Springer 2007

Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 78:165–174 DOI 10.1007/s10551-006-9321-0

The Relationship between Religiousness and Corporate Social Responsibility Orientation: Are there Differences Between Business Managers and Students?

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this paper is to determine whether there is a relationship between a person’s degree of religiousness and corporate social responsibility orientation. A total of 411 managers and 506 students from seven universities were surveyed. The statistical analysis showed that religiousness does influence students’ orientation toward the economic, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities of business. It does not, however, have a significant impact upon the managers’ attitudes. When the ‘‘low religiousness’’ students and managers were compared, differences were found with respect to the economic, ethical, and philanthropic components of corporate social responsibility. Similar results were obtained when the ‘‘high religiousness’’ students and managers were compared. The implications of these findings are discussed. Nabil Ibrahim is the Grover Maxwell Professor of Business Administration at Augusta State University, Augusta, Georgia. He teaches courses in Strategic Management and Applied Statistics. Dr. Ibrahim’s articles have appeared in the Journal of Business Ethics, Health Care Management Review, the Journal of Applied Business Research, as well as many other journals and proceedings. Donald P. Howard is an Associate Professor of Management at Augusta State University, Augusta, Georgia. He teaches courses in Strategic Management and Entrepreneurship. His articles have appeared in a number of journals such as the Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Applied Case Research, and Health Care Management Review, as well as many proceedings. John Angelidis is Professor and Chair, Department of Management, St. John’s University, New York, NY. He teaches courses in Strategic Management and International Business. Dr. Angelidis has published articles in the Journal of Business Ethics, Review of Business, Journal of Commerce and Management, as well as many other journals and proceedings.

Nabil A. Ibrahim Donald P. Howard John P. Angelidis

KEY WORDS: corporate social responsibility, business ethics, managers, religiousness, students

Introduction Business ethics have been the subject of controversy and debate for many years among researchers and practitioners. Not surprisingly, frequent revelations and scandals have fostered considerable interest and scholarly work in the ethics area. Recently, interest in this area was intensified due to widespread media accounts of outbreaks of ethical failing and questionable or abusive practices by corporations, executives, and corporate directors. Events such as the collapse of Enron, the destruction of documents at Arthur Andersen, questionable CEO compensation packages and other practices at Tyco, and charges of fraud at WorldCom have shaken public confidence in corporate America. This has led to numerous calls for reform and further examination of business ethics by academics and regulators. Literature review Within the broad context of business ethics, a limited but growing literature has focussed on the interplay between religion and management. There have been four streams of research and writing in this area. One line of research has been concerned with developing theoretical models of ethical judgment that take into account the influence of religion. As far back as 1989 a literature review by Tsalikis and Fritsche suggested the importance of incorporating a religious component in developing a framework

166

Nabil A. Ibrahim et al.

for business ethics. According to Wines and Napier, ‘‘there may be a nexus between religious values and management values’’ (1992, p. 834). One of the earliest models was proposed by Forsyth (1980). He considered an individual’s moral philosophy as one of the major factors influencing a person’s ethical decisions, and argued that these decisions can be explained by taking into account two aspects of personal moral philosophies – idealism and relativism. He defined the former as the degree to which a person assumes ‘‘that desirable consequences can, with the ‘right’ action, always be obtained’’ (p. 176). Relativists, on the other hand, reject the notion that universal moral rules when making ethical judgments exist. Although he did not specifically identify religion as one of the factors, religious training inevitably is a key ingredient to the development of a person’s moral philosophy. Hunt and Vitell (1986, 1993) proposed a model that includes personal religiousness as a key variable influencing perceptions of situations, alternatives, and consequences of business behavior. They asserted that ‘‘unquestionably, an individual’s personal religion influences ethical decision making’’ (1993, p.780). This model has been widely used in many studies, particularly in the field of marketing, and in various settings and countries. At around the same time, Ferrell and Gresham (1985) introduced a contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making. Building on Forsyth’s work, they suggested that individual factors, i.e., one’s ethical norms or ‘‘moral philosophy,’’ are the cornerstone of ethical decision making. A related research stream has focussed on constructing measures of ethical attitudes and behavior. In his seminal paper on the obligations of business toward society, Carroll (1979) suggested that business ethics is one of the key responsibilities of business. According to his model, total corporate social responsibility consists of four distinct components: economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary concerns. The first component requires management to maximize profits for the owners and shareholders by efficiently providing a supply of goods and services to meet market demands. Legal responsibility requires management to operate within the legal framework. To be ethical, a decision maker should act with fairness, equity, and impartiality. Finally, philanthropic activities are purely voluntary; they are

guided by management’s desire to make social or philanthropic contributions not required by economics, law, or ethics. Other writers have developed scales that implicitly or explicitly incorporate the influence of a person’s degree of religiousness. As shown earlier, there is theoretical support for including the religiousness construct in models of business ethics and, by extension, in instruments designed to measure an individual’s business ethics. Reindenbach and Robin (1988, 1990) developed the Multidimensional Ethics Scale based on the assumption that individuals use more than one rationale in making ethical judgments. The scale consists of eight items, which reduce to three factors: a moral equity dimension, a relativistic dimension, and a contractual dimension. These three dimensions enable the researcher to determine not only what the respondent believes, but also why. Reindenbach and Robin (1990) have argued that the first of these dimensions – moral equity – is influenced by a person’s religious training and has the greatest impact on ethical behavior. They reported that their scale is psychometrically sound by exhibiting high levels of reliability as well as convergent and discriminant validity. Others have constructed questionnaires by operationalizing previously developed models. For example, Forsyth (1980) developed the Ethics Position Questionnaire and Vitell and his colleagues (Vitell and Hunt, 1990; Singhapadki and Vitell, 1980) formulated questions to seek the respondents’ reactions to a series of vignettes. In a separate area of research, a number of writers have focussed their attention on the appropriate use of the construct of religiousness. Although the terms religiosity and religiousness have been used interchangeably by some authors (e.g., Kennedy and Lawton, 1996), others such as Wilkes et al. (1986) called for the development of clear definitions of these constructs. McDaniel and Burnett defined religion as ‘‘a belief in God accompanied by a commitment to follow principles believed to be set forth by God’’ (1990, p. 103). Donahue (1985) argued that the term ‘‘religiosity’’ is a value laden construct that connotes an affectation of religiousness, and suggests that the term ‘‘religiousness’’ be used instead. The latter has been defined as the strength of an individual’s religious beliefs and encompasses elements of affect and behavior

The Relationship between Religiousness and Corporate Social Responsibility (Cornwall et al., 1986). Many writers in recent years have chosen to use religiousness to refer to the construct of interest (see, e.g., Magill, 1992; Clark and Dawson, 1996). Indeed, an academic publication dedicated to the study of this subject, the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religiousness, has chosen to use this term in its title. Finally, a number of studies have focussed on the construct of religiousness and its relationship with an individual’s attitudes and behavior. According to Mentzer, this topic ‘‘has received too little attention...In the search for determinants of ethical behavior in the workplace, it is odd that so few researchers have investigated the impact of religious beliefs’’ (2002, p. 501). The few studies examining this issue have produced ambiguous results. Indeed, in their review of research on the impact of religion and ethical behavior, Hood et al. described the findings as ‘‘something of a roller-coaster ride’’ (1996, p. 371). While on certain issues (e.g., the use of illicit or illegal substances) the relationship is clear, no linkages have been found on other ethical issues (e.g., dishonesty or cheating). Some studies found that religion and the level of religious fervor of an individual have a positive effect on their ethics (Giorgi and Marsh, 1990). Similarly, Kennedy and Lawton (1996) reported a positive relationship between religiousness and a willingness to behave ethically among American and Ukrainian students. Also, Magill (1992) suggested that religiousness affords a background against which the ethical nature of behavior is interpreted. DeGeorge (1986) argued that religion provides the point of reference for evaluating conduct in business. In marketing, Singhapadki et al. (1994) found that highly religious marketers tend to agree more with guidelines or rules of behavior as guiding principles to their behavior than marketers who are less religious. Similar results were reported by Clark and Dawson (1996) who discovered ‘‘significant differences in ethical judgments among respondents categorized by personal religious motivation’ (p. 359). A study of 3,000 adult consumers in the US. found that religiosity is an indirect determinant of ethical beliefs (Vitell and Paolillo, 2003). Other researchers reported different results and asserted that religiousness does not automatically lead to ethical behavior. In early experimental studies Hegarty and Sims (1978, 1979) reported no

167

relationship between an individual’s religious orientation and business ethics decision making. Similar results were found by Kidwell et al. (1987) in their study of practicing managers. Also, a study of Thai managers that hypothesized that religious individuals are more likely to have ethical intentions than their counterparts reported mixed results (Singhapakdi et al., 2000). Likewise, ambiguous results were found by McDonald and Kan (1997) in their study of local and expatriate managers and M.B.A. students in Hong Kong. Finally, in a study of almost 600 students in New Zealand, Tse and Au (1997) found no significant differences between the ethical standards of those having religious beliefs and those of students not having religious beliefs. An interesting approach was another study of university students by Kennedy and Lawton (1998). They reported that when the ethical orientations of students at universities with three different types of affiliation were compared, students at an evangelical university were far less willing to engage in unethical behavior than were students at either a Catholic or an unaffiliated institution. Moreover, when the analysis focussed only on highly religious students, there were no differences among those who attended these three institutions. Finally, another facet of this topic was addressed by Angelidis and Ibrahim (2004). Their study examined the relationship between business students’ degree of religiousness and their corporate social responsibility orientation (CSRO). The latter was operationalized through the use of Carroll’s (1979) typology. The results showed a significant relationship between religiousness and the economic and ethical components of social responsibility. Overall, it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from these studies regarding the influence of religiousness on business ethics. However, assumptions about this relationship persist in the academic literature, practitioner-oriented journals, and the popular press. Furthermore, in spite of the continuing interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and research showing that managers’ personal characteristics play a significant role in their perceptions and behavior regarding CSR, very little attention has been devoted to the study of the relationship between a manager’s religiousness and CSRO. A recent paper reported the results of

168

Nabil A. Ibrahim et al.

a survey of Australian managers (Quazi, 2003). It found that ‘‘the stronger the religious belief, the more a manager is likely to perceive social responsibility as going beyond regulatory requirements’’ (p. 828). Although this study was concerned with economic and regulatory issues as well as general societal expectations, it did not specifically address the ethical and philanthropic components of social responsibility. The Angelidis and Ibrahim (2004) study did explore these relationships, but the participants were business students, not practicing managers. The purpose of this paper is to partially fill this void by addressing this issue. It extends previous work by seeking to determine and compare the influence of religiousness upon students’ and managers’ orientation toward each of Carroll’s four dimensions of CSR.

Methodology Data were collected as part of a larger study of business ethics. A questionnaire was administered to 506 volunteer full-time undergraduate students from seven AACSB-accredited universities located in the northeastern and southeastern United States. They were enrolled in sections of a strategic management course in the last semester of their program. These students are exposed to the concept of corporate social responsibility in a number of business courses. These classes attempt to critically engage the students with their broader responsibilities toward society and in particular with the ethical dimensions of management’s ( s decisions. The goal is to increase their awareness of the concept’s importance and its impact upon both business and society. In addition, a total of 411 business managers and professionals in the northeastern and midwestern United States participated in the study. All the respondents were briefed on the importance of the study and assured that all the information was strictly confidential. One part of the instrument consisted of a number of demographic questions to assess variables such as gender, age, level of education, and primary career background. Each participant’s degree of religiousness was measured with items which had been utilized by Barnett et al. (1996) and Chung and Monroe (2003) in their studies of business students

and professionals. The respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert-type scale the extent of their agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) with the following three statements: ‘‘I am very religious,’’ ‘‘my religion is very important to me,’’ and ‘‘I believe in God.’’ Due to the high level of internal consistency and following the convention used by the above-mentioned researchers, the mean of each respondent’s scores was calculated to arrive at an individual’s religiousness scores. CSRO was measured with an instrument developed by Aupperle et al. (1985). It is based on the four-part construct proposed by Carroll (1979). The instrument adopts a forced-choice format. This format is especially functional in the corporate social responsibility research area since it can limit a given respondent’s social desirability bias. Participants were asked to allocate up to ten points among four statements in each of several sets of statements. Each of the four statements in a set represents a different underlying dimension of Carroll’s four components. The instrument used in this study contained 20 such statements. The mean of each respondent’s scores on each of the four dimensions was calculated to arrive at an individual’s orientation toward each of the four components. The psychometric properties of the questionnaire have been thoroughly examined and it has been tested for its content validity and reliability (see, e.g., Aupperle et al., 1990; Smith and Blackburn, 1988). The instrument has proved robust and a factor analysis ‘‘supported the existence of four distinct, but related, components’’ (Aupperle et al., 1985, p. 457). The coefficients of internal consistency for each of the four components were calculated when the instrument was used by numerous subjects and in a wide variety of settings; they ranged from .81 to .95 (see, e.g., Ibrahim and Angelidis, 1993; Unni and Chitgopekar, 1989). To evaluate the clarity of the instructions and items, the questionnaire was pilot tested on two groups. The first group was composed of business majors in a senior strategic management class, and the second group was comprised of MBA students in an applied statistics class. As a result, several minor problems in the format and wording of the items were found and changes and refinements were made accordingly.

The Relationship between Religiousness and Corporate Social Responsibility Results The students were evenly split between females (51.6%) and males (48.4%). The majority had work experience (73.9%) and were single (78.9%). Their median age was 25. The majority (76%) of the practicing managers were males. The median number of persons employed full-time by their organizations was 475. The vast majority (88%) were in the 45–65 age group. In total, 86% had either an undergraduate education or a graduate/professional degree. A wide array of primary career backgrounds was represented in the sample, including accounting, healthcare, law, finance, education, manufacturing, retail/wholesale, and real estate. Consistent with previous research (Angelidis and Ibrahim, 2004), the ‘‘degree of religiousness’’ was converted into a categorical variable. For each of the two groups, this was achieved by examining the cumulative average of each respondent’s scores on that dimension and the cut-off point was made when the average score reached 50%. All individual scores at or below the cutoff point were signified as possessing a low level of religiousness. As a result, 231 (45.7%) students were classified as ‘‘low religiousness’’ and 275 (54.3%) were in the ‘‘high religiousness’’ group. Among the managers, the frequencies (and percentages) were 158 (38.4%) and 253 (61.6%), respectively. The analysis of the data was conducted in several stages. First, a chi-square test was performed to determine if there are any differences between the two samples with respect to their level of religiousness. The results show that there are significant differences between the two groups (v2 = 4.83, p = .0280). That is, compared to the students, a

169

significantly higher proportion of managers were in the ‘‘high religiousness’’ group. The next step was to determine if there are any differences between the two student groups with respect to the four CSR dimensions. We considered a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to be the most appropriate analytic technique for exploring these differences. That is, the two student groups (‘‘high religiousness’’ and ‘‘low religiousness’’) were treated as two ‘‘levels’’ of the independent variable, and the dependent variables consisted of the four components of CSR. This procedure compensates for variable intercorrelation and provides an omnibus test of any multivariate effect. Wilks’ statistic indicated a significantly different pattern of responses between the two groups of students (L = 0.57, p = 0.028). That is, overall, the two groups provided different responses. Next, to understand the underlying contributions of the variables to the significant multivariate effect, four separate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed. These results, depicted in Table 1, show that differences between the two groups were significant for two of the four CSR dimensions – economic responsibilities (F1,504 = 5.33, p = 0.0213) and the ethical component (F1,504 = 12.08, p = 0.0006). Finally, the ANOVAs did not produce significant results for the legal dimension (F1,504 = 0.92, p = 0.3385) and corporate philanthropy (F1,504 = 2.51, p = 0.1140). That is, the intensity of religious beliefs did not influence a person’s orientation toward the legal and philanthropic components of corporate responsibilities. A similar test was conducted to determine if there are any differences between the two groups of managers (‘‘high religiousness’’ and ‘‘low religiousness’’) with

TABLE 1 Anova results for differences between ‘‘low religiousness’’ and ‘‘high religiousness’’ students Group meansa

Dependent variables

1. 2. 3. 4. a

Economic Legal Ethical Discretionary

Low religiousness (n = 231)

High religiousness (n = 275)

3.03 2.75 2.46 1.75

2.75 2.66 2.70 1.85

(1.18) (1.09) (0.79) (0.64)

Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.

(1.24) (1.04) (0.76) (0.76)

F

p

5.33 0.92 12.08 2.51

0.0213 0.3385 0.0006 0.1140

Nabil A. Ibrahim et al.

170

TABLE 2 Anova results for differences between ‘‘low religiousness’’ and ‘‘high religiousness’’ managers Group meansa

Dependent variables

1. 2. 3. 4. a

Economic Legal Ethical Discretionary

Low religiousness (n = 158)

High religiousness (n = 253)

3.85 2.71 2.01 1.32

3.81 2.67 2.06 1.45

(1.20) (0.88) (0.76) (0.63)

(1.23) (0.83) (0.79) (0.87)

F

p

0.10 0.22 0.40 2.66

0.7463 0.6426 0.5269 0.1039

Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.

TABLE 3 Anova results for differences between ‘‘low religiousness’’ students and ‘‘low religiousness’’ managers Group meansa

Dependent variables

1. 2. 3. 4. a

Economic Legal Ethical Discretionary

Students (n = 231)

Managers (n = 158)

3.03 2.75 2.46 1.75

3.85 2.71 2.01 1.32

(1.18) (1.09) (0.79) (0.64)

(1.20) (0.88) (0.76) (0.63)

F

p

44.69 0.47 31.39 42.89

0.0000 0.7015 0.0000 0.0000

Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.

TABLE 4 Anova results for differences between ‘‘high religiousness’’ students and ‘‘high religiousness’’ managers Group meansa

Dependent variables

1. 2. 3. 4. a

Economic Legal Ethical Discretionary

Students (n = 275)

Managers (n = 253)

2.75 2.66 2.70 1.85

3.81 2.67 2.06 1.45

(1.24) (1.04) (0.76) (0.76)

(1.23) (0.83) (0.79) (0.87)

F

p

97.04 0.01 89.97 31.78

0.0000 0.9034 0.0000 0.0000

Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.

respect to their level of religiousness. The MANOVA results did not show any significant differences between the two groups (L = 0.24, p = 0.463). The two groups’ means for each of the four components of CSR are shown in Table 2. The next step in analyzing the data was to ascertain if there are any differences between the two ‘‘low religiousness’’ groups with respect to each of

the four CSR dimensions. The MANOVA showed that a significantly different pattern of responses across the two groups (L = 0.66, p < 0.000). When four separate ANOVAs were performed, the results showed that the student group exhibited greater concern about the ethical (F1,387 = 31.39, p < 0.0000) and discretionary components (F1,387 = 42.89, p = < 0.0000) of CSR and a weaker

The Relationship between Religiousness and Corporate Social Responsibility orientation toward economic performance (F1,387 = 44.69, p < 0.0000). No significant differences were observed with respect to the legal dimension (F1,387 = 0.47, p = 0.7015). These results are presented in Table 3. Finally, a similar series of tests was conducted to determine whether there are any differences between the ‘‘high religiousness’’ students and the ‘‘high religiousness’’ managers. The MANOVA results revealed that there are significant differences between the two groups (L = 0.77, p < 0.000). As shown in Table 4, the four separate ANOVAs generated results identical to those of the ‘‘high religiousness’’ group. That is, the students exhibited greater concern about the ethical (F1,526 = 89.97, p < 0.0000) and discretionary components (F1,526 = 31.78, p < 0.0000) and a weaker orientation toward economic performance (F1,526 = 97.04, p < 0.0000). No significant differences were observed with respect to the legal dimension (F1,526 = 0.01, p = 0.9034).

Discussion Ethics has been one of the principal issues confronting business for many years. Of particular interest to researchers and practitioners is the extent to which managers are responsive to the expectations of shareholders and society. While they are responsible for maximizing long-term value for the shareholders, they are also expected to adequately monitor their employees’ performance, and to enforce and adhere to certain ethical standards. Visible indicators of problematic leadership eventually surface in the form of corporate crises such as bankruptcy, executive turnover, legal difficulties, ethical failings, and hostile relations with various stakeholders. Recent business scandals have shaken the public’s confidence and diminished investors’ trust in the soundness of corporate decisions and the integrity of business managers. Various explanations could be advanced for these results. With respect to the differences between the two student groups, these results are consistent with previous research findings reported by Angelidis and Ibrahim (2004). They suggested that this disparity could reflect a ‘‘religiousness gap’’ where students ‘‘with deep religious beliefs tend to weigh the

171

significance of elements of organizational performance differently than those with ‘low religiousness’ scores’’ (2004, p. 125). This study shows that as managers’ degree of religiousness increases, their ethical and philanthropic orientation also increases albeit slightly while their economic and legal concerns diminish to a small extent. However, the changes in these four dependent variables are not statistically significant. That is, religiousness does not have a significant impact on these managers’ CSRO. The absence of any significant differences between the ‘‘high religiousness’’ and ‘‘low religiousness’’ managers contrasts with the results obtained from the student sample. Therefore this study corroborates previous research reporting that an individual’s level of religiousness does not have an impact on ethical decision-making. As discussed earlier, a number of researchers have reported no relationship between religiousness and willingness to behave ethically. Indeed, according to Clark and Dawson (1996), religious persons may be ‘‘less questioning of corporate policies and goals which do not clearly violate moral absolutes’’ (p. 369). In addition, this finding is not surprising since the vast majority have many years of business experience. Due to competitive pressures and stakeholders’ demands, they are keenly aware of the importance of maintaining a profitable and financially sound business concern irrespective of their personal religious beliefs. They confront similar challenges in the business world and, consequently, their level of religiousness does not play an important role when they consider the various economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic demands and trade-offs. The differences and similarities between the two student groups and the managers (regardless of their degree of religiousness) are not surprising. One interpretation for the differences with regard to the economic dimension is that, unlike the students, the managers have a greater appreciation of the business world’s economic realities. The latter tend to be more attuned to the values of competitiveness and financial efficiency, while the students are more distant from the pressures of the marketplace. Concerning the legal responsibility, this can be attributed to the numerous laws and regulations which constrain the actions of business, and the various sanctions imposed by society on illegal behavior.

172

Nabil A. Ibrahim et al.

Managers realize that business faces an increasingly litigious environment and are concerned with the risks of personal legal liability. The impact of this concern on managerial attitudes and behavior has been widely discussed and documented in both the popular and academic literature. At the same time, business curricula continue to emphasize the importance of these matters in the ordinary course of teaching various business subjects and in separate ‘‘legal environment’’ and ‘‘business-and- society’’ courses. Therefore, it not surprising that both students and managers are sensitive to legal and regulatory requirements. Finally, the differences regarding ethical and philanthropic issues may reflect a gap between the two generations represented in our sample. Compared to today’s managers, students may hold distinctly different values and concerns. Once again, this might be a reflection of a business education, which attempts to integrate a concern for ethical behavior and philanthropic endeavors with one’s managerial responsibilities. For example, McPhail (1999) argued that certain forms of ethics education have a substantial influence on students’ ethical standards by challenging certain values and beliefs they take for granted and engendering empathy towards others. In addition, it should encourage students to recognize the broader social environment within which business operates. Also, Weber and Glyptis (2000) found that a business ethics course had a positive impact on students’ values and opinions. Other recent writers have noted that, compared to the previous generation of students, today’s students tend to be less cynical and more idealistic, optimistic, and socially active (Morton, 2002; Stapinski, 1999). While this study offers an improved understanding of differences and similarities between (and among) students and managers based on their degree of religiousness, caveats must be offered regarding the conclusions generated by this research. The first limitation concerns the generalizability of these results. A study such as this one is based largely on aggregate measures. However, it opens a line of inquiry on whether these results are valid when practitioners’ specific occupations are taken into account. This would ensure a greater homogeneity within the groups being studied. An additional cautionary note concerns the possibility of bias in the

data provided by those who were sampled in this study. Although anonymity was emphasized, a social desirability bias cannot be completely ruled out. Weaver and Agle (2002), for example, argue that ‘‘bringing religion into the mix’’ can be methodologically challenging (pp. 91, 92). Finally, many individual, organizational, and situational variables may also have a strong effect on individuals’ CSRO. Research is needed to determine the relative influence of these factors. In conclusion, the findings of this study provide insights into an area of growing concern to society and all types of organizations. The numerous managerial ambiguities that are inherent in business decisions are further complicated by growing societal demands on corporations and increased attention on the ethical and philanthropic dimensions of decision making. This issue is likely to gain increased attention by educators and practitioners in the coming years. References Angelidis, J. and N. Ibrahim: 2004, ÔAn Exploratory Study of the Impact of Degree of Religiousness Upon an Individual’s Corporate Social Responsiveness OrientationÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 51(2), 119–128. Aupperle, K., F. Simmons, and W. Acar: 1990, ‘An Empirical Investigation into How Entrepreneurs View their Social Responsibilities’, Proceedings of the Academy of Management (San Francisco), 250–253. Aupperle, K. and A. J. Carroll Hatfield: 1985, ÔAn Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and ProfitabilityÕ, Academy of Management Journal 28(2), 446–463. Barnett, T. and K. G. Bass Brown: 1996, ÔReligiosity, Ethical Ideology, and Intentions to Report a Peer’s WrongdoingÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 15(11), 1161– 1174. Carroll, A.: 1979, ÔA Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social PerformanceÕ, Academy of Management Review 4, 497–506. Chung, J. and G. Monroe:: 2003, ÔExploring Social Desirability BiasÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 44(4), 291– 302. Clark, J. and L. Dawson: 1996, ÔPersonal Religiousness and Ethical Judgments: An Empirical AnalysisÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 15(3), 359–373. Cornwall, M. and S. P. B. Albrecht Cunningham Pitcher: 1986, ÔThe Dimensions of Religiosity: A Conceptual

The Relationship between Religiousness and Corporate Social Responsibility Model with an Empirical TestÕ, Review of Religious Research 27(3), 226–243. DeGeorge, R.: 1986, ÔTheological Ethics and Business EthicsÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 5, 421–432. Donahue, M. J.: 1985, ÔIntrinsic and Extrinsic Religiousness: Review and Meta-AnalysisÕ, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48(2), 400–419. Ferrell, O. C. and L. Gresham: 1985, ÔA Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in MarketingÕ, Journal of Marketing 49, 87– 96Summer. Forsyth, D. R.: 1980, ÔA Taxonomy of Ethical IdeologiesÕ, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(1), 175–184. Giorgi, L. and C. Marsh: 1990, ÔThe Protestant Work Ethic is a Cultural PhenomenonÕ, European Journal of Social Psychology 20(6), 499–517. Hegarty, W. and H. Sims: 1979, ÔOrganizational Philosophy, Policies and Objectives Related to Unethical Decision Behavior: A Laboratory ExperimentÕ, Journal of Applied Psychology 64(3), 331–338. Hegarty, W. and H. Sims: 1978, ÔSome Determinants of Unethical Decision Behavior: An ExperimentÕ, Journal of Applied Psychology 63, 451–457. Hood, R. W., Jr and B. R. Spilka Hunsberger Gorsuch: 1996, The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach (Guilford Press, NY).. Hunt,, S. D. and S. Vitell: 1993, ‘The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Retrospective and Revision’, in Smith, N. and Quelch, J. (eds.), Ethics in Marketing (Richard D. Irwin, Chicago, IL). Hunt, S. D. and S. Vitell: 1986, ÔA General Theory of Marketing EthicsÕ, Journal of Macromarketing 6, 5– 16Spring. Ibrahim, N. and J. Angelidis: 1993, ÔCorporate Social Responsibility: A Comparative Analysis of Perceptions of Top Executives and Business StudentsÕ, The MidAtlantic Journal of Business 29, 303–314. Kennedy, E. and L. Lawton: 1998, ÔReligiousness and Business EthicsÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 17(2), 163– 175. Kennedy, E. and L. Lawton: 1996, ÔThe Effects of Social and Moral Integration on Ethical Standards: A Comparison of American and Ukranian Business StudentsÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 15(8), 901– 911. Kidwell, J. and R. Stevens Bethke:: 1987, ÔDifferences in Ethical Perceptions Between Male and Female Managers: Myth or Reality?Õ, Journal of Business Ethics 6(6), 489–493. Magill, G.: 1992, ÔTheology in Business Ethics: Appealing to the Religious ImaginationÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 11(2), 129–136.

173

McDaniel, S. and J. Burnett: 1990, ÔConsumer Religiosity and Retail Store Evaluation CriteriaÕ, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 18(2), 101–12. McDonald, G. and P. Kan: 1997, ÔEthical Perceptions of Expatriate and Local Managers in Hong KongÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 16(15), 1605–1624. McPhail, K.: 1999, ÔThe Threat Of Ethical Accountants: An Application of Foucault’s Concept of Ethics to Accounting Education and some Thoughts on Ethically Educating for the OtherÕ, Critical Perspectives on Accounting 10(6), 833–866. Mentzer, M.: 2002, ÔThe Ethics of Displaying Workplace Piety, or, Should I Be at the Boss’s Prayer Breakfast?Õ, Academy of Management Review 27(4), –501. Morton, L.: 2002, ÔSegmenting Baby BoomersÕ, Public Relations Quarterly 46(3), 46–47. Quazi, A.: 2003, ÔIdentifying the Determinants of Corporate Managers Perceived Social ObligationsÕ, Management Decision 41(9), 822–829. Reindenbach, R. and D. Robin: 1990, ÔToward the Development of a Multidimensional Scale for Improving Evaluations of Business EthicsÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 9(8), 639–654. Reindenbach, R. and D. Robin: 1988, ÔSome Initial Steps Toward Improving the Measurement of Ethical Evaluations of Marketing ActivitiesÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 7, 871–879. Singhapakdi, A. and S. B. V. Salyachivin Virakul Veerayangkur: 2000, ÔSome Important Factors Underlying Ethical Decision Making of Managers in ThailandÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 27, 271–284. Singhapadki, A. and J. K. C. Marta Rallapalli Rao: 1994, ÔToward an Understanding of Religiousness and Marketing EthicsÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 27(4), 305– 319. Singhapadki, A. and S. Vitell: 1980, ÔMarketing Ethics: Factors Influencing Perception of Ethical Problems and AlternativesÕ, Journal Of Macromarketing 10(1), 4– 18. Smith, W. and R. Blackburn: 1988, Corporate Social Responsibility: A Psychometric Examination of a Management Instrument. Proceedings of the Southern Management Association, pp. 293–295. Stapinski, H.: 1999, ÔY Not Love?Õ, American Demographics 2, 63–68February. Tsalikis, J and D. Fritzsche: 1989, ÔBusiness Ethics: A Literature Review with a Focus on Marketing EthicsÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 8, 695–744. Tse, A. and A. Au: 1997, ÔAre New Zealand Business Students More Unethical than Non-Business Students?Õ, Journal of Business Ethics 16(4), 445–451. Unni, V. K. and Chitgopekar: 1989, Orientations Toward Social Responsibility of Women Entrepre-

174

Nabil A. Ibrahim et al.

neurs. Southern Management Association Proceedings, pp. 235–237. Vitell, S. and S. Hunt: 1990, ÔThe General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Partial Test of the ModelÕ, Research in Marketing 10, 237–265. Vitell, S. and J. Paolillo: 2003, ÔConsumer Ethics: The Role of ReligiosityÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 46(2), 151–62. Weaver, G. and B. Agle: 2002, ÔReligiosity As an Influence on Ethical Behavior in Organizations: A Theoretical Model and Research AgendaÕ, Academy of Management Review 27(1), 77–97. Weber, J. and S. Glyptis: 2000, ÔMeasuring The Impact of a Business Ethics Course and Community Service Experience on Students Values and OpinionsÕ, Teaching Business Ethics 4, 341–358. Wilkes, R. and J. R. Burnett Howell: 1986, ÔOn the Meaning and Measurement of Religiosity in Consumer ResearchÕ, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 14, 47–55Spring. Wines, W. and N. Napier: 1992, ÔTowards an Understanding of Cross-Cultural Ethics: A Tentative ModelÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 831–841.

Nabil A. Ibrahim College of Business Administration, Augusta State University, Augusta, GA, 30904-2200, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Donald P. Howard College of Business Administration, Augusta State University, Augusta, GA, 30904-2200, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] John P. Angelidis Department of Management, St. John’s University, Grand Central and Utopia Parkways, Jamaica, NY, 11439, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]