This article was downloaded by: [American University of Beirut] On: 10 February 2014, At: 22:27 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmsr20 Does religiosity determine affinities to CSR? Dima Jamali a & Yusuf Sdiani a a Olayan School of Business, American University of Beirut, Bliss Street, Beirut, 11-0236, Lebanon. Published online: 17 Dec 2013. To cite this article: Dima Jamali & Yusuf Sdiani (2013) Does religiosity determine affinities to CSR?, Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 10:4, 309-323, DOI: 10.1080/14766086.2013.802251 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2013.802251 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content ) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 2013 Vol. 10, No. 4, 309 323, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2013.802251 Does religiosity determine affinities to CSR? Dima Jamali* and Yusuf Sdiani Olayan School of Business, American University of Beirut, Bliss Street, Beirut, 11-0236, Lebanon This paper aims at exploring the extent to which Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) orientations are influenced by the level of religiosity among business professionals. Previous empirical research has highlighted the influence of personal values and belief systems on managerial CSR orientations, presenting mixed evidence in relation to the influence of religious ethics on responsible business orientations. Our paper advances knowledge in this important area of research by (1) synthesizing scattered available literature on the topic and (2) presenting fresh empirical insights from the Lebanese multi-religious context in relation to how an individual s type of religiosity (intrinsic/extrinsic) affects their views of CSR. The results suggest that social extrinsic religiosity is related to a broader perspective of CSR, while intrinsic religiosity is related to a narrow view of CSR. Relevant insights and implications are synthesized accordingly. Keywords: corporate social responsibility (CSR); religion; religiosity; Lebanon; broad/narrow view of CSR; costs/benefits of CSR Introduction Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has enjoyed an unusual ascendancy and resonance in today s complex and interconnected world. The term CSR is generally used to refer to a mode of business engagement or value creation (Luetkenhorst 2004) or in simple terms, the obligation of the firm to use its resources in ways that benefit society (Snider et al. 2003). The European Commission (2002, p. 3) defines CSR as a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis. Kotler and Lee (2005, p. 3) define CSR as a commitment to improve community well-being through voluntary business practices and contributions of corporate resources. So CSR is used to refer to corporate behaviors and actions intended to maximize positive societal externalities or the welfare of specific societal constituencies. The appeal of CSR lies exactly in its positive connotations and implications of improved social welfare and enhanced well-being of different stakeholders. *Corresponding author. Email: dj00@aub.edu.lb Ó 2013 Association of Management, Spirituality & Religion
310 D. Jamali and Y. Sdiani However, CSR remains today an elusive and contested concept (Matten and Moon 2008). Part of the controversy revolves around prevailing skepticism about the ability of business managers to prioritize social welfare and break the mold of traditional profit maximization (Jensen 2002, Clement-Jones 2005) with critics equating CSR to another marketing ploy or maneuver in pursuit of improved image and branding. Those who are less skeptical, generally believe in the potential benevolence of business managers and usually, bolster their arguments through invoking ethics, morality, and religious convictions, which can motivate business professionals to engage in positive action towards their fellow human beings and society more broadly, irrespective of financial gain considerations (Hancock 2005, Pettit 2005). There have been significant advances in research, allowing to better gage the actual motivations and inclinations of business managers in relation to CSR. One useful model we invoke in this paper is by Quazi and O Brien (2000) which presents four views of CSR, the modern, classical, socioeconomic, and philanthropic views. According to the model, managers views of CSR depend on the degree of emphasis they put on costs or benefits of CSR and their perceptions of the legitimate scope of responsibility that a corporation should assume. There has also been a stream of research, examining how different religious beliefs and affiliations influence CSR orientations and whether an individual s level or type of religiosity may impact CSR views, perceptions, or inclinations (Agle and Van Buren 1999, Angelidis and Ibrahim 2004). The CSR and spirituality fields of study have both gained much popularity within the past few years (Mitchell 2012). Despite these important advances, the evidence today in relation to religiosity and CSR remains mixed and confusing. The research seems compartmentalized with different streams focusing on different religions and how they influence CSR orientations. There is very little integrative comparative research and even less nuanced research that delves into types and levels of religiosity and potential CSR implications. This paper fills the gaps in previous literature and advances knowledge in this important area of research by (1) synthesizing scattered available literature on the topic, (2) presenting fresh empirical insights from the Lebanese multireligious context in relation to how an individual s type of religiosity (intrinsic/ extrinsic) affects their views of CSR. The paper is organized as follows. The next section presents a comprehensive literature review capturing the highlights of available literature on the impact of religiosity on CSR attitudes and orientations. We formulate four hypotheses in light of our systematic review of the literature and we test them in the Lebanese context, using a sample of 149 business professionals roughly balanced between representatives of Muslim and Christian religions. We discuss our findings in light of the literature and accentuate how our findings contribute to an enhanced understanding of the important role of religiosity in influencing managerial views and inclinations towards CSR. We then flesh out interesting implications that are relevant for future research on this topic.
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 311 Literature review Religion and CSR There has been a surge of recent writings and research, pertaining to the influence of personal values and belief systems on managerial CSR views and orientations (Jurkiewicz and Giacalone 2004, Longenecker et al. 2004, Sauser 2005, Graafland et al. 2006, Graafland and Van de Ven 2006, Brammer et al. 2007). These writings are grounded in the assumption that religion has an important influence on business-society orientations (Graafland et al. 2006, Brammer et al. 2007). Existing research however is glaringly compartmentalized, focusing on either Islam or Christianity as the main religious denominations and often failing to integrate important nuances pertaining to level and type of religiosity. Writings on the relationship between Islam and CSR, for example, have noted that the Islamic perspective is conducive to CSR (Rice 1999, Uddin 2003, Beekun and Badawi 2005, Graafland et al. 2006, Zinkin 2007, Ullah and Jamali 2010). This is in line to what Weir (2012) indicated to be central in Islamic ethics: the notion of Ummah entails lifting of harm on the wider community which is a main pillar in CSR conceptualization. Likewise, a broad stakeholder perspective and a rounded view of the role of business in society seem well-grounded in the Christian faith (Johnson 1990, Ibrahim et al. 1991, Zigarelli 1993, Agle and Van Buren 1999, Lantos 2002, Tibor Héjj in Zsolnai 2007). While those studies have primarily been concerned about linking CSR to specific religious traditions, we argue that it is more the level of religiosity, rather than religion per se, that could be linked to a CSR perspective. We review below the scant literature that addresses the level of religiosity in relation to various CSR perspectives before presenting our research hypotheses and findings. Religiosity and CSR Very little research has hitherto looked into the relationship between types of religiosity and different views of CSR. G.W. Allport made a pioneering contribution to our understanding of types or forms of religiosity, through an important differentiation between extrinsic and intrinsic religion. He indicated that: Extrinsic religiosity is something to use, but not to live. And it may be used in a variety of ways: to improve one s status, to bolster one s selfconfidence, to enhance one s income, to win friends, power, or influence (Allport 1963, p. 193). On the other hand: Intrinsic religion is integral, covering everything in experience and everything beyond experience; it makes room for scientific fact and emotional fact. It is a hunger for, and a commitment to an ideal unification of one s life, but always under a unifying conception of the nature of all existence. (Allport 1963, p. 195) Intrinsic religiosity refers to a person s intrinsic mode of religious cognition, affect, and belief (Prati et al. 2007, p. 140). The distinction, in
312 D. Jamali and Y. Sdiani other words, relates to the use of one s religion as a means to an end or as a fundamental part of one s inner life. Allport (1963) also noted that the concept of intrinsic religion has nothing to do with formal religious structure in the sense that there are intrinsic Catholics and extrinsic Catholics, intrinsic Protestants and extrinsic Protestants, and intrinsic and extrinsic Muslims. Kirkpatrick and Hood (1990) conducted a psychometric analysis of Allport and Ross s original 1967 Religious Orientation Scale and found that extrinsic religiosity should be split into two forms: extrinsic-personal (religion as a way to gain comfort) and extrinsic-social (religion for social gain). Generally, intrinsic religiosity is motivated by strong, internal ethical convictions, while external religiosity is more utilitarian, based on personal gratification, the social environment and the perceptions of others 1. Table 1 (see supplemental material online) provides examples of manifestations of extrinsic-social, extrinsic-personal, and intrinsic religiosity. Numerous studies have subsequently made use of Allport and Ross s (1967) distinction between intrinsic vs. extrinsic religiosity and associated measures/indicators defining each. For example, Vitell et al. (2005, 2006) investigated the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity on consumer ethics. They found that individuals with stronger intrinsic religious motivations also had stronger ethical convictions and were more likely to see questionable behavior as wrong. Vitell et al. (2005) also found that extrinsic religiosity is not a significant factor in determining consumer ethics, as those with high extrinsic religiosity had similar orientations to those with low extrinsic religiosity. Kennedy and Lawton (1998) found the same results among student populations: i.e. students with higher intrinsic religiosity were less willing to behave unethically, while there was no significant relationship between extrinsically religious students and willingness to engage in unethical behavior. Longenecker et al. (2004) surveyed business managers and professionals throughout the USA concerning their religious affiliations, degree of religiosity, and ethical judgments. Their results showed little relationship between religious affiliation and ethical business decision-making (including in cases related to areas of CSR). However, they found that managers and professionals with higher levels of intrinsic religiosity demonstrated higher levels of ethical judgment, as opposed to those with lower levels of intrinsic religiosity. Angelidis and Ibrahim (2004) conducted a survey of Christian business students in the Midwest USA to see if their self-identified level of religiousness had an impact on their CSR orientation. The survey was designed using Carroll s (1979) four components of CSR orientations: economic, ethical, legal, and discretionary. Angelidis and Ibrahim (2004) found that Compared to the low religiousness group, those with a high religiousness score exhibit greater concern about the ethical component of corporate responsibility and a weaker orientation toward economic performance (Angelidis and Ibrahim 2004, p. 124). Thus, their results suggest that level of religiosity is positively correlated with views of CSR and ethical responsibility more specifically, and also correlated with the propensity to compromise profits in pursuit of the
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 313 social good. No distinctions were made between internal and external religiosity in this research. Agle and Van Buren (1999) surveyed MBA and executive MBA students to see whether religious practice would be positively related to a broader view of CSR. In general, there was no significant correlation between the two, although one form of religious practice was somewhat linked to managers views of CSR. Agle and Van Buren (1999) reported: Only one s use of religion as a social device was significantly correlated with one s preferred statement of CSR. This is the most curious finding of the research. We find this result to be counterintuitive those who use religion for social purposes would have a broader view of CSR. (Agle and Van Buren 1999, p. 579) From this research, we can infer that those who score higher on extrinsicsocial religiosity would likely have a broader view of CSR. In conclusion, while there is definitely more research examining the interfaces of religiosity and CSR, existing research is somewhat fragmented and inconclusive. There is some research examining correlations between types and levels of religiosity and CSR, with the limited evidence on offer suggesting that, a higher level of religiosity is positively correlated with positive views of CSR and that intrinsic religiosity has strong affinities with ethical behavior and CSR; the evidence also suggests that those with extrinsic-social religiosity would likely hold a broader view of CSR. Research hypotheses and proposed model We make use of the two-dimensional model of CSR by Quazi and O Brien (2000), intended to help gage managerial perspectives regarding CSR in this research. The model consists of two axes, with the vertical axis representing managerial perception of the consequences of CSR, ranging from an emphasis on the benefits of CSR to an emphasis on the costs of CSR. The horizontal axis relates to the managers view of CSR, ranging from the narrow view (that the business is responsible for trade and profit maximization) to the broad view (that the business is also responsible for a wider variety of stakeholders). Resulting from the intersections of the two axes are four quadrants, representing four possible views of CSR, which are the classical view, the socioeconomic view, the modern view, and the philanthropic view (Figure 1). The classical view embodies a narrow conception of responsibility and a focus on costs; the socioeconomic view depicts a narrow conception of responsibility with a focus on potential benefits; the modern view captures on the other hand a wide conception of responsibility with a focus on benefits; and the philanthropic view represents a wide conception of responsibility with an alertness to costs. We approached our research using the above-mentioned two dimensions. The first dimension is the perspective that the CSR involvement of the firm leads to more benefits than costs. A person adopting this view believes that
314 D. Jamali and Y. Sdiani Benefits from CSR action Modern View Socio-economic View WideResponsibility Narrow Responsibilty Philanthropic View Costs from CSR action Classical View Figure 1. A two-dimensional model of CSR (Quazi and O brien 2000). CSR activities can indeed translate into benefits for the firm. These benefits can be tangible in terms of more profitability, or more intangible and long-term as in goodwill and loyalty. Based on our literature review above, we hypothesize that people with high levels of intrinsic religiosity would adopt such a perspective, focusing on benefits of CSR rather than costs. The intrinsically religious individual tends to believe that good deeds are not lost, and that CSR accordingly is likely to translate into benefits for the company, and internal and external stakeholders in the shorter and longer term. Even spiritual benefits can be included here. Hence we propose: H1: Intrinsic religiosity is related to perceptions of benefits of CSR over costs. We argue that intrinsic religiosity is also likely to affect perceptions of the breadth of CSR activity. The intrinsically religious, tend to believe in the integrality of all experiences, including their business/csr experience. For them, business is likely to be conceived as an important part of the larger society and therefore has an obligation to answer to social concerns. Both Islam and Christianity expect the rich to extend a helping hand to the poor, destitute, and needy. Likewise, religious people from both worldviews expect businesses, which represent an affluent societal segment, to involve themselves in good deeds of different sorts, which they can easily afford, that benefit society. Accordingly we propose: H2: Intrinsic religiosity is related to a broader perspective of CSR.
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 315 Social extrinsic religiosity refers to a type of religiosity where people seek solace in their religion through the social circles engulfing rituals and religious services. Extrinsically religious individuals derive pleasure from being with others, worshipping, and fulfilling religious obligations with other believers. It would be of no surprise that those individuals would transfer the joy of living their religion with others to a perspective of actually enjoying the social aspects of CSR and an appreciation of the benefits (tangible and intangible) that CSR could bring. Accordingly we propose: H3: Social extrinsic religiosity is related to perceptions of benefits of CSR over costs. By the same token, CSR includes a societal element that is often communal, thus it is in line with such people s preferences for how personal and corporate resources should be spent. A broad view of CSR involves letting the organization involve itself outside its specific area of work, thus giving people an opportunity to exercise part of their spirituality while still fulfilling their obligations to their business. Previous research also suggests that extrinsicsocial religiosity is associated with a broader view of CSR (Agle and Van Buren 1999). We propose: H4: Social extrinsic religiosity is related to a broader perspective of CSR. In sum, we suggest that it is the level of religiosity rather than religion per se which impact different perspectives of CSR. From our literature review above we see evidence that intrinsic- and extrinsic-social religiosity can have a significant impact on individuals ethics. Most (but not all) of the research indicates that higher intrinsic religiosity leads to higher levels of ethical behavior. Furthermore Agle and Van Buren s research (1999) indicates that, individuals with higher extrinsic-social religiosity are likely to hold a modern view of CSR. These hypotheses are clearly depicted in a model showing how religiosity impacts individuals views and orientations vis-à-vis CSR (Figure 2). Research methodology Sample Participants for this study were 149 Lebanese managers from firms of various sizes and industries. Eighty percent of them had a university education. Fifty-one percent were males and 48% were singles. Christians comprised 38% of the sample. Thirty percent of the participants had work experience of less than five years and 45% had work experience of over 10 years. Fifty-six percent worked in the service industry. Thirty percent of the respondents were in senior management positions (please refer to Table 2 in the supplemental material online for more information about the sample).
316 D. Jamali and Y. Sdiani Intrinsic Religiosity Wide CSR Perspectives Extrinsic Social Religiosity Benefits of CSR over Costs Figure 2. Religiosity and CSR hypothesized relationships. Measure of religiosity Eight items were borrowed from religiosity research to measure intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic-social religiosity (Gorsuch and McPherson 1989, Maltby and Lewis 1996, Kendler et al. 2003). The items chosen were phrased so as to remove reference to any particular affiliation with a specific religion and rather measure intrinsic religiosity (example: It doesn t much matter what I believe so long as I am good ) and extrinsic-social religiosity (example: I like to worship and pray with others ). Intrinsic religiosity was measured using six items. Those items are: (1) I consider myself to be a religious person. (2) I try hard to live all my life according to my religious beliefs. (3) Although I believe in my religion, many other things are more important in my life. (4) Real religiosity is in the heart and not in mere rituals. (5) It doesn t matter much what I believe so long as I am good. (6) My whole approach to life is based on my religion. The alpha reliability for this scale was 0.75. Extrinsic religiosity (social) was measured using five items. Those items are: (1) I attend religious services/meetings/lectures or study circles regularly. (2) Being with other people who share my religious views is important to me. (3) My friends and I often talk about religious matters. (4) Most of my best friends are religious. (5) I like to worship and pray with others. The alpha reliability for this scale was 0.84.
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 317 Measures of CSR Based on an extensive review of the literature and of measures that assessed CSR attitudes, 10 statements derived directly from the Quazi and O Brien (2000) study were used to measure CSR attitudes along the two axes of the Quazi and O Brien (2000) model. A factor analysis was conducted that led to the emergence of two factors corresponding to the two variables of interest, explaining 52% of the variance. One item was dropped from the analysis due to double loadings. The two factors that emerged were in line with our conceptualization. The first measure (6 items Factor 1) assesses the view regarding the breadth of CSR responsibility (wide vs. narrow) responsibility. A sample item is, Asking business to be involved in any activity other than making profit is likely to make society worse off rather than better off. The reliability alpha of this measure was 0.77. The other measure (3 items-factor 2) assesses the belief that CSR provides benefits to organizations that outweigh the costs involved. A sample item is Contributing to the solution of social problems can be profitable for business. The reliability alpha of this measure was 0.65. Table 3 (see supplemental material online) shows the results of the factor analysis and the items involved. Statistical analysis Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 4 and correlations in Table 5 (both available in the supplemental material online). A t-test was conducted to explore the potential impact of religion (Islam and Christianity) on religiosity and CSR attitudes. No differences were detected, which is in line with the above expectations. Regressions Two separate regression analyses were conducted with education and work experience as control variables. Social religiosity and intrinsic religiosity acted as predictor variables and each of the CSR perspectives acted as a dependent variable in each case. To test for multicollinearity, we present the tolerance levels which indicate that this is not a problem with any of the cases. Breadth The regression analysis yielded a significant model F (4130) = 2.474, p < 0.05. The model explains 4.2% of the variance (Adjusted R 2 = 0.042). Table 6 (see supplemental material online) lists information about the predictor variables in the model. Both measures of religiosity acted as predictors of the model. The results indicate support for hypothesis 2 (though in the opposite direction) and hypothesis 4. Benefits The regression analysis in this case, also yielded a significant model F (4131) = 3.516, p < 0.01. The model explains 7% of the variance (Adjusted R 2 = 0.07).
318 D. Jamali and Y. Sdiani Table 7 (see supplemental material online) lists information about the predictor variables in the model. A close look at the results indicated that the variance was due to the control variable experience. The results indicate lack of support for hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 3. Discussion Two hypotheses were supported: namely H4 (Social extrinsic religiosity is related to a broader perspective of CSR) and H2 (Intrinsic religiosity is related to a broader perspective of CSR), which was supported in the opposite direction. Two hypotheses were not supported: H1 (Intrinsic religiosity is related to perceptions of benefits of CSR over costs), and H3 (Social extrinsic religiosity is related to perceptions of benefits of CSR over costs). Based on the empirical findings, we propose a revised model which is illustrated in Figure 3. The dotted line represents the negative relationship between intrinsic religiosity and a broad perspective of CSR. Our results suggest that religion or religious affiliation per se does not influence orientations to CSR, but rather the level (and type) of religiosity. This is consistent with scattered pieces of previous literature documenting that both Islam and Christianity present values and ethical systems that have positive affinities to the notion of CSR. So in essence, it is not religious affiliation or denomination that matters the most, but rather the level and type of religiosity among business professionals that is likely to influence their CSR attitudes and orientations. In terms of religiosity, our findings suggest that social extrinsic religiosity is related to a broader perspective of CSR. This finding is plausible and logical, in the sense that CSR is an activity that requires an engagement with others (both internal and external stakeholders) and which is likely appealing for the extrinsically religious who find comfort in friendship, companionship, group or communal rituals, and positive deeds. The extrinsically religious by definition do not treat religion as a personal experience and enjoy group ceremonial practices in a Church or Mosque. Therefore, it seems logical that they will enjoy the full breadth of CSR activities that allows them to enact their religious Intrinsic Religiosity Extrinsic Religiosity Breadth of CSR Figure 3. Religiosity and CSR tested relationships.
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 319 beliefs while socializing and interacting with others. This finding is also supported by previous research, which suggests that extrinsic-social religiosity is associated with a broader view of CSR (Agle and Van Buren 1999). Intrinsic religiosity seems to be related to a narrow view of CSR and limited appreciation of its benefits. This is in contrast to previous research, which suggests that higher intrinsic religiosity leads to higher levels of ethical behavior (Longenecker et al. 2004; Vitell et al. 2005). One explanation for this finding is that the intrinsically religious tend to view religion as a deeply personal belief and an individual calling, and thus may not entrust responsibility to the corporate world via an identifiable external activity such as CSR. Another potential explanation is that the notion of CSR is still not widely understood in the Lebanese context, with limited appreciation specifically in terms of its legal and ethical dimensions and connotations (Jamali and Mirshak 2007; Jamali 2008). It seems from our findings that the intrinsically religious focus more specifically on a personal experience and the practice of their religion, separating the latter from shared responsibility activities like CSR. Despite the fact that our regression models were significant, the variance explained was modest. This tells the recognizable story that religiosity only explains a small part of some business professionals motives and attitudes. People are motivated by different things and religiosity works, at least partially, as an important motivator for some of them. Other well-known determinants of CSR motivations include personal background and upbringing, age, gender, and education. CSR perspectives are invariably influenced by different factors and religiosity complements the puzzle by enhancing our understanding of what motivates people to be more positively inclined to CSR and exhibit appreciation of its potential scope and benefits. Concluding remarks This paper has presented a consolidated literature review pertaining to the topic of religiosity and CSR. Based on this literature review, the paper has made it clear that both Islamic and Christian religions have positive affinities to the notion and concept of CSR. The literature review moreover, suggested that religiosity, which has received less attention in the CSR domain, may be a more potent variable in explaining different inclinations to CSR among managers. The empirical findings of our paper tentatively support this conclusion, by showing no differences between Muslims and Christians in relation to CSR and providing preliminary evidence that type of religiosity is potentially salient in explaining different orientations to CSR. Particularly, our paper suggests that social extrinsic religiosity is related to a broader perspective of CSR, which is also supported by previous literature on the topic (Agle and Van Buren 1999). Our results are novel and interesting in the sense that while available literature shows strong support for CSR values in both Islam and Christianity, it also suggests that the emphases of these two religions are somewhat different. Data from Brammer et al. s 2007 study suggests CSR priority differences between
320 D. Jamali and Y. Sdiani adherents to Christianity and Islam. However, we detected no significant differences in CSR attitudes between Muslim and Christian managers drawn from the same national context. Our results indicate that religion per se or religious affiliation does not influence orientations to CSR as much as the level (and type) of religiosity. Extrinsic religiosity in particular seems related to the left hand side of Quazi and O Brien (2000) model, corresponding to the philanthropic or modern views of CSR, and intrinsic religiosity is related to the right hand side of the model corresponding to either a classical or socioeconomic view of CSR. There is clearly the need for more research on this important topic, but our findings, even in tentative form, draw attention to the importance of religiosity and the need for more research on religiosity and CSR. This is not surprising if we look at related literatures particularly the intrinsic-extrinsic religiosity dimension that has been one of the most central constructs in the modern psychology of religion in recent times. It would also be interesting to find out whether religious Christians and Muslims anywhere would share the same perceptions and attitudes of CSR. This is an area that is ripe for future research as this could uncover the power of religious teachings themselves vs. the power of other social institutions in shaping people s attitudes and orientations to responsible business conduct. Supplemental Material Supplemental material for this article can be accessed here: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/14766086.2013.802251 Note 1. One of the anonymous reviewers suggested that both extrinsic and intrinsic religiosities can be practiced in an individual or social way. We adopt in this paper, the notion that intrinsic religiosity is directed inwards, while extrinsic religiosity is directed outwards. Notes on contributors Dima Jamali (PhD University of Kent at Canterbury, UK) is a professor at the American University of Beirut and Associate Dean for Faculty. Her research has appeared in reputable journals including British Journal of Management, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Journal of Business Ethics, The Learning Organization, and Business Ethics Quarterly. She worked as an expert consultant for several international organizations and NGOs. Yusuf Sidani (PhD University of Mississippi) is an associate professor at the American University of Beirut and Chair of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship Track. His research interests include business ethics and crosscultural leadership, and management behavior. His research has appeared in the Journal of Social Psychology, The Learning Organization, Journal of Business Ethics, and Business Ethics Quarterly.
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 321 References Agle, B. and Van Buren, H. III, 1999. God and mammon: the modern relationship. Business ethics quarterly, 9 (4), 563 582. Allport, G., 1963. Behavioral science, religion, and mental health. Journal of religion and health, 2 (3), 187 197. Allport, G. and Ross, J., 1967. Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of personality and social psychology, 5 (4), 432 443. Angelidis, J. and Ibrahim, N., 2004. An exploratory study of the impact of degree of religiousness upon an individual s corporate social responsiveness orientation. Journal of business ethics, 5 (2), 119 128. Beekun, R. and Badawi, J., 2005. Balancing ethical responsibility among multiple organizational stakeholders: the Islamic perspective. Journal of business ethics, 60 (2), 131 145. Brammer, S., Williams, G., and Zinkin, J., 2007. Religion and attitudes to corporate social responsibility in a large cross-country sample. Journal of business ethics, 71 (3), 229 243. Carroll, A., 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of management review, 4 (4), 497 505. Clement-Jones, T., 2005. Bottom line issue or public relations exercise? In: J. Hancock, ed. Investing in corporate social responsibility: a guide to best practice, business planning and the UK s leading companies. London: Kogan Page, 5 13. European Commission. 2002. Corporate social responsibility: a business contribution to sustainable development [online]. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/february/tradoc_127374.pdf [Accessed 31 July 2012]. Gorsuch, R. and McPherson, S., 1989. Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E-revised and single-item scales. Journal for the scientific study of religion, 28 (3), 348 354. Graafland, J. and van de Ven, B., 2006. Strategic and moral motivation for corporate social responsibility. The journal of corporate citizenship, 22, 111 123. Graafland, J., Kaptein, M., and Mazereeuw, C., 2006. Business dilemmas and religious belief: an explorative study among Dutch executives. Journal of business ethics, 66 (1), 53 70. Graafland, J., Mazereeuw, C., and Yahia, A., 2006. Islam and socially responsible business conduct: an empirical study of Dutch entrepreneurs. Business ethics: a european review, 15 (4), 390 406. Hancock, J., 2005. Introduction: why this subject? Why this book? In: J. Hancock, ed. Investing in corporate social responsibility: a guide to best practice, business planning and the UK s leading companies. London: Kogan Page, 1 4. Ibrahim, N., et al., 1991. Characteristics and practices of Christian-based companies. Journal of business ethics, 10 (2), 123 132. Jamali, D., 2008. A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: a fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of business ethics, 82, 213 231. Jamali, D. and Mirshak, R., 2007. Corporate social responsibility: theory and practice in a developing country context. Journal of business ethics, 72, 243 262. Jensen, M., 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory and the corporate objective function. Business ethics quarterly, 12, 235 356. Johnson, T., 1990. How the notion of a calling manifests itself in the world of business: one viewpoint. America, 162 (5), 117 120. Jurkiewicz, C. and Giacalone, R., 2004. A values framework for measuring the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational performance. Journal of business ethics, 49 (2), 129 142.
322 D. Jamali and Y. Sdiani Kendler, K., Liu, X., Gardner, C.O., McCullough, M.E., and Prescott, C.A., 2003. Dimensions of religiosity and their relationship to lifetime psychiatric and substance abuse disorders. American journal of psychiatry, 160 (3), 496 503. Kennedy, E.J. and Lawton, L., 1998. Religiousness and business ethics. Journal of business ethics, 17 (2), 163 175. Kirkpatrick, L. and Hood, R. Jr., 1990. Intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation: the boon or bane of contemporary psychology of religion? Journal for the scientific study of religion, 29 (4), 442 462. Kotler, P. and Lee, N., 2005. Corporate social responsibility. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Lantos, G., 2002. The ethicality of altruistic corporate social responsibility. Journal of consumer marketing, 19 (3), 205 230. Longenecker, J.G., McKinney, J.A., and Moore, C.W., 2004. Religious intensity, evangelical Christianity, and business ethics: an empirical study. Journal of business ethics, 55 (4), 371 384. Luetkenhorst, W., 2004. Corporate social responsibility and the development agenda. International economics, 39 (3), 157 166. Maltby, J. and Lewis, C.A., 1996. Measuring intrinsic and extrinsic orientation toward religion: amendments for its use among religious and nonreligious samples. Personality and individual differences, 21, 937 946. Matten, D. and Moon, J., 2008. Implicit and Explicit CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management review, 33 (2), 404 424. Mitchell 2012. Spirituality and corporate social responsibility: interpenetrating worlds, by David Bubna-Litic, Farnham, Gower Publishing Limited, 2009, 244 pp., (paperback), ISBN 978-0-7546-4763-8, Journal of management, spirituality & religion, 9 (2), 209 214. Pettit, P., 2005. Responsibility incorporated. In: Paper presented at the Kadish Center for morality, law and public affairs, workshop in law, philosophy and political theory, March 23, 2005. Berkley Law, University of California: Berkeley, CA. Prati, L.M., Liu, Y., and Bass, K., 2007. Religiosity and workplace behavior: a manifestation of emotional intelligence. Journal of management, spirituality & religion, 4 (2), 138 159. Quazi, A. and O Brien, D., 2000. An empirical test of a cross-national model of corporate social responsibility. Journal of business ethics, 25 (1), 33 51. Rice, G., 1999. Islamic ethics and the implications for business. Journal of business ethics, 18 (4), 345 358. Sauser, W.Jr., 2005. Ethics in business: answering the call. Journal of business ethics, 58 (4), 345 357. Snider, J., Hill, R.P., and Martin, D., 2003. Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: a view from the world s most successful firms. Journal of business ethics, 48 (2), 175 187. Uddin, S.J., 2003. Understanding the framework of business in Islam in an era of globalization: a review. Business ethics: a european review, 12 (1), 23 32. Ullah, S. and Jamali, D., 2010. Institutional investors and corporate social responsibility: the role of Islamic financial institutions. International review of business research papers, 6 (1), 619 630. Vitell, S., Paolillo, J., and Singh, J., 2005. Religiosity and consumer ethics. Journal of business ethics, 57 (2), 175 181. Vitell, S., Paolillo, J., and Singh, J., 2006. The role of money and religiosity in determining consumers ethical beliefs. Journal of business ethics, 64 (2), 117 124. Weir, D., 2012. Management teaching, the spiritual dimension and the acceptance of the Islamic other. Journal of management, spirituality & religion, 9 (1), 67 81.
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 323 Zigarelli, M., 1993. Catholic social teaching and the employment relationship. Journal of business ethics, 12 (1), 75 82. Zinkin, J., 2007. Islam and CSR: a study of the compatibility between the tenets of Islam, the UN Global Compact and the development of social, human and natural capital. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 14 (4), 206 218. Zsolnai, L., 2007. Business, ethics and spirituality: Europe Asia views. Business ethics: a european review, 16 (1), 87 92.