GENERALIDADES DE LA FABRICA DE MARMOLES RIOBAMBA

The results of the analysis clearly reveal that the influences of national culture – defined as the cultural dimensions uncertainty avoidance, human orientation, institutional collectivism and gender egalitarianism (House et al., 2004) – do manifest in students’ legitimacy as perceived by universities. First, uncertainty avoidance is reflected through the degree of ethical rule following enacted by the universities. The qualitative content analysis shows that this institutional behaviour is expressed via the incorporation of democratic principles in the decision making process, the incorporation of ethical rules into the CSR focus and strategy and the integration of ethical principles into the organisational culture. Second, human orientation becomes visible via the sensitivity towards students’ well-being. While universities with stronger human orientation tend to include a broader range of responsibilities into their definition of student well-being and also perceive the transfer of ethically correct attitudes towards their students as their responsibilities, universities with a lower human orientation define student well-being more narrowly. Third, institutional collectivism is reflected through the consideration of students in the decision making process which takes place in three ways: the formal governance structure, the informal integration of this stakeholder group and students’ involvement in strategy development. Fourth, gender egalitarianism was expected to be represented via gender equality and the awareness of female students’ needs. Most universities reveal a lack of these behaviours which can be related to the low scores of gender egalitarianism within both countries. Therefore, it is logically that few behaviours of gender egalitarianism are enacted. Observing the impacts of these four dimensions it becomes clear that the different cultural dimensions manifest within the concept of students’ legitimacy via the four proposed institutional behaviours – ethical rule following (uncertainty avoidance), sensitivity towards students’ well-being (human orientation), the consideration of students in the decision making process (institutional collectivism) and gender equality and the awareness of female students’ needs (gender egalitarianism). Different degrees of these behaviours reflect different degrees of the cultural

65

dimensions. These observations clearly confirm Adam’s and Westlund’s (2013) conceptualisation of culture, which implies that culture is “a hidden yet unifying theme that provides meaning, direction and mobilisation” (Adam & Westlund, 2013, p. 11) and therefore strongly determines how organisations behave.

The degree of students’ legitimacy appears to be similar for English and German universities; however, the specific patterns of the institutional behaviours, which determine the degree of students’ legitimacy, are different within English and German universities. Therefore, one can state that national cultural differences influence students’ legitimacy as perceived by universities. This conclusion coincides with the assumption that the legitimacy dimension of the stakeholder theory (Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1997) reveals a strong connection to the concept of culture because legitimacy is rooted within a “socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, definitions” (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 866), which are determined by culture (Taras et al., 2009). However, one has to recognise that the variances observed in the concept of students’ legitimacy do not always match the directions as predicted by the cultural dimensions of the GLOBE studies (House et al., 2004) – 10 out of the 14 propositions could be confirmed. Regarding the dimension of human orientation the qualitative analysis clearly stresses impacts of this cultural dimension, but these impacts are contrary to the predicted direction with German universities showing a stronger human orientation than English universities. Furthermore, in the cases of uncertainty avoidance there are single discrepancies between the predicted directions of influences of national culture on students’ legitimacy, while institutional collectivism and gender egalitarianism completely reflect the predetermined cultural practices scores. Nevertheless, one can state that although the direction of the observed impacts are not always as previously predicted, all cultural dimensions significantly influenced the universities’ students’ legitimacy. Therefore, the conclusion of Teichler (2004) – that national culture strongly influences universities’ policy making – can be supported by the results of this qualitative interview analysis.

66

one can state that these two concepts are closely related. As explained earlier, the different degrees and patterns of students’ legitimacy are reflected in the way in which the universities implement CSR. Therefore, it can be said that national culture influences the implementation of CSR within English and German universities via the concept of students’ legitimacy. This strong relation between students’ legitimacy and the implementation of CSR is confirmed Lee and Carroll (2011, p. 117) who state that “CSR is a socially constructed value and legitimacy is a core principle both for defining CSR and for determining the success of CSR activities.” Although English and German universities reveal a similar degree of students’ legitimacy, the different patterns of this concept cause unique ways of implementation of CSR, thereby confirming that CSR is determined by the concept of legitimacy. Moreover, this strong connection between students’ legitimacy and CSR implementation further implies that many universities have relational motives (Aguilera et al., 2007) for the adoption of CSR. Thus, when universities perceive students as a legitimate stakeholder group in terms of their CSR, they obviously pursue such ethical behaviour in order to maintain an appropriate relation with this stakeholder group.

These processes are especially relevant when reconsidering universities’ shifting role within society. Increasing commercialisation, market-orientation and universities’ responsibilities towards a broader range of stakeholders (Benneworth & Jongbloed, 2010) strongly impact the social contract between universities and society – “a compact which is based on an interpretation of the needs of both sides at national, regional and local level [which] requires continuing dialogue and a framework within which it takes place” (NCHIE, 1997, 1.27). Applying the concept of a social contract to the universities’ relationship with the stakeholder group of students one can state that students’ legitimacy forms a crucial part of “the framework within which it [– the social contract –] takes place” (NCHIE, 1997, 1.27). How universities perceive their students’ legitimate stake within the institution determines how the social contract between those parties is enacted. In the specific case of English universities the involvement of students in the institutions’ formal governance structure, the ethical education and transfer of norms and values towards their students and the inclusion of gender issues

67

into their CSR focus lead to a social compact clearly considering students’ needs. However, a missing CSR focus or strategy which includes and explicates students’ stake in the organisation results in an unstructured and vague approach to CSR. These observations emphasise that the social contract between English universities and their students is characterised by an equal dialogue on the interpretation of both parties’ needs, but that a missing structured framework within which this dialogue takes place impedes a clear definition of this social contract. Moreover, German universities take a more structured approach towards CSR and also pursue an ethical education and transfer of norms and values towards their students, while they fail to incorporate students’ adequately in decision making processes regarding CSR and fail to link gender issues to their CSR agenda. Comparing these observations to those of the English universities one can state that the social contract between German universities and their students is enacted differently in the sense that it is characterised by a clearer framework which gives structure to the dialogue between the parties and explicates students’ rights. However, as German universities more often perceive the decision making power to be located at the top of the organisation, the higher education institutions appear to have more power within the dialogue on the interpretation of both parties’ needs and therefore are in a stronger position in order to enforce their interests. As these differences between English and German universities derive from national cultural influences one can stat that the cultural environment impacts the way in which the social contract between universities and their students is enacted. In conclusion one can say that the social contract between universities and their students is impacted by the culture within which this relationship is build and that these external influences may determine the actual implementation of this contract. This implies that both students’ legitimacy and CSR in general are concepts which have to be recognised as mutually interdependent with their cultural context rather than independent, determining forces.

Next to these valuable insights generated one also has to mention that the patterns of CSR implementation are not always coherent for each culture; there are also differences among universities from one country. For example, the degree of ethical rule following and consideration of

68

students’ in the decision making process varies greatly in between German universities. Considering these observations one can state that in most cases the national differences in students’ legitimacy are also reflected in the CSR implementation, but that there are exceptions which indicate that there may be additional factors, which can eliminate or diminish national, cultural impacts to a certain degree (see Appendix 4 for further discussion).