RESPONSE - Insead

Findings: Developing Social Consciousness and SRB in Managers (Objective 4) Introduction
9 Findings: Developing Social Consciousness and SRB in
Managers (Objective 4)
9.1 Introduction
The previous two chapters set out the theoretical basis and methodology for the experimental
designs. This chapter presents results of experimental interventions designed to help managers
develop their sensitivity towards the social impact of their decisions and actions (Social
Consciousness) and thus enact more frequently Socially Responsible Behaviour (SRB). At the
aggregate level, and in connection to the analysis in Part 1, the development of Social Consciousness
is expected to enhance the Cognitive Alignment between the organization and its stakeholders, and
the enactment of Socially Responsible Behaviour by managers is expected to improve the
organizational response to stakeholders’ demands and thus enhance Corporate Social Performance.
The next section presents the analysis of how higher levels of Social Consciousness affect Socially
Responsible Behaviour. Then, the results of the experiments will discuss the extent to which
managerial training techniques can influence Social Consciousness levels, thus completing the study
of the causal chain that goes from Managerial Training to Social Consciousness development and
from Social Consciousness development to Socially Responsible Behaviour (see Figure 10 in Chapter
7).
9.2 Impact of Social Consciousness on Socially Responsible Behaviour
In the web­survey developed for the experimental portion of the study SRB is measured according to
participants’ responses to four ethical dilemmas as described below.
1. Product safety – whether to withdraw a product from the market to conduct sufficient
safety testing
2. Labour conditions ­ trade­off between low cost production and quality of working
conditions in a decision about a plant closure
3. Product access ­ trade­off between economic profit and access to medicine for the
world’s poor
4. Community development – trade off between labour productivity and allowing staff to
volunteer for community development projects
A factor analysis was applied to the responses 21 to the four dilemmas described above, which
resulted in an interesting distinction between two dimensions of Socially Responsible Behaviour
(SRB):
1. the first two scenarios described above, related to product safety and labour condition
issues, loaded on one factor, which we labelled ‘do no harm’ SRB.
2. The third and fourth scenarios load on a different factor, related to product access and
community development, loaded on a separate factor, which we labelled “do good”
SRB.
In and of itself, this is an important finding that corroborates the theoretical framework developed for
the analysis of the responses to the interview protocol (see the first framework described in section
5.2).
21 Since this exercise is aimed at providing a baseline evaluation of the link between social
consciousness and SRB, we broadened the analysis to a random sample of 266 managers in two
large companies (also participating companies in the case analysis study), selected among all
managers in level 2 to 4 across all countries. These managers participated (with a 35% response
rate) in a large scale web­survey which included the same items used in the measurement survey for
the experiment. This allows us to validate Hypothesis 1 with a larger population of managers and with
broader representation of the global management population, given the randomization process to
select the sample of invitees.
RESPONSE: understanding and responding to societal demands on corporate responsibility
69