Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Despite the importance of the ethics and values for the design and implementation of managerial practices, there has
been little effort to analyze the core values of the companies that act in the international arena from the point of view
of their impact on the business performance. To that end, we examined the value statements of the companies that
have kept their place within the top 50 of the worlds most admired companies rankings, made by the authoritative
business magazine Fortune, from 2009 to 2013. We have identied ve independent core value orientations: to
customer/user, to employees, to economic and nancial growth, to excellence, and to social responsibility. Our analysis highlights the strict relation between high revenues, global admiration, and social-responsibility-oriented core
values. Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Latest business scandals (e.g., Enron, WorldCom,
Global Crossing, Arthur Andersen, AIG Insurance,
and Fannie Mae) and ethical managerial lapses have
re-heightened the need for ethics and core values in
business practice (Williams, 2011; Childs, 2012). As
a number of theorists have argued, there is evidence
that companies irresponsible conduct is wrong not
just in ethical terms but also in terms of nancial
returns (Gustafson, 2013; Frooman, 1997). And that
not only because customers pay an increasing attention to the several impacts of organizations activities but also because the awareness of the needs of
a wider range of stakeholders is the basis for better
long-term strategies, compelling rms to pay attention to factors and variables that would have been
otherwise neglected, but that in the long run may
turn very inuencing on the business. Moreover,
all stakeholders expect companies to develop capabilities to sustain themselves through future time,
while contributing to the improvement of society
(Cohen, 2010; Florea et al., 2013). As a result, in order to achieve sustainable and enduring competitive advantages, ethical and socialenvironmental
*Correspondence to: Maria Assunta Barchiesi, Department of
Enterprise Engineering, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via del
Politecnico 1, 00133 Rome, Italy.
E-mail: maria.assunta.barchiesi@uniroma2.it
160
Government
Environment
Other
organizations
Society
The
company
Groups and
factions
Individuals
161
162
Airlines
Apparel
Beverages
Computer software
Computers
Consumer credit card
and related services
Consumer food products
Delivery
Electronics
Entertainment
Food services
General merchandisers
Hotels, casinos, resorts
Industrial and farm
equipment
Information technology
Internet services and
retailing
Medical equipment
Megabanks
Motor vehicles
Petroleum rening
Pharmaceuticals
Semiconductors
Soaps and cosmetics
Specialty retailers
Pursue excellence
Analyzed companies
Industry
163
Companies
Singapore Airlines,
Southwest Airlines
Nike
Coca-Cola
Microsoft
Apple
American Express
Embrace Change
To fulll our vision to be the #1 company in the world,
Marriott continually seeks innovative and creative ways
to meet the needs of customers.
Act with Integrity
Nestl, PepsiCo
FedEx, UPS
General Electric, Samsung
Electronics
Walt Disney
McDonalds, Starbucks
Nordstrom, Target, Wal-Mart
Stores
Marriott International
Caterpillar, Deere
IBM
Google
3M
Goldman Sachs Group, J.P.
Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo
Toyota Motor
Exxon Mobil
Johnson & Johnson
Intel
Procter & Gamble
Costco Wholesale
Customer/User
Orientation
0.4
0.3
Social Responsibility
Orientation
0.2
0.1
Employees
Orientation
Excellence
Orientation
Economic/Financial
Growth Orientation
164
Number of
identied values
Orientation
Customer
Employees
Economic/
nancial growth
Excellence
Social responsibility
Max
Frequency of
the value 0
Frequency of
the value 1
Frequency of
predominance*
15
Median
value
Average
value
Standard
deviation
5.5
6.12
2.858
0
0
0
1
1
0.3333
7
9
27
1
2
0
8
9
0
0.2
0.16667
0
0.23881
0.22867
0.03665
0.20398
0.24688
0.08061
0
0
1
0.75
13
5
1
0
7
20
0.125
0.36364
0.17374
0.32213
0.21512
0.20184
*When a company has two or more predominant orientations, we count multiple predominance.
Indeed, it could be a mistake to address the business practice exclusively on customer satisfaction.
Poor service is not always associated to unfair company practices, but unfair company practices are always linked to customer perception of poor service
(Seiders and Berry, 1998). Moreover, the customer
is not always right: Berry and Seiders (2008) solicited
a discussion on the customer unfairness, that is, the
customer behavior that is devoid of common decency, reasonableness, and respect for the rights of
others, creating inequity and causing harm for a
company, its employees, and, in some case, other
customers. In their opinion, denying the existence
and impact of unfair customers erodes the ethics of
fairness upon which great companies thrive.
Even the exclusive focus on employees could be a
mistake if it is not supported by CSR activities.
Turker (2009) analyzed the impact of CSR on organizational commitment. The results of his study
show that employees prefer to work in socially responsible organizations, and their organizational
commitment level is positively affected by CSR, that
is, by attention on society, natural environment, next
generations, non-governmental organizations, employees, and customers. Moreover, ethical lapses by
employees can put organizations at substantial risk:
Recent changes in regulatory requirements and more
stringent sentencing guidelines demand an enhanced
ethical awareness (Kayes et al., 2007).
Finally, the companies ability to grow and to improve continuously is also determined by its social
competences, ethical responsibility, and environmental contribution. It is undeniable that the concept of
business excellence includes social responsibility
aspects.
The relative low score of nancial return as a core
value does not contradict the obvious fact that corporations exist to produce wealth: wealth for themselves,
for their shareholders, and for their employees. However, top performances arise when this concern does
not prevail over a deeper commitment to generate
well-being for the community to which it belongs. A
company can aspire to outstanding performance,
Know. Process Mgmt. 21, 159166 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we analyzed the core value statements
of Fortune worlds most admired companies
(20092013) according to ve independent core
value orientations: to customer/user, to employees,
to economic and nancial growth, to excellence, and
to social responsibility. Our study reveals that companies that for a long time are performing high revenues and are gaining admiration of their peers
declare to have founded their business practice on
social-responsibility-oriented values.
As a matter of fact, nowadays people, especially
those belonging to advanced economies, are becoming more and more socially responsible, and hence
becoming generally more sensitive to social and environmental issues. With CSR practices, companies are
able to internalize stakeholder preferences about social and environmental concerns and, consequently,
improve their protability by investing in CSR activities (Calabrese et al., 2013a; 2013b).
All this leads to think that there is a positive correlation between a rms care for CSR and its corporate
performance and that ethical behavior and a concern
for people and for the environment help in achieving
and maintaining a strong competitive position. CSR
can help companies to nd a way to realize real sustainable businesses in view of their central role in
the global economic and nancial stability (Costa
and Menichini, 2013; Macagno, 2013).
Moreover, although all of the worlds most admired companies have been very protable, there
are many indications that their achievements are
mainly due to competence, passion, motivation,
and diligence and that nancial return is not the
most important driving force behind their success.
Indeed, very few admired companies assert to have
founded their business practice on economic/nancial-growth-oriented values.
Thus, contrary to the objections of those who consider CSR both useless and detrimental because it
distracts companies from their primary goal of
prot maximization (Friedman, 1970; Sundaram
and Inkpen, 2004; Karnani, 2011), our analysis conrmed the strict relation between high revenues,
global admiration, and social responsibility.
REFERENCES
Agle BR, Caldwell CB. 1999. Understanding research on
values in business. Business and Society 38(3): 326398.
165
Akaa IP, Lund D. 1994. The inuence of personal and organizational values on marketing professionals ethical
behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 13(4): 417430.
Berry LL, Seiders K. 2008. Serving unfair customers. Business Horizons 51: 2937.
Brown B, Logsdon M. 1999. Corporate reputation and organization identity as constructs for business and society research. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting
of the International Association for Business and Society,
Wood D, Windsor D (eds). International Association
for Business and Society (IABS): Paris, France; 168173.
Calabrese A, Costa R, Menichini T, Rosati F. 2013a. Does
corporate social responsibility hit the mark? A stakeholder oriented methodology for CSR assessment.
Knowledge and Process Management 20(2): 7789.
Calabrese A, Costa R, Menichini T, Rosati F, Sanfelice G.
2013b. Turning corporate social responsibility-driven opportunities in competitive advantages: a two-dimensional
model. Knowledge and Process Management 20(1): 5058.
Chatman JA. 1989. Improving interactional organizational
research: a model of person-organization t. Academy of
Management Review 14(3): 333349.
Childs J. 2012. Demonstrating the need for effective business ethics: an alternative approach. Business and Society
Review 117(2): 221232.
Christie N, Dyck B, Morrill J, Stewart R. 2013. CSR and accounting: drawing on Weber and Aristotle to rethink
generally accepted accounting principles. Busienss and
Society Review 118(3): 383411.
Cohen E. 2010. CSR for HR: A Necessary Partnership for Advancing Responsible Business Practices. Greenleaf Publishing Limited: Shefeld, UK.
Collins J, Porras JI. 2002. Built to Last Successful Habits of
Visionary Companies. HarperCollins: New York.
Cooper S, Crowther D, Davies M, Davies EW. 2001. Shareholder or Stakeholder Value? The Development of Indicators for
the Control and Measurement of Performance. CIMA: London.
Costa R, Menichini T. 2013. A multidimensional approach
for CSR assessment: the importance of the stakeholder
perception. Expert Systems with Applications 40: 150161.
DAnselmi P. 2011. Values and Stakeholders in an Era of
Social Responsibility. Palgrave Macmillan: Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire.
Dowling GE. 2004. Corporate reputations: should you
compete on yours? California Management Review 46(3):
1936.
Drucker PF. 1954. The Practice of Management. Harper
Perennial Publications: New York.
Fitzgerald GA, Desjardins NM. 2004. Organizational
values and their relation to organizational performance
outcomes. Atlantic Journal of Communication 12(3): 121145.
Florea L, Cheung YH, Herndon NC. 2013. For all good
reasons: role of values in organizational sustainability.
Journal of Business Ethics 114: 393408.
Fombrun CJ, Gardberg NA, Barnett ML. 2000. Opportunity
platforms and safety nets: corporate citizenship and reputational risk. Business and Society Review 105(1): 85106.
Fortune. 2013. Worlds Most Admired Companies. http://
money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/most-admired/
2013/list/?iid=wma_sp_full
Fortune. 2012. Worlds Most Admired Companies. http://
money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/most-admired/
2012/full_list/
Fortune. 2011. Worlds Most Admired Companies. http://
money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2011/
full_list/
Fortune. 2010. Worlds Most Admired Companies. http://
money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2010/
full_list/
Fortune. 2009. Worlds Most Admired Companies. http://
money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2009/
full_list/
166