Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 55 – 67

Nature of corporate responsibilities

Perspectives from American, French, and German consumers
Isabelle Maignana,*, O.C. Ferrellb
a
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Department of Information Management,
Marketing and Logistics, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
b
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Abstract

More and more businesses adopt socially responsible initiatives based on the assumption that consumers actively support responsible
organizations. Yet, little is known about the meaning and importance of corporate responsibilities for consumers in different countries. This
study compares how consumers in the US, France, and Germany evaluate corporate responsibilities both toward society in general and
toward organizational stakeholders. The findings reveal significant differences between the US and the two European nations and provide
guidance to build the image of a responsible organization internationally.
D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Corporate social responsibility; Stakeholders; Responsible consumption; Ethics

1. Introduction behaviors are representative of responsible corporate behav-

‘‘We believe that our company has a responsibility to
respect our natural resources; we can have a positive
effect on our environment. We believe that it’s important
for our company to give back to our communities; we
can influence the world we live in. We believe that
how our company conducts business should be the
guiding principles for those who conduct business
with us; we can set the standards.’’ (Saks Incorporated,
www.saksincorporated.com, 11/2000)
As illustrated in the corporate statement above, businesses
are increasingly eager to present themselves as good corpor-
ate citizens concerned with a variety of social issues such as
fairness, the well-being of employees, or the welfare of
society at large. This enthusiasm for corporate responsibility
is often based on the assumption that customers are willing to
support actively good corporate citizens (e.g., Jones, 1997;
Lorge, 1999). Yet, only limited research evidence is available
to support this claim (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Handelman
and Arnold, 1999; Maignan et al., 1999). In particular, past
studies have not examined which corporate activities and
ior according to consumers. As a result, businesses have little
knowledge about the concrete responsibility initiatives that
they ought to adopt to appeal to their customers. Most of the
past investigations into the nature and benefits of corporate
responsibility have been conducted in the US. Consequently,
international managers are left in doubt about the nature and
potential returns of corporate responsibility programs in
various regions of the world.
The present research intends to shed some light into the
nature of corporate responsibility as perceived by consumers
from different countries. In particular, the assessments
provided by consumers in Germany, France, and the US
will be compared and contrasted. The paper is structured
around five main sections: (1) an overview of past con-
ceptualizations of corporate responsibility, (2) the devel-
opment of research hypotheses, (3) the presentation of the
research methodology, (4) the analysis of study results, and
(5) a discussion of findings.
2. Nature of corporate responsibilities

Two distinct research streams have examined the nature

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-20-444-6002; fax: +31-20-444-
of corporate responsibilities. One focuses on corporate
6005. social responsibilities (e.g., Carroll, 1979; Davis, 1973;
E-mail address: i.maignan@nsm.kun.nl (I. Maignan). Eellis and Walton, 1961; Eilbert and Parket, 1973; Freder-

0148-2963/03/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 8 - 2 9 6 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 2 2 - 3
56 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 55–67
ick, 1978; Robin and Reidenbach, 1987; Strand, 1983;
Wartick and Cochran, 1985) while the second considers
corporate stakeholder responsibilities (e.g., Clarkson, 1988,
1991, 1995; Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Goodpaster,
1991; Jones, 1997). These two perspectives are briefly
reviewed below.
2.1. Corporate social responsibilities
A variety of definitions of corporate responsibilities were
proposed starting in the 1950s throughout the 1970s (e.g.,
Bowen, 1953; Davis, 1973; Eellis and Walton, 1961; Mason,
1960; McGuire, 1963). Carroll (1979) attempted to integrate
previous conceptualizations in a classification that high-
lighted four types of responsibilities: economic, legal, ethical,
and philanthropic. Economic responsibilities require that
businesses be profitable and produce goods and services
which are desirable in society. Controlling employees’ pro-
ductivity or monitoring customer complaints are examples of
activities signifying economic responsibility. Legal respons-
ibilities correspond to society’s expectation to see businesses
meet their economic duties within the framework of the law.
Training programs about sexual harassment and fairness in
the workplace represent initiatives aimed at fostering legal
responsibility. Ethical responsibilities require that businesses
follow the modes of conduct considered as morally right.
Codes of conduct or ethics training programs help businesses
meet their ethical responsibilities. Finally, philanthropic
responsibilities reflect the common desire to see businesses
get actively involved in the betterment of society beyond their
economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities. Work-family
programs, corporate volunteerism, and donations to cultural
organizations are examples of philanthropic initiatives.
Carroll’s categorization has been widely adopted in later
research (e.g., Lewin et al., 1995; Swanson, 1995; Wartick
and Cochran, 1985; Wood, 1991). Yet, this classification —
like other less established frameworks — has not been
brought to the scrutiny of social actors and consumers.
Therefore, while the notion of corporate social responsibility
is concerned with ‘‘bringing corporate behavior up to a level
where it is in congruence with currently prevailing social
norms, values, and performance expectations’’ (Sethi, 1979,
p. 66), past research has not formally surveyed society’s
understanding of corporate responsibilities. Even though
some empirical studies have used Carroll’s (1979) clas-
sification in the context of managerial surveys (e.g., Aup-
perle et al., 1985; Maignan et al., 1999; Pinkston and
Carroll, 1994), no research has examined whether this
framework depicts appropriately consumers’ perceptions
of corporate responsibilities. Accordingly, the managerial
relevance of Carroll’s work remains questionable.
2.2. Corporate stakeholder responsibilities
The advocates of the stakeholder management approach
have discussed additional weaknesses of the corporate social
responsibility framework. For example, Clarkson (1995)
argued that Carroll’s (1979) classification provides answers
to the question ‘‘What are businesses responsible for?’’ but
fails to address the question: ‘‘To whom are businesses
socially responsible?’’ Clarkson (1995) along with Donald-
son and Preston (1995) suggested that businesses are not
responsible to society as a whole, but only to corporate
stakeholders, those actors who can affect or be affected by
corporate activities.
In a series of case studies, Clarkson (1988, 1991)
examined the performance of Canadian businesses in meet-
ing an inventory of 50 stakeholder demands. Clarkson’s
(1995) inventory of ‘‘typical corporate and stakeholder
issues’’ (p. 101) was generated based on interviews for each
stakeholder group’s representatives the informants described
how their own specific demands could best be met by
businesses. For example, Clarkson obtained information
about customers’ depiction of corporate responsibilities
toward customers. However, this study did not explain
how consumers characterize the behavior of a responsible
firm toward other stakeholder groups (employees, share-
holders, or the community for example). Consequently,
similarly to past literature on corporate social responsibil-
ities, research on stakeholder management does not provide
insights into consumers’ definition of corporate responsibil-
ities. Thus, the stakeholder approach provides little practical
guidance for managers to select the corporate responsibility
initiatives most likely to generate consumers’ enthusiasm
and support.
Against this backdrop, the first objective of the present
study was to examine how consumers evaluate: (1) the four
types of corporate social responsibilities defined by Carroll
(1979) and (2) the responsibilities of businesses toward
four stakeholder groups — the community, customers,
employees, and shareholders. The second study objective
was to gain some preliminary insights into potential cross-
cultural differences in consumers’ evaluations of corporate
responsibilities. Comparing consumers’ definition of cor-
porate responsibilities in the US, France, and Germany
promised to be fruitful since these three nations share
common defining features — such as democratic institu-
tions and a similar level of economic development —
while differing significantly in terms of core characteristics
such as business – government or business –employee rela-
tionships (Enriquez, 1992; Lodge, 1990; Thurow, 1992;
Wever, 1995).
3. Hypotheses development
In this section, arguments are introduced to predict the
relative importance level allocated by US, French, and
German consumers to each social and stakeholder respons-
ibility. This discussion assumes that consumers in each
country can differentiate between each type of social and
stakeholder responsibility.
 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 55–67
3.1. Consumers’ evaluation of corporate social
responsibilities
Carroll (1979) stated that: ‘‘The first and foremost social
responsibility of businesses is economic in nature. Before
anything else, the business institution is the basic economic
unit in our society’’ (p. 500). One may wonder whether
Carroll’s assessment is shared by US, French, and German
consumers. Lodge’s (1990) comparative analysis of busi-
ness – government regulations in the US and Europe yields
relevant insights to address this question. Lodge (1990)
suggested that underlying national ideologies encourage
firms in each country to pursue a specific primary strategic
objective; this position received empirical support in a study
by Katz, Werner, and Brouthers (1999). Lodge’s (1990)
discussion of national ideologies is especially relevant for
the present research since consumers’ depiction of corporate
responsibilities can be expected to reflect underlying
national ideologies.
Lodge (1990) differentiated between individualist and
communitarian ideologies. Individualism values the short-
term betterment of the individual, whereas communitarian-
ism emphasizes the needs of the community and the benefits
of consensus. Lodge described the US national ideology as
individualist, whereas he depicted the French and German
ideologies as mainly communitarian. Assuming that indi-
vidualist and communitarian national ideologies are associ-
ated, respectively, with individualist and collectivist values,
Lodge’s description of the US, France, and Germany con-
fers with the empirical analyses of national values con-
ducted by Hofstede (1980, 1983) and Schwartz (1992).
3.1.1. Within country analysis
Since the US is characterized as probably the best
example of the individualist ideology (Lodge, 1990), its
different social actors are likely to consider that both
themselves and other social agents should strive to serve
mainly their short term self-interests. Each social actor is
expected to take care of its own survival and well-being.
Accordingly, US consumers may assume that businesses’
main duty is to remain profitable and productive in order
to both survive and prosper. US consumers may deem
that the main responsibility of the firm is economic.
Subsequently, the following hypothesis (Hypothesis 1a
to c) is advanced:
Hypothesis 1: Consumers in the US will allocate more
importance to corporate economic responsibilities than to
corporate (a) legal, (b) ethical, and (c) philanthropic
responsibilities, respectively.
Given that Germany and France are characterized mainly
by a communitarian ideology, the members of these two
societies are unlikely to perceive the pursuit of one’s self-
interest as an appropriate overriding goal for any social
agent. Accordingly, French and German consumers may not
view economic achievements as the primary social duty of
57
businesses. Instead, these consumers may sense that busi-
nesses should use their economic resources to contribute to
the well-being of society in general. Hence, corporate
economic responsibilities may be viewed by French and
German consumers as secondary to other corporate social
responsibilities. Thus, the following hypothesis (Hypothesis
2a to c) is advanced:
Hypothesis 2: Consumers in France and Germany will
allocate less importance to corporate economic responsi-
bilities than to corporate (a) legal, (b) ethical, and (c)
philanthropic responsibilities.
3.1.2. Between countries comparison
US consumers are likely to view economic duties as the
most important corporate responsibilities whereas French
and German consumers are not expected to view economic
achievements as the overriding goal of corporations. Con-
sequently, as stated in the following hypothesis (Hypothesis
3a to b), corporate economic responsibilities are likely to be
granted more importance by US consumers than by their
French and German counterparts:
Hypothesis 3: Consumers in the US will allocate more
importance to corporate economic responsibilities than
consumers in (a) France and (b) Germany.
Given the communitarian ideology prevalent in France
and Germany, consumers in these two nations are likely to
expect businesses to conform to the social norms defining
appropriate behavior. Thus, French and German consumers
may allocate more importance to businesses meeting their
legal and ethical responsibilities than US consumers. In
addition, French and German consumers may expect a more
active corporate involvement in the betterment of society as
a whole. Accordingly, the following hypotheses (Hypothesis
4a to c) is proposed:
Hypothesis 4: Consumers in France and Germany
will allocate more importance to corporate (a) legal,
(b) ethical, and (c) philanthropic responsibilities than
US consumers.
3.2. Consumers’ evaluation of stakeholder responsibilities
3.2.1. Within country analysis
According to Lodge (1990), the idea that the fundamental
purpose of the corporation is the satisfaction of shareholders
has prevailed for a long time in the US. However, following
the 1980s wave of consolidations, this well-established
assumption has been increasingly challenged. Lodge
(1990) concludes: ‘‘In America, there is doubt and even
conflict about corporate purpose’’ (p. 25). This observation
suggests first that corporate duties toward investors still
remain an essential responsibility of businesses in the eyes
of the US public opinion. Lodge’s analysis further entails
that other stakeholders may also be considered as essential
in the US. Given that the present study surveys consumers
58 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 55–67
and that the US ideology has been depicted as individu-
alistic, US consumers are likely to expect companies to pay
much attention to customers’ demands. Therefore, we
suggest that US consumers may value most corporate
responsibilities toward both investors and customers.
Accordingly, the following hypotheses (Hypotheses 5a,b
and 6a,b) are proposed:
Hypothesis 5: Consumers in the US will allocate more
importance to corporate investor responsibilities than to
(a) corporate employee responsibilities and (b) corporate
community responsibilities.
Hypothesis 6: Consumers in the US will allocate more
importance to corporate customer responsibilities than to
(a) corporate employee responsibilities and (b) corporate
community responsibilities.
Lodge (1990) further explained that in Europe corporate
purpose springs from a combination of the demands put
forth by equity holders, banks, employees, and the com-
munity. This is confirmed by Thurow (1992, cf. p. 36) who
claimed that European societies broaden the rank of corpor-
ate stakeholders beyond the traditional owners to include
workers and the community. Following these analyses, we
can expect French and German customers to view busi-
nesses as being equally responsible toward each of their
stakeholder groups. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 7: Consumers in France and Germany will
allocate the same level of importance to corporate
employee, customer, investor, and community responsi-
bilities.
3.2.2. Between countries comparison
Traditional US ideology has viewed businesses as being
responsible mainly toward their equity holders, whereas the
French and German ideologies do not privilege the interest
of any group of corporate stakeholders. It can therefore be
expected that the importance allocated to responsibilities
toward investors is greater in the US than in France and
Germany. Hence, the following hypothesis (Hypothesis 8a
and b) is advanced:
Hypothesis 8: Consumers in the US will allocate more
importance to corporate investor responsibilities than
consumers in (a) France and (b) Germany.
Both Lodge (1990) and Thurow (1992) explained that
French and German businesses most commonly have to
adopt the strategic options that are accepted by trade unions
or employee representatives. This assessment needs to be
qualified since trade union membership and power have
been declining throughout Europe over the past few years
(Economist, 2000a). Yet, labor movements or negotiations
— whether they are organized under the umbrella of trade
unions or not — remain a strong determinant of corporate
and public policies (Economist, 2000a,b,c). The underlying
French and German ideologies still hold businesses
responsible mainly for offering employment and for pro-
viding a work environment that is protective of one’s
personal life, that facilitates personal development, and
that creates a social network for employees (Centres des
Jeunes Dirigeants d’Entreprise, 1996; DeBeer and Col-
leagues, 1995; Langlois and Schlegelmich, 1990). Signific-
ant of this ideology in France is the legal requirement for
businesses to establish a ‘‘bilan social’’ (social balance
sheet) that accompanies the traditional yearly accounting
balance sheet. This ‘‘bilan social’’ consists essentially in
recording the efforts undertaken by the organization to
manage its relations to its employees and to offer a quality
work environment (Capron and Leseul, 1996). In Germany,
the involvement of employee representatives at all levels of
the organizational decision-making process along with
generous employee benefits remain prevalent today (Eco-
nomist, 2000d) and illustrate the importance attributed to
workers’ welfare in that country (Addison, 1999; Wachter,
1997; Wever, 1995). Given the traditional importance
allocated to employees by the French and German ideo-
logies and by corporate practices in those two nations, we
can expect French and German consumers to allocate more
importance to corporate responsibilities toward employees
than US consumers. Hence:
Hypothesis 9: Consumers in (a) France, and (b) Germany
will allocate more importance to corporate employee
responsibilities than US consumers.
As discussed earlier, given the communitarian ideology
prevalent in France and Germany, consumers in those two
countries may be especially eager to see businesses get
actively involved in the betterment of society. Thus, French
and German consumers may deem corporate community
responsibilities as especially important. The duties of busi-
nesses to the community may not be granted as much
importance in the US where businesses are expected to seek
mainly their self-interest. Hence, the following hypothesis
(Hypothesis 10a and b) is advanced:
Hypothesis 10: Consumers in (a) France and (b)
Germany will allocate more importance to corporate
community responsibilities than consumers in the US.
Based on Lodge’s (1990) conceptualization of national
ideologies, it is difficult to compare a priori the import-
ance levels attributed to corporate customer responsibil-
ities by consumers in the US and Europe. Given this lack
of supporting argument, the following null hypothesis
is proposed:
Hypothesis 11: Consumers in the US, France, and
Germany will allocate the same level of importance to
corporate responsibilities toward customers.
4. Methodology
The lack of existing measurement instruments that
assess consumers’ evaluation of social and stakeholder
 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 55–67
responsibilities constituted one of the main challenges
of the hypothesis testing process. The discussion below
first presents the steps adopted to generate adequate
measures, and then details the features of the data gath-
ering process.
4.1. Instrument development
Even though no scale could be found to assess con-
sumers’ evaluation of social and stakeholder responsibil-
ities, three related instruments proposed, respectively, by
Aupperle et al. (1985), Clarkson’s (1988, 1995), and
Maignan and Ferrell (1999) were useful in constructing
new measures. Based on these instruments, an initial
battery of items was generated in order to gauge consum-
ers’ evaluations of each social responsibility — economic,
legal, ethical, or philanthropic —, and each stakeholder
responsibility — toward employees, customers, investors,
and the community.
In accordance with the recommendations of Churchill
(1979), three pretests were employed to assess the quality,
face validity, and content validity of the items. First, the
items were submitted to six scholars with an expertise in
the field of business and society. These scholars had to
pinpoint any ambiguous item and had to rate each item in
terms of representativeness and consistency. Based on the
comments thereby obtained, items were modified and
rephrased. In a second pretest, the resulting items were
submitted to university employees — excluding professors
— in each country. These informants were asked to
participate in a survey about shopping. Respectively 53,
45, and 42 usable questionnaires were obtained in the US,
France, and Germany. The items’ descriptive statistics,
inter-item along with item-to-total correlations, and reli-
ability estimates were examined and helped further refine
the instrument. At this stage, potential wording and
formulation consistency issues became apparent and were
solved. Finally, the resulting items were submitted again
to the six experts in the field of business and society.
Their suggestions led to only some minor modifications in
the wording and presentation of the items.
The resulting instrument included four items for each
social responsibility and five items for each stakeholder
responsibility. Respondents had to rate on a 7-point scale
a list of statements such as: I believe that businesses must
(a) maximize profits (economic responsibility), (b) refrain
from bending the law even if this helps improve per-
formance (legal responsibility), (c) avoid layoffs (respons-
ibility toward employees), and (d) help improve the
quality of life in our community (responsibility toward
the community). Much attention was paid to maintaining
translation equivalence (Agarwal, 1992). To that effect,
the items were first translated into French and German,
respectively, by one native speaker and back translated
into English by a professional translator. The few dis-
crepancies observed between the original instrument and
59
its back translated version were only minor and easily
solved by the translators.
4.2. Data collection
One main concern with the data collection process
consisted in obtaining information from comparable sam-
ples in the three countries considered. Recruiting consumers
within a similar workplace environment seemed to provide
some assurance of sample comparability in terms of social
status, education, and lifestyles. The authors established
convenience samples in each of the three countries consid-
ered after securing the involvement of contact persons
working in large insurance companies and banks. Specif-
ically, in the US, informants were recruited among one bank
in a south-eastern city, and one insurance company in a
north-eastern city. In France, questionnaires were distributed
in one insurance company and two banks, all located in
metropolitan areas. In Germany, surveys were handed out in
one bank and one insurance company located in two large
cities. Such limited samples cannot be considered repres-
entative of the populations of the three countries at stake;
yet, they are conducive of sample comparability.
In each firm, a contact person was asked to pass the
questionnaires among colleagues at all levels of the organ-
ization and in as many different departments as possible.
The contact person was instructed to explain to informants
that: (1) the study was conducted for academic purposes (a
cover page detailed the purpose and features of the survey),
(2) the study was not sponsored or in any other way linked
to their company, and (3) the completed surveys should be
sent back directly to the researchers. The resulting ques-
tionnaire was entitled ‘‘Survey of Shopping Styles’’ and
included many items about shopping habits in addition to
the measures developed for the purpose of this study. No
question was asked about respondents’ work experiences.
With these precautions, participants could reasonably be
expected to approach the questionnaire as consumers.
The contact persons were given a total of 200 question-
naires in each country. The German contacts managed to
pass only 120 surveys. A total of 169 French, 94 German,
and 145 US usable questionnaires were returned. An exam-
ination of the respondents’ demographic profile revealed
that the three samples were quite comparable in terms of
age, gender, education, and position in the company.
5. Analysis and results
5.1. Overall examination of social and stakeholder
responsibilities
Exploratory factor analyses were conducted in each
sample to check that consumers could differentiate between
each type of social and stakeholder responsibility. As
indicated in Table 1, eight factors — four for social
 60
Table 1
Exploratory factor analysis of corporate responsibilities
Factor loadingsa
Scale United States France Germany
items ECO LEG ETH PHI EMP CUS INV COM ECO LEG ETH PHI EMP CUS INV COM ECO LEG ETH PHI EMP CUS INV COM
ECO 1 .84 .12 .11 .16 .02 .11 .20 .08 .79 .15 .03 .19 .10 .18 .41 .05 .94 .28 .40 .12 .25 .09 .27 .06
ECO 2 .86 .11 .10 .06 .01 .19 .29 .00 .73 .28 .07 .00 .11 .30 .30 .16 .92 .15 .13 .04 .16 .06 .34 .07
ECO 3 .83 .30 .6 .11 .03 .16 .16 .11 .74 .16 .26 .01 .13 .19 .21 .07 .96 .17 .26 .10 .22 .00 .30 .01
ECO 4 .83 .01 .22 .00 .14 .26 .20 .15 .86 .10 .04 .03 .03 .18 .30 .12 .91 .23 .31 .00 .25 .06 .31 .05
LEG 1 .12 .87 .48 .26 .22 .44 .14 .16 .20 .88 .35 .03 .09 .27 .22 .02 .08 .88 .27 .40 .10 .15 .38 .20
LEG 2 .07 .83 .52 .23 .07 .30 .03 .18 .21 .89 .41 .00 .13 .17 .05 .00 .32 .88 .46 .13 .30 .18 .08 .04

I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 55–67

LEG 3 .07 .91 .34 .16 .20 .34 .07 .08 .03 .90 .45 .03 .20 .28 .48 .04 .23 .90 .53 .15 .31 .14 .17 .03
LEG 4 .10 .86 .37 .24 .24 .35 .07 .04 .16 .92 .40 .13 .10 .26 .02 .02 .15 .90 .45 .21 .15 .10 .31 .06
ETH 1 .17 .25 .86 .47 .20 .15 .03 .15 .07 .35 .90 .04 .09 .09 .20 .02 .31 .41 .93 .20 .26 .25 .07 .19
ETH 2 .14 .51 .91 .42 .20 .23 .06 .18 .07 .42 .88 .01 .09 .27 .00 .08 .34 .49 .90 .21 .22 .08 .09 .02
ETH 3 .05 .45 .86 .39 .17 .29 .01 .26 .13 .45 .83 .17 .27 .29 .01 .08 .26 .45 .94 .30 .32 .33 .02 .24
ETH 4 .08 .53 .90 .29 .21 .18 .02 .15 .11 .45 .88 .02 .13 .21 .07 .02 .28 .47 .93 .18 .33 .17 .05 .17
DIS 1 .00 .15 .43 .90 .32 .20 .00 .47 .20 .02 .00 .84 .28 .03 .02 .33 .01 .22 .27 .92 .12 .19 .16 .41
DIS 2 .07 .09 .32 .88 .31 .28 .12 .49 .12 .06 .21 .69 .20 .00 .28 .41 .01 .18 .08 .93 .14 .08 .07 .39
DIS 3 .02 .26 .35 .93 .27 .20 .34 .38 .04 .00 .31 .82 .03 .11 .10 .37 .13 .25 .20 .93 .24 .12 .08 .38
DIS 4 .04 .26 .38 .93 .22 .24 .00 .45 .08 .16 .09 .86 .13 .09 .04 .32 .17 .34 .31 .91 .27 .24 .06 .41
EMP 1 .04 .10 .23 .29 .88 .26 .10 .29 .08 .03 .13 .17 .85 .18 .12 .12 .19 .29 .21 .24 .86 .38 .27 .19
EMP 2 .09 .14 .21 .24 .89 .26 .13 .28 .01 .08 .03 .11 .86 .17 .07 .17 .25 .21 .18 .22 .91 .30 1.13 .21
EMP 3 .05 .14 .11 .23 .83 .18 .11 .34 .00 .11 .10 .12 .78 .13 .16 .21 .31 .11 .35 .20 .88 .33 .14 .26
EMP 4 .05 .22 .15 .27 .92 .44 .14 .39 .10 .15 .11 .21 .78 .30 .07 .05 .10 .25 .25 .07 .78 .38 .21 .10
EMP 5 .05 .20 .10 .29 .90 .35 .09 .19 .02 .21 .24 .04 .74 .32 .07 .04 .15 .29 .34 .24 .84 .49 .02 .29
CUS 1 .22 .40 .14 .26 .32 .91 .22 .26 .26 .21 .14 .07 .23 .90 .11 .14 .00 .26 .18 .21 .43 .88 .10 .28
CUS 2 .22 .34 .08 .22 .37 .92 .21 .31 .23 .15 .11 .01 .18 .92 .15 .09 .09 .05 .04 .01 .27 .85 .12 .14
CUS 3 .13 .29 .25 .22 .29 .92 .25 .26 .14 .19 .25 .07 .32 .85 .02 .07 .04 .10 .22 .09 .41 .78 .01 .05
CUS 4 .17 .33 .20 .25 .28 .92 .17 .34 .15 .24 .13 .06 .20 .89 .10 .02 .16 .15 .17 .30 .41 .72 .15 .15
CUS 5 .16 .29 .18 .17 .24 .93 .23 .20 .21 .38 .28 .02 .18 .84 .13 .03 .02 .14 .33 .29 .23 .81 .04 .29
INV 1 .23 .01 .02 .03 .13 .24 .94 .08 .33 .07 .03 .03 .11 .13 .93 .00 .44 .18 .09 .08 .16 .10 .90 .05
INV 2 .20 .12 .00 .03 .15 .20 .94 .03 .32 .08 .08 .07 .12 .12 .94 .03 .33 .18 .06 .10 .12 .14 .91 .03
INV 3 .23 .12 .00 .06 .13 .16 .96 .05 .41 .06 .10 .05 .07 .17 .93 .01 .47 .17 .05 .17 .26 .06 .87 .09
INV 4 .27 .00 .04 .02 .10 .27 .94 .01 .33 .12 .06 .06 .10 .08 .93 .04 .44 .31 .14 .11 .03 .05 .84 .09
INV 5 .16 .07 .08 .06 .07 .20 .94 .02 .19 .06 .13 .14 .15 .06 .90 .05 .03 .34 .00 .07 .07 .11 .84 .10
COM 1 .07 .11 .14 .43 .30 .32 .02 .91 .06 .06 .24 .37 .15 .06 .07 .92 .11 .13 .41 .43 .34 .26 .03 .88
COM 2 .09 .09 .18 .48 .28 .23 .01 .92 .09 .01 .09 .34 .15 .09 .00 .87 .01 .04 .15 .44 .16 .20 .05 .92
COM 3 .17 .05 .09 .45 .24 .20 .05 .92 .04 .05 .11 .46 .20 .17 .07 .89 .11 .02 .07 .39 .19 .20 .13 .92
COM 4 .02 .07 .20 .40 .40 .27 .08 .90 .13 .06 .01 .37 .18 .06 .03 .90 .06 .00 .03 .39 .10 .12 .05 .93
COM 5 .05 .12 .24 .41 .36 .43 .10 .89 .01 .01 .09 .28 .07 .03 .05 .86 .00 .00 .12 .26 .17 .19 .01 .94
EVb 3.40 4.87 4.97 5.75 5.60 5.58 5.13 6.05 3.43 4.53 4.33 3.51 4.03 4.93 5.23 4.65 5.08 5.17 5.59 5.13 5.54 4.67 4.74 5.51
ECO = economic responsibilities, LEG = legal responsibilities, ETH = ethical responsibilities, PHI = philanthropic responsibilities, EMP = employee responsibilities, CUS = customer responsibilities,
INV = investor responsibilities, COM = community responsibilities.
a
An oblique (d = 0) rotation was employed.
b
EV = Eigenvalue.
 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 55–67 61

responsibilities and four for stakeholder responsibilities —
were clearly apparent in the three samples. No instance of
obvious cross-loading over factors could be observed; in
addition, eigenvalue indicators fell within recommended
guidelines (Hair et al., 1995). The communality indices
were acceptable: they ranged from .71 to 92 in the US
sample, from .61 to .88 in the French sample, and from .71
to .93 in the German sample. Reliability scores were good
for each type of responsibility: Cronbach’s alpha ranged
from .86 to .97 in the US; from .81 to .96 in the France; and
from .87 to .96 in Germany. These results suggested that
US, French, and German consumers clearly regrouped
corporate responsibilities by social domain (economic,
legal, ethical, and philanthropic) and by stakeholder group
(employees, customers, investors, and the community).
An examination of the correlations between the types of
social and stakeholder responsibilities, respectively, also
yielded interesting insights (see Tables 2 and 3). For
example, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities
were found to be positively and significantly correlated in
the three samples, with the exception of philanthropic
responsibilities that were not significantly associated with
any social responsibility in the French sample. In contrast,
economic responsibilities were either negatively or not
significantly associated with other social responsibilities,
with the exception of a positive and significant association
with legal responsibilities in France. In order to better assess
the external validity of the scales measuring each type of
social responsibility, correlations between each social
responsibility and an overall item — ‘‘I believe that busi-
nesses must make efforts to behave in a socially responsible
manner’’ — were scrutinized (see Table 2). Legal, ethical,
and philanthropic responsibilities, respectively, were posi-
tively and significantly correlated with that overall item in
the three countries. However, no significant association was
found for economic responsibilities in France and Germany,
while a significant negative association was observed in the
US. Thus, respondents did not judge economic duties to be
corporate social responsibilities to the same extent as legal,
ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities.
As indicated in Table 3, corporate responsibilities
toward employees, customers, and the community were
significantly and positively correlated in each sample. The
pattern of correlations with investor responsibilities was
not consistent across samples: they were significantly
associated only with customer responsibilities in the US,
with customer responsibilities and community responsibil-
ities in France, and with no other stakeholder responsibility
in Germany. The correlations between an overall stake-
holder responsibility item — ‘‘I believe that businesses
must satisfy the demands of their different publics’’ — and
each type of stakeholder responsibility were also examined
(see Table 3). Employee, customer, and community
responsibilities were positively and significantly associated
with the overall stakeholder responsibility item with the
exception of community responsibilities in France. Investor
responsibilities were not significantly associated with that
item in all samples. This observation implies that consum-
ers do not necessarily view investors as an important
public of the organization.
5.2. Consumers’ evaluation of corporate social
responsibilities
5.2.1. Within country analysis
Hypothesis 1a– c were tested with one-sample t tests
conducted in each country (see Table 2). In the US sample,
consumers rated economic responsibilities as significantly
more important than ethical (t = 3.13, P < .01) and phil-
anthropic responsibilities (t = 9.37, P < .01). However, no
significant difference was observed in the degree of import-
ance allocated to economic and legal responsibilities.
Hence, support was found for Hypothesis 1b and c, but
not for Hypothesis 1a. French and German consumers
allocated the least importance to the economic responsibil-
ities of the firm: economic responsibilities were found to be
less important than legal (t = 10.67, P < .01 in France;
t = 6.61, P < .01 in Germany), ethical (t = 9.29, P < .01 in
France; t = 5.33, P < .01 in Germany), and philanthropic
(t = 2.90, P < .01 in France; t = 4.00, P < .01 in Germany)

Table 2
Social responsibilities: correlations, differences (t tests), and means
United States France Germany
ECO LEG ETH PHI ECO LEG ETH PHI ECO LEG ETH PHI
ECO 1 .09 .10 .01 1 .20** .07 .05 1 .27** .36** .10
LEG 1.18 1 .57** .28** 10.67** 1 .53** .03 6.61** 1 .56** .29**
ETH 3.13** 4.14** 1 .48** 9.29** 2.70** 1 .01 5.33** .40 1 .29**
PHI 9.37 10.31** 6.47** 1 2.90** 7.89** 5.51** 1 4.00** 2.38 * 1.95 * 1
RES .34** .72** .71** .46** .01 .35** .32** .31** .04 .46** .45** .58**
Mean 5.42 5.52 5.12 4.43 4.56 5.58 5.35 4.86 4.43 5.32 5.55 4.86
Above the diagonal, Pearson’ correlations; below the diagonal, t values in italics; ECO = economic responsibilities; LEG = legal responsibilities; ETH = ethical
responsibilities; PHI = philanthropic responsibilities; RES = overall social responsibility item ‘‘I believe that businesses must make efforts to behave in a
socially responsible manner.’’
* P < .05.
** P < .01.
62 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 55–67

Table 3
Stakeholder responsibilities: correlations, differences (t test), and means
United States France Germany
EMP CUS INV COM EMP CUS INV COM EMP CUS INV COM
EMP 1 .36** .13 .17 * 1 .30** .13 .26** 1 .50** .12 .28**
CUS 12.65** 1 .24** .34** 3.69** 1 .22** .22** 7.34** 1 .10 .24 *
INV 4.48** 5.98** 1 .13 24.26** 26.38** 1 .26** 20.13** 25.48** 1 .06
COM 7.22** 12.31** 1.18 1 18.06** 26.38** 11.73** 1 6.60** 11.23** 10.85** 1
STA .64** .57** .11 .44** .38** .42** .10 .14 .54** .50** .01 .53**
Mean 4.51 5.71 4.99 4.94 6.10 6.29 3.64 4.61 5.56 6.16 3.30 4.70
Above the diagonal, Pearson’s correlations; below the diagonal, t values in italics; EMP = corporate employee responsibilities; CUS = corporate customer
responsibilities; INV = corporate investor responsibilities; COM = corporate community responsibilities; STA = overall stakeholder responsibility item: ‘‘I
believe that businesses must satisfy the demands of their different publics.’’
* P < .05.
** P < .01.

responsibilities, respectively. Consequently, Hypothesis 2a – to philanthropic responsibilities than their US counterparts.

c was supported. Consequently, Hypothesis 4c was supported.
Overall, US consumers ranked the importance of social
responsibilities in the following decreasing order of import- 5.3. Consumers’ evaluation of stakeholder responsibilities
ance: (1) economic and legal responsibilities, (2) ethical
responsibilities, and (3) philanthropic responsibilities. 5.3.1. Within country analysis
French consumers ranked the different social responsibil- One-sample t tests were employed to examine differ-
ities in the following decreasing order of importance: (1) ences in the level of importance attributed by consumers to
legal, (2) ethical, (3) philanthropic, and (4) economic stakeholder responsibilities in each country (Hypotheses 5a
responsibilities. Finally, German consumers ranked corpor- to 7; see Table 3). Corporate investor responsibilities were
ate social responsibilities in the following decreasing order deemed as more important than employee responsibilities
of importance: (1) legal and ethical, (2) philanthropic, and in the US sample (t = 4.48; P < .01). However, corporate
(3) economic. investor responsibilities were not deemed as significantly
more important than community responsibilities. Accord-
5.2.2. Between countries comparison ingly, support was found for Hypothesis 5a but not for
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was first Hypothesis 5b.
employed to test for Hypotheses 3a to 4c. Each social Hypothesis 6a,b was supported: US consumers allocated
responsibility was considered as a dependent variable, and more importance to customer responsibilities than to
three covariates — gender, education, and age — were employee responsibilities (t = 12.65, P < .01) and commun-
included in the analysis. Since the resulting Wilks’ statistics ity responsibilities (t = 12.31, P < .01). Overall, US custom-
was significant (Wilks = 9.15; df = 2,193; P < .01), subse- ers ranked the different stakeholder responsibilities in the
quent analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted following decreasing order of importance: (1) customers,
for each social responsibility dimension. The ANCOVAs
indicated that only some of the individual covariates were
significant: education and gender for economic responsibil- Table 4
Importance attributed to social responsibilities: comparison across France,
ities; education, gender, and age for legal responsibilities; Germany, and the US
gender for ethical responsibilities; and age for philanthropic
Dependent Univariate F Mean Post hoc
responsibilities. Accordingly, as indicated in Table 4, the measure LSD test
ANCOVAs were run for the study results using only the US France Germany
significant demographic variables. Then, LSD post hoc tests ECOa 32.40** 5.42 4.56 4.43 FR < US
were conducted to locate the differences. GR < US
LEGb 0.82 5.52 5.58 5.32 –
Support for Hypothesis 3a and b was provided: US ETHc 1.09 5.12 5.35 5.35 –
consumers allocated more importance to economic respons- PHId 6.16** 4.43 4.86 4.86 US < FR
ibilities than their French and German counterparts US < GR
( F = 32.40; df = 2,394; P < .01). No difference was found US = United States, FR = France, GR = Germany; ECO = economic respon-
in the importance allocated to legal and ethical responsibil- sibilities, LEG = legal responsibilities, ETH = ethical responsibilities,
ities, respectively, by US, French, and German consumers. PHI = philanthropic responsibilities.
a
Covariates included in the analysis: education and gender.
Hence, Hypothesis 4a and b was not supported. However, a b
Covariates included in the analysis: education, gender, and age.
significant difference was observed for philanthropic c
Covariate included in the analysis: gender.
responsibilities ( F = 6.16; df = 2,398; P < .01): French and d
Covariate included in the analysis: age.
German consumers, respectively, allocated more importance ** P < .01.
 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 55–67
(2) investors and the community, and (3) employees. Both
French and German consumers allocated significantly differ-
ent levels of importance to each stakeholder responsibility.
Hence, no support was found for Hypothesis 7. French and
German consumers ranked the different stakeholder respons-
ibilities in the following decreasing order of importance: (1)
customers, (2) employees, (3) community, and (4) investors.
5.3.2. Between countries comparison
A MANOVA with the four stakeholder responsibilities
as dependent variables and gender, education, and age as
covariates was first used to test for Hypotheses 8– 11.
Since the resulting Wilks statistic was significant (Wilks =
35.57; df = 2,193; P < .01), subsequent ANCOVAs were
conducted. The ANCOVAs presented in Table 5 include
only the covariates that were found to be significant: gender
for responsibilities toward employees and customers; and
education along with gender for responsibilities toward
the community.
Support was found for Hypothesis 8a and b: US con-
sumers allocated more importance to corporate investor
responsibilities than French and German consumers ( F =
63.74; df = 2,399, P < .01). Evidence in support of Hypo-
thesis 9a and b was also gathered: French and German
consumers, respectively, gave more importance to corporate
employee responsibilities than their US counterparts ( F =
100.32; df = 2,397; P < .01). No support was gathered for
Hypothesis 10a and b: consumers in France and Germany,
respectively, did not allocate the same level of importance to
corporate community responsibilities as consumers in the
US. Hypothesis 11 was not supported: French and German
consumers, respectively, allocated more importance to cus-
tomer responsibilities than their US counterparts ( F = 14.34;
df = 2,397; P < .01).
Given that, as earlier mentioned, gender, education, and
age were found to be significant covariates in some ANCO-
Table 5
Importance attributed to stakeholder responsibilities: comparison across the
US, France, and Germany
Dependent Univariate F Mean
measure
US France Germany
EMPa 100.32** 4.51 6.10 5.56
CUSa 14.34** 5.71 6.29 6.16
INVb 63.74** 4.99 3.64 3.30
COMc 1.81 4.94 4.61 4.70
US = United States, FR = France, GR = Germany; EMP = employee respon-
sibilities, CUS = customer responsibilities, INV = investor responsibilities,
COM = community responsibilities.
a of, and reaction to, corporate responsibility initiatives.
Covariate included in the analysis: gender.
b
No covariate was included in the analysis (not significant).
c
Covariates included in the analysis: degree and gender.
** P < .01.
63
VAs, MANOVAs were conducted in each sample with
gender, education, and age as grouping variables. Since
demographic differences are not at the core of this study, the
results of this analysis are not presented in details. Overall,
no consistent pattern appeared in each sample that revealed
differences in consumers’ evaluation of corporate respons-
ibilities according to gender, education, and age.
6. Discussion and conclusions
6.1. Nature of corporate responsibilities according
to consumers
First of all, the results of the factor analyses gave
credibility to both the social responsibility and the stake-
holder responsibility frameworks since consumers could
differentiate between each type of corporate responsibility.
As far as social responsibilities were concerned, consumers
in the US and Germany were prone to differentiate between
economic responsibilities on the one hand, and other social
responsibilities on the other hand. This is illustrated by the
insignificant or negative correlations linking economic
responsibilities to other social responsibilities and to the
overall responsibility item. The differentiation between (1)
economic responsibilities and (2) other social responsibilities
was less apparent in France where economic responsibilities
were found to be associated with legal responsibilities. In
addition, in that country, philanthropic responsibilities were
not significantly associated with the other three responsibil-
ities and with the overall responsibility item.
Social responsibilities as perceived by consumers can
hardly be viewed as dimensions of a unique underlying
construct. This result contrasts sharply with the conceptual-
ization adopted by Maignan et al. (1999) who treated
economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities
as correlated dimensions of one underlying construct named
corporate citizenship. Maignan et al.’s approach was sup-
ported empirically in a survey of managers; yet, it does not
seem to reflect consumers’ perceptions of corporate respon-
sibilities. Thus, while managers may view economic, legal,
Post hoc ethical, and philanthropic duties as part of an overall
LSD test
corporate responsibility concept, consumers appear more
FR > US, likely to establish differences between corporate respons-
GR>US, ibilities, and especially between economic duties and other
FR>GR social responsibilities. This observation suggests that vari-
FR>US
GR>US
ous social actors may have contrasted perceptions of cor-
US>FR porate responsibilities. Accordingly, businesses may want to
US>GR emphasize different initiatives when trying to convey the
– image of a responsible organization among diverse publics.
In addition, our study questions the relevance of Carroll’s
(1979) classification to understand consumers’ evaluation
Indeed, the findings suggest that consumers might perceive
that corporate social responsibility is mainly made of legal,
ethical, and philanthropic duties, three dimensions of cor-
64 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 55–67
porate activities that may be viewed as quite distinct from
the economic mission of the firm.
Across the three samples, customers, employees, and
community responsibilities were found to be positively
and significantly associated to the overall stakeholder
responsibility item — with the exception of community
responsibilities in France that were not correlated to the
overall item. In contrast, investor responsibilities were not
systematically associated with other stakeholder respons-
ibilities and were not significantly correlated with the
overall stakeholder responsibility in the three samples.
Accordingly, consumers appeared to establish a clear dis-
tinction between investor responsibilities on the one hand
and customer, employee, and community responsibilities on
the other hand. Hence, like corporate social responsibilities,
stakeholder responsibilities do not appear to be components
of one underlying construct. Combining the results of the
correlation analyses for both corporate social and stake-
holder responsibilities, it becomes apparent that consumers
differentiated the need for businesses to be financially
responsible (in order to meet their economic and investor
responsibilities) from their other responsibilities.
6.2. Consumers’ evaluation of corporate social
responsibilities
US consumers’ evaluation of corporate social respons-
ibilities came close to confirm Carroll’s (1979) assertion that
the most important duties of the firm are economic, fol-
lowed, respectively, by (1) legal, (2) ethical, and (3) phil-
anthropic responsibilities. The only difference between
Carroll’s ordering and the ranking provided by the US
respondents was that the latter attributed the same import-
ance to economic and legal responsibilities. The primary
role attributed to legal duties may result from the highly
legalist nature of the US (Galen et al., 1992) and from the
common recourse to consumer litigation in that country
(Morrison, 1991).
The assessment provided by US consumers contrasted
sharply with that given by their European counterparts.
French and German consumers not only allocated less
importance to corporate economic responsibilities than US
consumers, they also judged economic responsibilities to be
the least important social responsibilities. Consequently,
whereas US consumers perceived the achievement of eco-
nomic performance as a lead objective of businesses, French
and German consumers viewed economic achievements as
only secondary.
Even though French and German consumers allocated a
similar degree of importance to legal and ethical respons-
ibilities, respectively, as US consumers, they positioned
these two responsibilities as the most important corporate
social responsibilities. This finding suggests that French and
German consumers are mostly concerned about businesses
conforming to social norms, not about businesses achieving
high levels of economic performance. The fact that French
and German consumers were found to allocate more import-
ance to philanthropic responsibilities than US consumers
further demonstrates that businesses are expected to actively
contribute to the welfare of society in the two European
nations. Altogether, the findings illustrate the communit-
arian nature of the French and German ideologies as
depicted by Lodge (1990). The study results also emphasize
the individualist nature of the US ideology: businesses in
that country are expected to strive mainly for their own well-
being by achieving high economic performance (while
simultaneously paying much attention to legal issues.)
For businesses, the results point to the difficulties that
may be encountered when trying to build the image of a
responsible organization especially in the French and Ger-
man markets. In those two countries, the achievement of
high levels of economic performance can actually be per-
ceived negatively by the public opinion and therefore by
consumers. Consider the example of the French tire man-
ufacturer Michelin, which announced in 1999 both record
profitability levels and the need for layoffs. The French
press, union leaders, and even government representatives
all unanimously denounced Michelin’s strategy as inhumane
and highly inappropriate in a country with high rates of
unemployment (Toscer, 1999). The Michelin crisis echoes
the struggles faced by companies such as Hoechst and
Volkswagen in Germany (Chemical Week, 1998; Shlaes,
1994). For instance, despite increased competition and
ailing profits, Hoechst Marion Roussel has had to reduce
the number of planned layoffs after being accused by both
union leaders and the press of consistently focusing on
profitability at the expense of employees’ welfare. These
anecdotes illustrate the idea that economic performance is
not systematically venerated in France and Germany; in
fact, it is likely to be deplored unless the company displays a
strong commitment to the interests of society as a whole.
According to the study findings, businesses that want to
position themselves as socially responsible in France and
Germany may have to downplay their economic achieve-
ments and emphasize their preparedness to serving first their
legal and ethical responsibilities, followed by their phil-
anthropic duties.
In contrast, in the US, claiming to be a socially respons-
ible organization when economic achievements are not the
greatest, can be dangerous. This idea is illustrated by the
experience of the ice-cream manufacturer Ben and Jerry’s
which has been accused repeatedly of neglecting economic
performance because of its many philanthropic activities
(e.g., Taylor, 1997). In the US, high levels of economic
performance may even enable the firm to maintain the
image of a responsible organization, even if this business
actually neglects its other social responsibilities. This is the
case of Microsoft which benefits from a very positive
corporate reputation in spite of the fact that the company
was found guilty of antitrust violations. Altogether, the
comparison of consumers’ expectations of the firm in the
US, France, and Germany points to difficulty of implement-
 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 55–67
ing uniform communication programs about social respons-
ibility across borders.
6.3. Consumers’ evaluation of stakeholder responsibilities
While US, French, and German consumers disagreed on
what they viewed as the most important social responsibil-
ity, they all designated customer responsibilities as the most
important corporate responsibility. By asserting the central-
ity of customers’ fair and satisfactory treatment, respondents
appeared to emphasize their own interest as customers.
Responsibilities toward customers were deemed as even
more important in absolute terms in France and Germany
than in the US.
For other stakeholder groups, the assessment of US
consumers on the one hand and French and German con-
sumers on the other hand differed significantly. French and
German consumers placed employees as the second most
important corporate stakeholder group, whereas employees
were perceived as the least important stakeholders by US
consumers. In addition, the level of importance allocated to
responsibilities to employees was greater in France and
Germany, respectively, than in the US. These results illus-
trate the common view prevalent in France and Germany
that the firm should serve the interests of its employees.
Companies in those two countries are not only expected to
provide employees with an occupation, but also with
extensive benefits, a pleasant work environment, and a
place where social interactions are cultivated (Capron and
Leseul, 1996; Centre des Jeunes Dirigeants d’Entreprise,
1996; Wachter, 1997).
French and German consumers attributed the third level
of importance to responsibilities toward the community,
which were granted however the same importance level as
in the US. In the last position in France and Germany
appeared investors, whose importance was also rated as
significantly lower than in the US. In fact, the average score
assigned to responsibilities toward investors by French and
German consumers was below the neutral point, which
implies that these two consumer groups did not view
businesses as entities with the duty to serve the interest of
investors. Combined with the little importance attributed to
economic responsibilities by French and German consum-
ers, these results suggest that corporations in these two
countries are seen above all as social agents at the service of
their customers, employees, and society at large. Businesses
do not seem to be considered by French and German
consumers as economic agents striving to generate eco-
nomic value for themselves and their shareholders/investors.
This perspective further illustrates the communitarian nature
of the French and German national ideologies.
The discrepancy in the importance level allocated,
respectively, to employee and investor responsibilities in
both France and Germany is probably at the core of the
often conflicting relationships between these two stake-
holder groups. Responsible businesses in France and
65
Germany are thus facing the difficulty of satisfying simul-
taneously two groups — employees and equity holders —
whose interests are perceived as irreconcilable by consum-
ers, and therefore by the public opinion. Hence, when
building the image of a responsible organization among
consumers, businesses may want to downplay their eco-
nomic performance and their attractiveness to investors,
and instead advertise their dedication to the satisfaction of
their customers, their employees, and to a lesser degree,
the community.
Such an approach would not be recommended in the US
where investors and the community were rated as the second
most important stakeholder groups (after customers). The
importance granted to these two stakeholder groups by US
consumers confirms Lodge’s (1990) depiction of the Amer-
ican national ideology as being conflicted about businesses’
role in society: whereas businesses were traditionally
viewed in the US as serving mainly the interests of their
equity holders, they are also expected today to serve the
interests of society as a whole. US corporations seem to
have assimilated this evolution quite well since they are
known for, on the one hand, giving high returns to their
investors while, on the other hand, committing a high
percentage of their profits to philanthropic activities.
Finally, US consumers gave the lowest level of import-
ance to corporate responsibilities toward employees. This is
quite surprising since those evaluations were provided by
individuals employed in large organizations. Overall, busi-
nesses committed to acting responsibly in the US first have
to emphasize their commitment to customer satisfaction.
Then, community involvement and high economic returns
for investors can also be used to demonstrate the organiza-
tion’s commitment to behaving in a responsible manner. All
in all, the study findings pinpoint to significant cross-
cultural differences in the responsibilities that consumers
assign to businesses, and therefore call for caution in the
communication of global corporate responsibility programs.
Consumers in different nations are unlikely to grant the
same level of support to various responsibility initiatives.
6.4. Limitations and directions for future research
6.4.1. A deeper understanding of corporate responsibilities
The fact that existing conceptualizations of corporate
responsibilities along with the different behaviors depicting
each type of responsibility were imposed on consumers
probably represents the first and foremost limitation of the
study. Informants had to rate the importance of different
responsibilities that had been defined and classified before-
hand. Thus, the findings report consumers’ evaluations of
certain predefined corporate responsibilities, and do not
describe consumers’ own definition of these responsibilities.
When questioned about corporate responsibilities in an
unaided manner, consumers may or may not mention each
of the different types of responsibilities and corporate
actions considered in this study. These caveats call for
66 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 55–67
qualitative inquiries examining: (1) how consumers define
corporate responsibilities in general, and (2) which corpor-
ate behaviors are significant of corporate responsibility
according to consumers.
6.4.2. Extending the applicability of the research
The properties of the scales should be further examined
since the measurement instruments employed were
developed specifically for the purpose of the present ana-
lysis. The study suffered from relatively small sample sizes
and sample selection that could not claim to be represent-
ative of the larger populations of US, French, and German
consumers. Hence, surveys of larger and more represent-
ative samples are definitely called for. While cultural differ-
ences were highlighted, only three countries were included
in the analysis. In order to make the findings more mean-
ingful, additional countries should be considered.
6.4.3. From consumer evaluations to consumer actions
The present research investigated consumers’ evaluation
of the importance of different corporate responsibilities.
This may be a first step in understanding which type of
corporate social responsibility initiatives may or may not
generate goodwill among consumers. However, the study
did not reveal whether consumers are willing to actively
support a firm that performs well in terms of the different
responsibilities considered. For example, the findings
showed that US consumers rate highly corporate respons-
ibilities toward investors and the community; however, the
research did not examine whether consumers are willing to
make an effort to support — for instance through repeat
purchases or positive word-of-mouth — the organizations
that make specific efforts to treat investors and the com-
munity with utmost respect and care. Therefore, future
research is needed to investigate the relationship between
consumers’ evaluations of corporate responsibilities in gen-
eral and consumers’ concrete reactions to specific respons-
ibility initiatives.
Despite its many caveats, this study constitutes a sig-
nificant contribution to help understand consumers’ view of
corporate responsibilities. The research clearly indicates that
consumers do assign a number of responsibilities to busi-
nesses, and favor some forms of responsibility over others.
The analysis further pinpoints to the difficulty of establish-
ing the image of a responsible organization in the eyes of
consumers especially in an international context. This pro-
ject calls for future inquiries that investigate more thor-
oughly consumers’ definition of corporate responsibilities in
order for organizations to adopt rewarding responsibility
initiatives across borders.
References
Addison JT. Nonunion representation in Germany. J Labour Res 1999;
20(1):73 – 91.
Agarwal S. Influence of formalization on role stress, organizational com-
mitment, and work alienation of salespersons: a cross-national compa-
rative study. J Int Bus Stud 1992;715 – 39 (Fourth Quarter).
Aupperle KE, Carroll AB, Hatfield J. An empirical examination of the
relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability.
Acad Manage J 1985;28(2):446 – 63.
Bowen HR. Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper
& Row, 1953.
Brown TJ, Dacin PA. The company and the product: corporate associations
and consumer product responses. J Mark 1997;61:68 – 84 (January).
Capron M, Leseul G. Pour un Bilan Sociétal des Entreprises. Rev Int Econ
Soc 1996;266:29 – 41.
Carroll AB. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate perform-
ance. Acad Manage Rev 1979;4(4):497 – 505.
Centre des Jeunes Dirigeants d’Entreprise. L’Entreprise au XXIe Siecle
Paris: Flammarion, 1996.
Hoechst renegotiates drugs job cuts. Chem Week 1998;160(13):8.
Churchill GA. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. J Mark Res 1979;16:64 – 73 (February).
Clarkson MBE. Corporate social performance in Canada, 1976 – 1986. Res
Corp Soc Perform Policy 1988;10:241 – 65.
Clarkson MBE. Defining, evaluating, and managing corporate social per-
formance: the stakeholder management model. Res Corp Soc Perform
Policy 1991;12:331 – 58.
Clarkson MBE. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating
corporate social performance. Acad Manage Rev 1995;20(1):92 – 117.
Davis K. The case for and against business assumptions of social responsi-
bilities. Acad Manage J 1973;16(2):312 – 22.
De Beer and Colleagues. Le Travail au XXI Siecle — Mutations de l’Eco-
nomie et de la Société a l’Ere des Autoroutes de l’Information Paris:
Dunod, 1995.
Donaldson T, Preston LE. The stakeholder theory of the corporation:
concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manage Rev 1995;20(1):
65 – 91.
Economist. Metall buckles — the wage agreement between Germany’s
bosses and the country’s largest trade union bodes well for the economy.
Economist. Available at: http://www.economist.com. March 30, 2000a.
Economist. Everyone cross. Economist. Available at: http://www.economist.
com. February 3, 2000b.
Economist. Is consensus under threat? Germany’s famously steady trade
unions sound unusually turbulent. Economist. 2000c;50 (June 3).
Economist. A French pox on them. Economist. 2000d;31 – 2 (September 16).
Eellis R, Walton C. Conceptual foundations of business. Homewood, IL:
Richard Irwin, 1961.
Eilbert H, Parket IR. The practice of business — the current status of
corporate social responsibility. Bus Horiz. 1973;5 – 14 (August).
Enriquez E. L’entreprise Comme Lien Social — Un Collosse Aux Pieds
d’Argile. In: Sainsaulieu Renaud, editor. L’Entreprise, une Affaire de
Société. Paris: Presse de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques,
1992. p. 203 – 28.
Frederick, WC. From CSR1 to CSR2 — the maturing of the business and
society. Thought Working Paper 279, Graduate School of Business,
University of Pittsburgh, 1978. Reproduced in Business and Society
August 1994;33(2)150 – 64.
Galen M, Cuneo A, Greising D. Guilty. Bus Week 1992;60 – 5.
Goodpaster KE. Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Bus Ethics Q
1991;1(1):53 – 73.
Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis
with readings 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1995.
Handelman JM, Arnold SJ. The role of marketing actions with a social
dimension: appeals to the institutional environment. J Mark 1999;63:
33 – 48 (July).
Hofstede G. Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories
apply abroad? Organ Dyn 1980;9:42 – 63 (Summer).
Hofstede G. National cultures in four dimensions — a research-based
theory of cultural differences among nations. Int Stud Manage Organ
1983;13(12):46 – 74.
 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 55–67
Jones D. Good works, good business. USA Today 1997;1B (April 25).
Katz JP, Werner S, Brouthers L. Does winning mean the same thing around
the world? National ideology and the performance of global compe-
titors. J Bus Res 1999;44:117 – 26.
Langlois C, Schlegelmich BB. Do corporate codes of ethics reflect national
character? Evidence from Europe and the US. J Int Bus Stud 1990;
21(4):519 – 39.
Lewin AY, Sakano T, Stevens CU, Victor B. Corporate citizenship in Japan:
survey from Japanese firms. J Bus Ethics 1995;14(2):83 – 101.
Lodge GC. Comparative business – government relations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990.
Lorge S. Consumers care about causes. Cornering the market. Sales Mark
Manage 1999;151(6):47.
Maignan I, Ferrell OC. Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries:
the case of the United States and France. J Bus Ethics 1999;23:283 – 97.
Maignan I, Ferrell OC, Tomas G, Hult M. Corporate citizenship: cultural
antecedents and business benefits. J Acad Mark Sci 1999;27(4):
455 – 69.
Mason ES. The corporation in modern society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press, 1960.
McGuire JB. Business and society. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.
Morrison A. The role of litigation in consumer protection. J Consum Aff
1991;25(2):209 (Winter).
Pinkston TS, Carroll AB. Corporate citizenship perspectives and foreign
direct investment in the US. J Bus Ethics 1994;13:157 – 69.
Robin DP, Reidenbach ER. Social responsibilities, ethics, and marketing
strategy: closing the gap between concept and application. J Mark
1987;51:44 – 58 (January).
Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical
67
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna MP, editor.
Advances in experimental social psychology. San Diego: Academic
Press, 1992. p. 1 – 65.
Sethi SP. A conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social
issues and evaluation of business response patterns. Acad Manage
Rev 1979;4(1):63 – 74.
Shlaes A. Germany’s chained economy. Foreign Aff 1994;73(5):109 – 24.
Strand R. A systems paradigm of organizational adaptations to the social
environment. Acad Manage Rev 1983;8(1):90 – 6.
Swanson DL. Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate
social performance model. Acad Manage Rev 1995;20(1):43 – 64.
Taylor A. Yo, Ben! Yo, Jerry! It’s just ice cream!; the celebrated Vermont
do-gooders seek global solutions in every spoonful of their luscious
products. Meanwhile, their business suffers and their shareholders
starve. Fortune 1997;374 (April 28).
Thurow L. Head to head. New York, NY: William Morrow and Co, 1992.
Toscer O. Les Marchés Aiment — Ils la Casse Sociale? Nouv Obs
1999;80 – 2 (September 16).
Wachter H. German co-determination — quo vadis? A study of the imple-
mentation of new management concepts in the German steel industry.
Employee Relat 1997;19(1):27 – 37.
Wartick SL, Cochran PL. The evolution of the corporate social performance
model. Bus Soc 1985;31(1):33 – 42.
Wever KS. Negotiating competitiveness — employment relations and or-
ganizational innovation in Germany and the United States. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press, 1995.
Wood DJ. Corporate social performance revisited. Acad Manage Rev
1991;16(4):691 – 718.