factor”, Academy of Management
Perspectives, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 34-45.
Ralston, D.A. (1993), “Differences in managerial values: a study of US, Hong Kong and PRC
managers”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 249-275.
Rao, P. (2000), “Exploring environmental management systems and their impact in South East
Asia”, Asia Pacific Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 74-88.
Ringov, D. and Zollo, M. (2007), “Corporate responsibility from a socio-institutional perspective:
the impact of national culture on corporate social performance”, Corporate Governance,
Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 476-485.
Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, Free Press, New York, NY.
Scholtens, B. and Dam, L. (2007), “Cultural values and international differences in business
ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 273-284.
Sinha, J. and Verma, J. (1987), “Structure of collectivism”, in Kagitcibasi, C. (Ed.), Growth and
Progress in Cross-Cultural Psychology, Sets, Berwyn, PA, pp. 123-129.
Triandis, H. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Vachon, S. (2010), “International operations and sustainable development: should national culture
matter?”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 350-361.
Waldman, D.A., de Luque, M.S., Washburn, N., House, R.J. and Adetoun, B. (2006), “Culture and
leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management:
a globe study of 15 countries”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6,
pp. 823-837.
Williams, G. and Zinkin, J. (2008), “The effect of culture on consumers’ willingness to punish
irresponsible corporate behavior: applying Hofstede’s typology to the punishment aspect of
corporate social responsibility”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 210-225.
Wirtenberg, J., Russell, W.G. and Lipsky, D. (2009), The Sustainable Enterprise Fieldbook,
Greenleaf Publishing, New York, NY.
World Commission on Economic Development (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
CCM Further reading
22,2 Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, F. (1997), “Response to geert hofstede”, International
Journal of lntercultural Relations, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 149-159.
296 Trompenaars, F. (1994), Riding the Waves of Culture, Irwin, New York, NY.
Vachon, S. and Mao, Z. (2008), “Linking supply chain strength to sustainable development: a
country-level analysis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1552-1560.

Corresponding author
Dr Jasmine Tata can be contacted at: jtata@luc.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.