Proceedings

companies, we continued to add new corporate values until we reached the 42 nd
corporate value.
After accomplishing this step, our primary data consists of the final list of 42
corporate values and their different ‘votes of confidence’ which were ranked from 1 =
most preferred corporate value to 7 = less preferred corporate value. We also
identified the ‘vote of no confidence’ which was ranked with 8 = the corporate value
is not preferred.
The number of points given to each corporate value for each ranking is determined by
n which is the maximum number of the proposed corporate values of one company
considering also the ‘vote of no confidence’. Thus, the most preferred corporate value
(ranked 1) receives the maximum of 8 points ( n ); the second preferred corporate
value (ranked 2) receives 7 pointes ( n −1),
and so on, until the less preferred
company value (ranked 7) receives 2 points ( n − 6 ). The ‘vote of no confidence’
receives the minimum of 1 point ( n − 7 ).
When all the votes have been counted, and the points added up, the corporate value
with the highest number of points win. Thus, in the descending order of number of
points received, we establish the value system of our target sample companies.
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
6.1. The European perspective
The final count of points revealed the value system of the European companies. The
final ranking consists of 17 positions, some of the corporate values obtaining the same
number of points, thus sharing the same position.
It is also interesting to notice the maximum and the minimum number of points that a
corporate value may obtain in the final count. If all the sample companies would have
ranked the same corporate value with the ‘vote of confidence’ as their first preference,
then the value would achieve a number of 168 points. Also, on the opposite side, the
minimum number of points would be achieved if all the sample companies would give
the ‘vote of no confidence’ to a specific corporate value. In this theoretical
assumption, the total number of points would be 21. But this theoretical assumption
infringes the third characteristic of the corporate values that states that ‘Every
corporate value is chosen by at least one company’. Thus, is necessarily that at least
one company to give the immediate number of points above the minimum to the
respective value. Considering this, the minimum number of points that a corporate
value may achieve is 22 and shows that the respective value is less preferred.
The top three values of the European companies are: ‘Integrity’ with a score of 78
points, ‘Respect’ with a score of 58 points and ‘Honesty’ with 48 points. The
corporate values with the lowest number of points, with an equal scoring of 23 points,
are ‘Tenacity’ and ‘Work Smart, Play Hard’. A detailed image of the corporate value
system of the European companies is found in Table 3. An interesting corporate value
that appears in our ranking is ‘High Performance’. Although it does not score a high
position, it is still a presence in the ranking, and our concern is that the financial high
profits are not compatible with a value system, which is more a framework of ethical
~ 558 ~