Business Strategy and Social Responsibility Behaviors-An Empirical Anaylsis of Labor Issue in Taiwan

全文

(1)~~B~·~.~~A+~A~·~67-~.. Business Strategy And Social Responsibility Behaviors - - An Empirical Analysis of Labor Issue in Taiwan ({r'~::~IfJRIIIfr fU {r: --. ,.L" :t~l\ +M1 Ii:::( D (14 J.~ I!!El. *. ltd:. if;Z. r~Mf*. -r '1ft ;!; h '~'7 hIf?'c') 7:J -.-1_ Xf; ~JJ ~~ I~ W :h.. ;E'I;,.. Se-Hwa Wu and Jeng-Yuan Wei ,J}t)i:. !A' .. :)if. :,'....'1 " ~~. WJl. .,. (~,~* ' ~iE.it). !I~:. ft••fffia'fi~~I••Mm.~~.,~~.~.~ft.*.M~••~••• ~& ~;~~ft •• ffrraM~.~~$~a~.~~~~&~~~o~~~~~.ft •• fffia~ ~a~re~ •• '@• • _mu•• ~~~~.~~ft ••ff•• ~&~fia~ma* •• o* ~~~~7.~.~~M~.ft •• fffia~~~~.~'~ffl~a*~~m~•• m'M~m ~~~~~~~.~~~a~~~~o~~~~~m~~~~~~L~~~~~.'~ft •• ff ~~~~'$~p·~~m~~~,~~~mlli~.~~~.'~~~~~~~~~~I ••~'. .. ~~~.~~.·ttUK.'R~~.~*.~~.o&~,~.~~~~.~~~.,~~OO ~~I. ••~'M~~~umm~~m~~~~*~~o~~~Hm~*L~M~••~Mft •. • fffia~!l~-f5(~o Abstract:. Business strategy and social responsibility behavior are two kinds of reactions toward the en. vironment. Although both have been fully studied and classified into different types, the rela. tionship between them has not been explored. This study has found that distinct types of. business strategies and social responsibility behaviors exist in Taiwan local business firms.. The more aggressive the business strategy is, the more active its social responsibility be. havior will be. The relationship between both is consistent with theoretical expectation.. * Dr. Se -. Hwa Wu is a professor in the Department of Business Administration,National. Chengchi University. He received his MBA and Ph.D. degrees from the same university. where Dr. Wu has been a faculty member since his graduation in 1984. His research interests. include business and environment, business strategy, and industry study.. Mr. Jeng- Yuan Wei is curmetly a doctoral student in National Chengchi University. He re. ceived MBA degree from National Sun- Yat-Sen University and majors in general manage. 66. ment in Ph.D. program.. 67.

(2) Social responsibility has been an eminent issue facing corporations nowadays. The enviorn_. framework. ment in which business firms dwell has. greatly changed. Consumerism,ecologicalism, and. traditional strategy-related study. labor issues are some of the evident pressures in Taiwan demanding that business firms to be. environment-strategy - organization - performance. sJ~. more socially responsible. However, there is still a debate as whether or not business £inns should share social responsibility. While the debate continues, pressure upon business firms to be socially responsible is increasing.. Grunig, 1976 Pavlik,1987. responsibility - - - - -______--1 behavior. Social responsibility is the duty that a business firm performs for its stakeholders: custom ers, suppliers, and community. Such duty generally is not regulated by law. Due to its volun. Hwang & Liu,1989. : emphasis of this study. tary nature, social responsibility is the result of interaction between business firms and the public. The evolution of public expectation for social responsibility can be described in a. concept framework clearly demonstrates the interested gap of research to be filled by. stage -like life cycle; public expectation in change, political controversy, development of. study. Both Pavlik ( 1987) and Hwang & Liu ( 1989) in their summaries of previous. legislation, and litigation ( Ryan, Swanson, and Buchholz, 1987 : p41 ) . Post ( 1978 : p26) ,. have found that there is no consistent conclusion regarding the relationship hetween. in observing firms' responses to publio pressure for social responsibility, concludes that the. responsibility strategy and organization structure or that between social responsibility. pattern of respondent behaviors of business firms can also be divided into three distinct. vior and a firm's financial performance. It is therefore meaningful to clarify the rela. stages: awareness, consensus action, and choice/ reaction stages. Currently in Taiwan, as. between business strategy and social responsibility behavior before we can explain. can be clearly observed, public demand for social responsibility of business has reached the. inconsistent conclusions or justify the usage of "organization structure" and "financial. legislation development stage (].Y. Hwang, 1989: p8) . Meanwhile, in response to this. ~erformance". as dependent variates of social responsibility behavior.. pressure, business firms are approaching the institutionalized stage of reactive behavior, i.e., choice/ reaction. Thus the respondent behavior pattern is therefore clear and distinct. IA.ccording to the concept framework, environment, business strategy, organization structure, Since the business firm is an environment serving organization (Ansoff, 1965 ) ,both its busi·. performance are some of the most familiar research subjects in management. This paper. ness strategy and social responsibility behavior can be regarded as reactions to the external. ~ntends that corporate strategy may be related to its social responsibility behavior, therefore. environment. Consequently there may be an inherent relationship in nature between these. or the typology of business strategy, should be distinguished. Miles & Snow. two reactive behaviors. Business strategy is basically a respondent attitude toward the en· vironment, especially toward its market. Furthermore different firms are distinct in their posi. tiveness of attitude toward market. Meanwhile we can see, in many social issues, that busi. ( 1978 ) , Porter ( 1980 ) , and Stopford & Wells ( 1972) are some of the prominent resear who have provided paradigmatic typologies of business strategy. These typologies are similar in concept and intellection. This paper employs Miles and Snow's model. ness firms in dealing with such social responsibility issues also reveal differences in their atti. classifies firms by business strategy into four categories: prospector, analyzer, defen. tudes. It is then implicative to study the nature of the relationship between these two corpo. , and reactor. Prospectors are those firms that frequently introduce new products or de. rate respondent behaviors toward the external environment. Indeed, the comparisons of their decision processes and decision orientations could be equally enlightening research topics.. new markets. Their attitude toward the market or environment is relatively aggressive, while defenders attempt to maintain present product or market development, which positions them in a focused target segment with specialized products. Analyzers are an intermediate. 68. The following concept framework relates current focuses in research and illustrates. type since strategies in this group are quite different and the average strategy score is in.. emphasis of interest of this study.. termediated. Reactors are firms that lack a consistent strategy for dealing with their environ.. 69.

(3) Concept framework. Social responsibility has been an eminent issue facing corporations nowadays. The en .. traditional strategy- related study. ment in which business firms dwell has greatly changed. Consumerism,ecologicalism, labor issues.are some of the evident pressures in Taiwan demanding that business firms to be. environment-strategy-organization - performance. sJ~. more socially responsible. However, there is still a debate as whether or not business should share social responsibility. While the debate continues, pressure upon business firms to .'. be socially responsible is increasing.. Grunig, 1976 Pavlik,1987. responsibility ___________- . l Social responsibility is the duty that a business firm performs for its stakeholders: custom ers, suppliers, and community. Such duty generally is not regulated by law. Due to its volun. behavior. Hwang & Liu,1989. * : emphasis of this study. tary nature, social responsibility is the result of interaction between business firms and public. The evolution of public expectation for social responsibility can be described in. The concept framework clearly demonstrates the interested gap of research to be filled by. stage -like life cycle; public expectation in change, political controversy, development of. this study. Both Pavlik ( 1987) and Hwang & Liu ( 1989) in their summaries of previous. legislation, and litigation ( Ryan, Swanson, and Buchholz, 1987 : p41 ) . Post ( 1978 : p26) ,. studies have found that there is no consistent conclusion regarding the relationship between. in observing firms' responses to publio pressure for social responsibility, concludes that thJL. social responsibility strategy and organization structure or that between social responsibility. l. pattern of respondent behaviors of business firms can also be divided into three distinct,. behavior and a firm's financial performance. It is therefore meaningful to clarify the rela. stages: awareness, consensus action, and choice/ reaction stages. Currently in Taiwan, as'. tionship between business strategy and social responsibility behavior before we can explain. can be clearly observed, public demand for social responsibility of business has reached the~. such inconsistent conclusions or justify the usage of "organization structure" and"financial. •. .'Til. legislation development stage (J,Y. Hwang, 1989: p8) . Meanwhile, in response to this' pressure, business firms are approaching the institutionalized stage of reactive behavior, i.e.;' choice/ reaction. Thus the respondent behavior pattern is therefore clear and distinct.. performance" as dependent variates of social responsibility behavior.. Literature review According to the concept framework, environment, business strategy, organization structure,. Since the business firm is an environment serving organization (Ansoff, 1965 ) ,both its busi1 ness strategy and social responsibility behavior can be regarded as reactions to the external environment. Consequently there may be an inherent relationship in nature between these two reactive behaviors. Business strategy is basically a respondent attitude toward the erli vironment, especially toward its market. Furthermore different firms are distinct in their posi tiveness of attitude toward market. Meanwhile we can see, in many social issues, that ness firms in dealing with such social responsibility issues also reveal differences in their atti tudes. It is then implicative to study the nature of the relationship between these two corpOr rate respondent behaviors toward the external environment. Indeed, the comparisons of decision processes and decision orientations could be equally enlightening research topics.. and performance are some of the most familiar research subjects in management. This paper contends that corporate strategy may be related to its social responsibility behavior, therefore patterns, or the typology of business strategy, should be distinguished. Miles & Snow ( 1978 ) , Porter ( 1980 ) , and Stopford & Wells ( 1972) are some of the prominent resear chers who have provided paradigmatic typologies of business strategy. These typologies are basically similar in concept and intellection. This paper employs Miles and Snow's model which classifies firms by business strategy into four categories: prospector, analyzer, defen der, and reactor. Prospectors are those firms that frequently introduce new products or de velop new markets. Their attitude toward the market or environment is relatively aggressive, while defenders attempt to maintain present product or market development, which positions them in a focused target segment with specialized products. Analyzers are an intermediate. 68. The following concept framework relates current focuses in research and illustrates. type since strategies in this group are quite different and the average strategy score is in. emphasis of interest of this study.. termediated. Reactors are firms that lack a consistent strategy for dealing with their environ. 69.

(4) mental forces (Namiki, 1989), and are easily influenced by the exterior environment. The environment in which business firms reside is complex. Its members include primary. The following hypotheses define the main interest of this study. I)(}m~l.mi 3.. There exists some relationship between business typology and its social re. and secondary groups (Frederic, Davis & Post, 1988: 78-81), Primary groups are direct opera tion·related identities : stockholders, employees, debtors, suppliers, distributors, consumers, and competitors. Secondary groups include the community: government, interest groups,. 3a.. The more active a firm's business strategy is, the more active its social re-. communication media, and all the associations that firms interact with. The life-cycle stages of public demand for the social responsibility of business are: public demand for change, poli tical debate, development, development of legislation, and litigation (Ryan, Swanson, & Buc". The analyzer type does not have a consistent pattern of social responsibility. hholz, 1987 : 41). In the legislation stage, demand for social responsibility becomes institu· tionalized. legal form. Thereafter follows the litigation stage during which the public begin. to exert their expectation for social responsibility on business in judicial practice. It is what Taiwan's business confronted with nowadays. post (1978 : 274-288), after observing the re. The relationship between a firm's bnsiness strategy and its social responsibil ity benavior is consistent with their decisional process and decisional orientation.. spondent behaviors of US business firm contends that there are three respondent patterns: adaptive behavior that passively reacts; proactive behavior that aggressively engages in so cial issues to direct and control the press~re ; and interactive behavior that interacts with the public in order to lessen the pressure. A similar typology of social responsibility behavior is proposed by Buchbolz (1987: 502-503), which is a modification of Post's model with four be havior patterns: reactive, accommodative, proactive, and interactive patterns. C.M. Hwang. Corporate strategy is measured in 12 dimensions identified by Miles & Snow (1978, see results table 2). In order to identify reactors, respondents are asked to assess the consistency of their corporate strategy. The measuring instrument of strategy typology applies a 7-point Likert scale from 1 to 7.. (1989) in her master thesis has reviewed rather comprehensively these typologies and de veloped a measuring questionnaire specific to ecological issue. eM. Hwang's (1989) study also indicates that patterned social responsibility behaviors do exist in Taiwan. This study adopts Buchholz's typology of social responsibility behaviors which is grouped through eM. Hwang's measuring questionnaire.. Social responsibility behavior is measured through a 19-dimension questionnaire (eM.. Hwang, 1989, see results table 3) to identify the four types of behavior patterns: reactive,. accommodative, proactive, and interactive behaviors. Each is again figured into 7-point Likert. scale specific to labor issues since labor issues are currently Taiwan's most pressing issues.. Data is collected through convenient sampling from the on·the·job trainees at the Center. Hypothesis. for Public and Business Administration Center, National Cheng·Chi University in Taipei.. The first two hypotheses are designed to test the existence of the descriptive typologies of business strategy and social responsibility behavior respectively.. Members in these training programs are generally middle to high level managers of major en·. terprises in Taiwan. Hence the results will reveal the prototypical social responsibility be haviors of major large firms in Taiwan. A total of 68 usable replies were received. A basic. Hypothesis 1.. Business strategies can be grouped into distinct patterns which are similar to. Miles & Snow's typology. HYRothesis 2.. profile of the samples is depicted in Table 1.. Firms' reactive behaviors to social responsibility pressure can be grouped into. distinct patterns whkh are similar to Buchholz's typology. 71.

(5) mental forces (Namiki, 1989), and are easily influenced by the exterior environment.. The following hypotheses define the main interest of this study.. The environment in which business firms reside is complex. Its members include prima!lt. Hypothesis 3.. oper~r, consumeFs~. and secondary groups (Frederic, Davis & Post, 1988: 78-81), Primary groups are direct tion-related identities : stockholders, employees, debtors, suppliers, distributors,. sponsibility behavior pattern.. j. and competitors. Secondary groups include the community : government, interest groups, communication media, and all the associations that firms interact with. The life-cycle stages of public demand for the social responsibility of business are: public demand for change, polk tical debate, development, development of legislation, and litigation (Ryan, Swanson, &. B~.. insti~i'". hholz, 1987 : 41). In the legislation stage, demand for social responsibility becomes. tionalized in legal form. Thereafter follows the litigation stage during which the public besl11 ' to exert their expectation for social responsibility on business in judicial practice. It is Taiwan's business confronted with nowadays. post (1978 : 274-288), after observing spondent behaviors of US business firm contends that there are three respondent. w.g~f. J. !. th~ ,~e.~,. The more active a firm's business strategy is, the more active its social re. sponsibility behavior will be.. I,. The analyzer type does not have a consistent pattern of social responsibility. behavior. -Hypothesis 4.. The relationship between a firm's bnsiness strategy and its social responsibil. ity benavior is consistent with their decisional process and decisional orientation.. pattern~~t.. Methodology Corporate strategy is measured in 12 dimensions identified by Miles & Snow (1978, see. wit~tb~,; behaviOJ:~'-(. cial issues to direct and control the pressure; and interactive behavior that interacts. proposed by Buchholz (1987: 502-503), which is a modification of Post's model with. -Hypothesis 3a.. -Hypothesis 3b.. adaptive behavior that passively reacts; proactive behavior that aggressively engages in.~p,tll' public in order to lessen the pressure. A similar typology of social responsibility. There exists some relationship between business typology and its social re. results table 2). In order to identify reactors, respondents are asked to assess the consistency. four~. of their corporate strategy. The measuring instrument of strategy typology applies a 7-point. havior patterns : reactive, accommodative, proactive, and interactive patterns. C.M. H,w',a,n,~'',". Likert scale from 1 to 7.. (1989) in her master thesis has reviewed rather comprehensively these typologies and "-/.' '(I _ Social responsibility behavior is measured through a 19-dimension questionnaire (C.M.. veloped a measuring questionnaire specific to ecological issue. C.M. Hwang's (1989) studt. also indicates that patterned social responsibility behaviors do exist in Taiwan.. Thisstd~1'. adopts Buchholz's typology of social responsibility behaviors which is grouped through C:M-?"I. Hwang's measuring questionnaire. ,i:':'.~e. Hypothesis The first two hypotheses are designed to test the existence of the descriptive of business strategy and social responsibility behavior respectively.. .. ),'ri·. Hwang, 1989, see results table 3) to identify the four types of behavior patterns: reactive, accommodative, proactive, and interactive behaviors. Each is again figured into 7-point Likert. I. scale specific to labor issues since labor issues are currently Taiwan's most pressing issues.. .~. !. Data is collected through convenient sampling from the on-the-job trainees at the Center. tYPologWlJ~i~. for Public and Business Administration Center, National Cheng-Chi University in Taipei.. t \. I. Hypothesis 1. Business strategies can be grouped into distinct patterns which are similar If'dblf" Miles & Snow's typology. 'Iw. HYRothesis 2. Firms' reactive behaviors to social responsibility pressure can be grouped distinct patterns which are similar to Buchholz's typology.. Members in these training programs are generally middle to high level managers of major en. terprises in Taiwan. Hence the results will reveal the prototypical social responsibility be haviors of major large firms in Taiwan. A total of 68 usable replies were received. A basic profile of the samples is depicted in Table 1.. inWthep:,~, ~. 70. ...

(6) Table 1. Profile of samples frequency (row %) Strategic dimension industry. manufacturing. serVIce. 44. 24. (64.7% ). (35.3% ). no. of. 1-100. 101-400. >400. employees. 11(18.6% ). 28(41.2% ). 29(42.6% ). position. low level. middle level. high level. level of. manager. manager. manager. respondents. 20(29.4%). 37(54.4% ). 11(16.2% ). Results I . Business Strategy A Ward-minimum-variance clustering method (Lin, 1989) is employed to group the twelve strategy dimensions into distict clusters. Four clusters are selected because both. P. (N=35). (N=1O). value. value. 32.03. .0001. 11.82. .0001. 14.66. .0001. 4.11. .0099. 1.96. .1284. 11.06. .0001. 5.61. .0018. 13.57. .0001. 2.54. 4.20. l=never leader. (1.29 ). ( .48). ( .97). (1.23 ). 7=always leader .' Product mix. 2.94. 6.10. 2.61. 3.80. (1.51 ). (1.20 ). (1.71 ). (1.99 ). 6.40. 6.70. 4.15. 5.80. l=no emphasis. ( .81). ( .48). ( 1.57). (1.69 ). , strategic objective. 4.91. 6.10. 4.00. 5.90. (1.80 ). ( .88). (1.96). ( .99). 7=market share · Product range. 4.63. 5.90. 4.62. 4.40. 1= very narrow. (1.59 ). (1.19 ). (1.45). (2.12). 6.11. 6.40. 4.62. 6.10. ( .83). ( .97). (1.04 ). ( .74). 4.94. 5.70. 3.62. 5.40. (1.33). ( .95). (1.50 ). (1.51 ). 6.22. 6.20. 4.31. 5.80. ( .77). ( .79). (1.18 ). (1.32 ). 6.03. 6.70. 3.54. 5.90. (1.15). ( .48). ( 1.33). ( .99). · 1 = very stable · 7=very unstable · New product development. 17~S"'Ong emphasis 1 = short-term profit. summed score is representative of prospector strategy; the second analyzer; the third and the. 7 = very broad Emphasis on strategy. lowest total scores are defender and reactor respectively.. 1 = no emphasis 7 = strong emphasis. Of the four clusters (see Table 2), cluster 2 has the hightest total score. Business firms in. Competitive edge. this cluster are always leaders in introducing new products and have strong emphasis on new. 1=always low cost. product development. They have unstable product mix and customer base, and they empha. 7=always more innovation Environmental monitoring. size innovation, growth, and consistent strategy, which closely match the description by Miles and Snow.. 1 = very narrow. Table 2. Cluster Analysis Results of Strategy Typology. 7=very wide. Cluster 1 has the third hightest total score. Firms in this cluster have stable product mix,. Management attitude. short term profit orientation, IQw-cost emphasis, stable customer base, and steady growth.. toward growth. Although they also have a high score in new product emphasis, and environmental monitor. l=very cautious. ing, cluster 1 largely resembles defender strategy.. 7=veryaggressive Marketing approach. istics of reactor strategy.. F. 6.70. the pseudo-t square suggest three clusters. Miles and Snow contend that the hightest total. lowest scores in total score and strategic consistency, which are the most important character. CU. 5.57. New product leader. pseudo-F and cubic-clustering-criterion (CCC) values indicate peaks in number four, although. Cluster 3 is obviously a reactor strategy for two reasons. Firms in cluster 3 have the. CLI. I. 1 = maintain customer base 7 = create change in custom. 5.26. 6.30. 4.31. 6.20. ( 1.36). ( .48). (1.63). ( .79). 20.62. 6.34. .0001. .0008. er base 73.

(7) Table 1. Profile of samples frequency (row %) Strategic dimension industry. manufacturing. serVIce. 44. 24. (64.7% ). (35.3% ). no. of. 1-100. 101-400. >400. employees. 11(18.6% ). 28(41.2% ). 29(42.6% ). position. low level. middle level. high level. level of. manager. manager. manager. respondents. 20(29.4%). 37(54.4% ). 11(16.2% ). Results I . Business Strategy A Ward-minimum-variance clustering method (Lin, 1989) is employed to group the twelve strategy dimensions into distict clusters. Four clusters are selected because both. P. (N=35). (N=1O). value. value. 32.03. .0001. 11.82. .0001. 14.66. .0001. 4.11. .0099. 1.96. .1284. 11.06. .0001. 5.61. .0018. 13.57. .0001. 2.54. 4.20. l=never leader. (1.29 ). ( .48). ( .97). (1.23 ). 7=always leader .' Product mix. 2.94. 6.10. 2.61. 3.80. (1.51 ). (1.20 ). (1.71 ). (1.99 ). 6.40. 6.70. 4.15. 5.80. l=no emphasis. ( .81). ( .48). ( 1.57). (1.69 ). , strategic objective. 4.91. 6.10. 4.00. 5.90. (1.80 ). ( .88). (1.96). ( .99). 7=market share · Product range. 4.63. 5.90. 4.62. 4.40. 1= very narrow. (1.59 ). (1.19 ). (1.45). (2.12). 6.11. 6.40. 4.62. 6.10. ( .83). ( .97). (1.04 ). ( .74). 4.94. 5.70. 3.62. 5.40. (1.33). ( .95). (1.50 ). (1.51 ). 6.22. 6.20. 4.31. 5.80. ( .77). ( .79). (1.18 ). (1.32 ). 6.03. 6.70. 3.54. 5.90. (1.15). ( .48). ( 1.33). ( .99). · 1 = very stable · 7=very unstable · New product development. 17~S"'Ong emphasis 1 = short-term profit. summed score is representative of prospector strategy; the second analyzer; the third and the. 7 = very broad Emphasis on strategy. lowest total scores are defender and reactor respectively.. 1 = no emphasis 7 = strong emphasis. Of the four clusters (see Table 2), cluster 2 has the hightest total score. Business firms in. Competitive edge. this cluster are always leaders in introducing new products and have strong emphasis on new. 1=always low cost. product development. They have unstable product mix and customer base, and they empha. 7=always more innovation Environmental monitoring. size innovation, growth, and consistent strategy, which closely match the description by Miles and Snow.. 1 = very narrow. Table 2. Cluster Analysis Results of Strategy Typology. 7=very wide. Cluster 1 has the third hightest total score. Firms in this cluster have stable product mix,. Management attitude. short term profit orientation, IQw-cost emphasis, stable customer base, and steady growth.. toward growth. Although they also have a high score in new product emphasis, and environmental monitor. l=very cautious. ing, cluster 1 largely resembles defender strategy.. 7=veryaggressive Marketing approach. istics of reactor strategy.. F. 6.70. the pseudo-t square suggest three clusters. Miles and Snow contend that the hightest total. lowest scores in total score and strategic consistency, which are the most important character. CU. 5.57. New product leader. pseudo-F and cubic-clustering-criterion (CCC) values indicate peaks in number four, although. Cluster 3 is obviously a reactor strategy for two reasons. Firms in cluster 3 have the. CLI. I. 1 = maintain customer base 7 = create change in custom. 5.26. 6.30. 4.31. 6.20. ( 1.36). ( .48). (1.63). ( .79). 20.62. 6.34. .0001. .0008. er base 73.

(8) ~,. Customer base. 3.20. 2.77. 6.00. 1 very stable. (1.18 ). . ( .99). (1.09 ). ( .94). 3.29. 3.60. 3.92. 6.50. (1,49 ). (1.58). (1.55 ). (0.53). Total summed score. 59.50. 71.30. 45.01. 66.00. Consistency in strategy. 5.31. 5.80. 4.31. 3.60. (1.18). (1.03 ). (1.55 ). ( 1.96). 4.90. the firm is willing to sit down and discuss issues with labor leaders. Therefore Factor 3 is 23.52. .0001. named "negotiation" factor.. unstable Growth pattern l=always steady. Factor 4 contains 2 dimensions that use information as persuading tools, and is hence named 13.51. .0001. "propaganda" factor.. 7=sporadic. 1 very inconsistent. Factor 5 have 3 dimensions with all try to assert the company itself as the dominant identity over the employees. So it can be named "controlling" factor. 6.29. .0008 Factor 6 has two strongly impressive dimensions that resist any challenging force from both. 7 = very consistent. inside and outside the company. This factor can be named "resistance". note: figures in table are means of score and figures in ( ) are standard deviations. .. Table 3. Factor analysis of social responsibility behavior. Cluster 4 has median scores in new product leader, product mix, new product develop ment, strategic objective, emphasis on strategy, competitive edge, environmental monitoring,. factor. factor content. factor. cumulative variance. management attitude, and marketing approach. It shows lowest scores in product range awl: (name). tive of the analyzer strategy.. I. 1. does nothing until forced. (communication). 7. holds opinion census to fully reveal ovreall. j. protest 8. holds public hearing to understand em-. which is supportive to hypothesis 1. ). ,. explained. -.70 .90. expectation ; tries to eliminate the potential. In summary, the result has reveal well match with Miles and Snow's strategy typology;. II. Social Responsibility Behavior. .86. ployee's expectations, tries to reduce conflict. vised by C.M. Hwang (1989). The 19 dimensions in the questionnaire are reduced to six fac-' tors through a varimax-principal-component factor analysis. Because an eigenvalue = 1 crite-,. .72. II. employee 4. reque~ts independent medium to arbitrate. .76. (authority). 5. requests government agent to arbitrate. .73. 9. requests lawyers to handle issues. .58. .58. 19.requests legal or. police agent to arbitrate. .68. 40.3%. rion is set, only six factcrs are retained. The content of each factor is listed in Table 3. r' Factor 1 contains four dimensions, three of them are related with bilateral communication,. m. 13.urges labor representative to settle issues. .70. and is therefore named "communication" factor.. (negotiation). 15. invites independent institute or specialist to. .70. arbitrate 16.invites union leader to settle issues. .83. 6. uses advertisement in public media to proport. .51. f. . Factor 2 is obviously an authority-oriented nature, All of its four dimensions require some au .,. thority agent to arbitrate its labor issues. This factor is named "authority" factor.. N (propaganda). Factor 3 appears to be an negotiating behavior since two of its three dimensions indicate that. 24.9%. 17. holds meeting to directly communicate with. Social responsibility behavior is grouped into distinct patterns in a more complex process de~. i 74. loading. highest scores in customer base and growth pattern. Thus, cluster 4 is still quite represental. IIII. 49.0%. that company has improved working quality for employees and will pay more attention to. 75. •. '~.

(9) ~,. Customer base. 3.20. 2.77. 6.00. 1 very stable. (1.18 ). . ( .99). (1.09 ). ( .94). 3.29. 3.60. 3.92. 6.50. (1,49 ). (1.58). (1.55 ). (0.53). Total summed score. 59.50. 71.30. 45.01. 66.00. Consistency in strategy. 5.31. 5.80. 4.31. 3.60. (1.18). (1.03 ). (1.55 ). ( 1.96). 4.90. the firm is willing to sit down and discuss issues with labor leaders. Therefore Factor 3 is 23.52. .0001. named "negotiation" factor.. unstable Growth pattern l=always steady. Factor 4 contains 2 dimensions that use information as persuading tools, and is hence named 13.51. .0001. "propaganda" factor.. 7=sporadic. 1 very inconsistent. Factor 5 have 3 dimensions with all try to assert the company itself as the dominant identity over the employees. So it can be named "controlling" factor. 6.29. .0008 Factor 6 has two strongly impressive dimensions that resist any challenging force from both. 7 = very consistent. inside and outside the company. This factor can be named "resistance". note: figures in table are means of score and figures in ( ) are standard deviations. .. Table 3. Factor analysis of social responsibility behavior. Cluster 4 has median scores in new product leader, product mix, new product develop ment, strategic objective, emphasis on strategy, competitive edge, environmental monitoring,. factor. factor content. factor. cumulative variance. management attitude, and marketing approach. It shows lowest scores in product range awl: (name). tive of the analyzer strategy.. I. 1. does nothing until forced. (communication). 7. holds opinion census to fully reveal ovreall. j. protest 8. holds public hearing to understand em-. which is supportive to hypothesis 1. ). ,. explained. -.70 .90. expectation ; tries to eliminate the potential. In summary, the result has reveal well match with Miles and Snow's strategy typology;. II. Social Responsibility Behavior. .86. ployee's expectations, tries to reduce conflict. vised by C.M. Hwang (1989). The 19 dimensions in the questionnaire are reduced to six fac-' tors through a varimax-principal-component factor analysis. Because an eigenvalue = 1 crite-,. .72. II. employee 4. reque~ts independent medium to arbitrate. .76. (authority). 5. requests government agent to arbitrate. .73. 9. requests lawyers to handle issues. .58. .58. 19.requests legal or. police agent to arbitrate. .68. 40.3%. rion is set, only six factcrs are retained. The content of each factor is listed in Table 3. r' Factor 1 contains four dimensions, three of them are related with bilateral communication,. m. 13.urges labor representative to settle issues. .70. and is therefore named "communication" factor.. (negotiation). 15. invites independent institute or specialist to. .70. arbitrate 16.invites union leader to settle issues. .83. 6. uses advertisement in public media to proport. .51. f. . Factor 2 is obviously an authority-oriented nature, All of its four dimensions require some au .,. thority agent to arbitrate its labor issues. This factor is named "authority" factor.. N (propaganda). Factor 3 appears to be an negotiating behavior since two of its three dimensions indicate that. 24.9%. 17. holds meeting to directly communicate with. Social responsibility behavior is grouped into distinct patterns in a more complex process de~. i 74. loading. highest scores in customer base and growth pattern. Thus, cluster 4 is still quite represental. IIII. 49.0%. that company has improved working quality for employees and will pay more attention to. 75. •. '~.

(10) it. 11. publishes bulletin persuading the public that. These two factors combined are soft, yet aggressive behaviors. Hence cluster 2 resembles .80. proactive social responsibility behavior.. the company has contributed greatly toward the society and economy, meanwhile inten. -Cluster 3 has a negative score in factor 1 (communication) and two high positive scores in. tiona11y ignoring its employee's protests. factor 2 (authority) and factor 6 (resistance). It suggests that firms in this cluster do not. v (controlling). 18. invites outside specialist or consultant to ev aluate the protest 10. persuades employees that the company will. .79. 57.0%. labor issues. Obviously this is a reactive behavior pattern. .48. never harm them. 12. often donates to and participates in the em. -Cluster 4 has substantial score in factor 5 (controlling) and is negatively high in factor 2 .70. (authority) which means that finns in cluster 4 mainly use appeasement t.o persuade em. ployee's activities and is congenial to them 14. emphasizes importance of the company to a11. ployees that the company is important to them. It avoids appealing to authority agents. .62. 64.0%. employees and the potential for losing em. VI (resistance). 3. announces to the public that there might be. Cluster 4 does not show strong emphasis on communication and negotiation, therefore does not match well with the "interactive" behavior patterp. We ca11 this cluster "Charisma", for. ployment if the company doses 2. denies employees al1egations of illegal actions. prefer communication, but appeal to authority and resist any pressure when they encounter. its behavior reveals high self-confidence in using more persuasion and less authority. .92 .56. 69.4%. some ilIintended employees trying to destroy the relationship between company and em ployees note: factor score has been standardized. With the six social responsibility behavior factors, a subsequent dustering analysis is used to group social responsibility behavior into distinct types, and 4 dusters are obtained for similar criterion in pseudo-F, ccc, and pseudo-t values. Factor scores of each cluster are depicted in Table 4. Table 4 shows that:. In summary, dusters 1,2,3 match with adaptive, proactive, and reactive behavior patterns re spectively quite wen, but no cluster is characterized with a behavior patterns similar to the interactive type. Instead, adaptive behavior resembles interactive type since its nature emphasizes bilateral communication and interaction. In the end, the results still support Buchholz's typology of social responsibility behaviors.. Table 4. Cluster analysis of social responsibility behavior social responsi-. CL1. CL2. CL3. CL4. F. P. bility behavioral. (n=9). (n=20). (n=18). (n=21). value. value. factor 1. -.166. .694. .202. 13.60. .000. (communication). (1.180 ). (.378). factor 2. .834. .133. .77) -.960. 18.95. .000. .689) -.251. 4.5. .006. 9.75. .000. 4.02. .011. factor. -Cluster 1 is significantly larger in factor 2 (authority). factor 3 (negotiation), and negatively large in factor 4 (propaganda). This factor has an adaptive social responsibility behavior since finns in this duster stick to the authority while at the same time negotiating union leaders or labor representatives using propaganda to persuade labor. Both "hard" are "soft" behaviors are used, therefore cluster. ~ can be named "adaptation" behavior.. (authority). (. (. factor 4 -Cluster 2 is significantly larger in both factor 1 (communication) and factor 4 (propaganda).. (propaganda) factor 5. (. .752. factor 3 (negotiation). .585). (. .939). (. .935). (. .635). ( (. .807) -.429 .878). (. (1.219) -.390. .184. .672 .850) -.206. (. .555. .311. .776) -.955 .244. .801). .923. (. .752) -.473. (. .886) .497. 77.

(11) it publishes bulletin persuading the public that. These two factors combined are soft, yet aggressive behaviors. Hence cluster 2 resembles .80. proactive social responsibility behavior.. the company has contributed greatly toward the society and economy, meanwhile inten. -Cluster 3 has a negative score in factor 1 (communication) and two high positive scores in. tionally ignoring its employee's protests. factor 2 (authority) and factor 6 (resistance). It suggests that firms in this cluster do not. v (controlling). 18. invites outside specialist or consultant to ev aluate the protest. .79. 10. persuades employees that the company will never harm them. .48. 12. often donates to and participates in the em. 57.0%. labor issues. Obviously this is a reactive behavior pattern. -Cluster 4 has substantial score in factor 5 (controlling) and is negatively high in factor 2 .70. (authority) which m'eans that firms in cluster 4 mainly use appeasement t,o persuade em. ployee's activities and is congenial to them. 14. emphasizes importance of the company to all. ployees that the company is important to them. It avoids appealing to authority agents. .62. 64.0%. employees and the potential for losing em. VI (resistance). 3. announces to the public that there might be. Cluster 4 does not show strong emphasis on communication and negotiation, therefore does not match well with the "interactive" behavior patterp. We call this cluster "Charisma", for. ployment if the Company closes 2. denies employees allegations of illegal actions. prefer communication, but appeal to authority and resist any pressure when they encounter. its behavior reveals high self-confidence in using more persuasion and less authority. .92 .56. 69.4%. some illintended employees trying to destroy the relationship between company and em ployees note: factor score has been standardized. With the six social responsibility behavior factors, a subsequent clustering analysis is used to group social responsibility behavior into distinct types, and 4 clusters are obtained for similar criterion in pseudo.F, ccc, and pseudo-t values. Factor scores of each cluster are depicted in Table 4. Table 4 shows that:. In summary, clusters 1,2,3 match with adaptive, proactive, and reactive behavior patterns re spectively quite well, but no cluster is characterized with a behavior patterns similar to the interactive type. Instead, adaptive behavior resembles interactive type since its nature emphasizes bilateral communication and interaction. In the end, the results still support Buchholz's typology of social responsibility behaviors.. Table 4. Cluster analysis of social responsibility behavior social responsi-. CL1. CL2. bility behavioral. (n=9). (n=20). factor 1. -.166. .694. (communication). (1.180 ). (.378). factor 2. .834. .133. CU. F. P. (n=21). value. value. .202. 13.60. .000. -.960. 18.95. .000. .689) -.251. 4.5. .006. 9.75. .000. 4.02. .011. CL3 18). factor. -Cluster 1 is significantly larger in factor 2 (authority). factor 3 (negotiation), and negatively large in factor 4 (propaganda). This factor has an adaptive social responsibility behavior since firms in this cluster stick to the authority while at the same time negotiating union leaders or labor representatives using propaganda to persuade labor. Both "hard" are "soft" behaviors are used, therefore cluster 1 can be named "adaptation" behavior.. (authority) (negotiation) (propaganda) factor 5. .585). (. ( .776) -.955. (. (. (. .935) .244. .801). (. .635). (. (. -.206. (. .807) -.429 .878). (. (. .752) -.473. .77). (1.219 ) -.390. .184. .672 .850). .939) .555. .311. .752. factor 3 factor 4. -Cluster 2 is significantly larger in both factor 1 (communication) and factor 4 (propaganda).. (. -.923. (. .886) .497. 77.

(12) ( controlling). .951). factor 6. -1.128. (resistance). .360). .805 .077 .845). ( 1.260) .598 .724). .702) -.103. 7.98. adaptive. proactive. reactive. charisma. total. 4. 13. 8. 10. 35. (11.4 %). (37.1%). (22.9% ). (28.6% ). (100% ). 2. 2. 0. 9. 13. (15.4 %). (15.4 %). (0.0%). (69.2% ). (100%). 2. 2. 6. 0. 10. (20.0% ). (20.0% ). (60.0% ). (0.0%). (100%). 1. 3. 4. 2. 10. (10.0% ). (30.0% ). (40.0% ). (20.0% ). .000. ( 1.123). III. Business Strategy Versus Social Responsibility Behavior Table 5 shows the cross frequency of strategy typology by social responsibility behavior. The Chi-square value is 20.715 and P value is .014. Due to limited sample size, the Chi-square test should be recognized as a reference only. As we can see, with defender strategy, more firms are proactive in social responsibility behavior which emphasizes communication and prop. r value=20.715,. p. .014,. (100%. sample size=68. aganda. Meanwhile there are 10 and 8 firms of defender strategy that are charismatic and reactive patterns respectively. The overall results for defender give the impression that defen der does not have specificly focus on its social responsibility behavior. Such a wide-spread behavior was originally expected to appear only with analyzers who do not have a specific strategy. Yet the results show that both defender and analyzer have similar wide spread char. a canonical analysis is used to correlate the '12 strategic dimensions and the 6 so responsibility behavioral factors. The results reveal that 2 sets of canonical correlations ve P values smaller than .01, which suggests that there are some correlations between strategic dimensions and social responsibility behavior factors. Table 6 depicts the canonical. acteristics in their social responsibility behaviors. The aggressive strategy of prospector firms emphasizes new product development and new customer base penetration. When facing labor issues, the prospector firms are apt to employ charismatic behavior which emphasizes strong control and less institutionalization and laws. None of prospector firms has reactive social responsibility behavior. Thus the result for pros pector is rather reasonable since labor relations and litigation are time-consuming. Further,. In the first set of canonical coefficients, product mix change and environmental monitoring are That is, a firm's emphasis on communication will positively affect its frequency of pro uct mix and the amount of attention it gives to environmental issues, while at the same time preventing the firm from resisting labor-issue confrontations.. since the judicial process in Taiwan is still at its embryonic stage, litigation would significant Table 6. Canonical correlation between business strategy and social responsibility behavioral. ly delay a firm's growth.. factors The reactor strategy also matches quite well with our expectations that most of them (60%). strategic dimension. employ reactive social responsibility behaviors when facing labor issues. Reactor behaviors. canonical. coefficient. emphasize government and legal agents while resisting the pressure. Besides, none of reactors. 1. new product leader. .1972. V2. -.1633. is willing to be charismatic in persuading employees.. 2. product mix 3. new product development. .3306. -.0779. .2155. .0898. 4. strategic objective. .1434. -.1638. 5. product range. .2074. .0914. -.0801. -.1775. .1274. -.6707. Table 5. Cross analysis of business strategy by social responsibility behavior. VI. 6. emphasis on strategy social responsibility behavior. 7. competitive edge. 79.

(13) ( controlling). .951). factor 6. -1.128. (resistance). .360). .805 .077 .845). ( 1.260) .598 .724). .702) -.103. 7.98. adaptive. proactive. reactive. charisma. total. 4. 13. 8. 10. 35. (11.4 %). (37.1%). (22.9% ). (28.6% ). (100% ). 2. 2. 0. 9. 13. (15.4 %). (15.4 %). (0.0%). (69.2% ). (100%). 2. 2. 6. 0. 10. (20.0% ). (20.0% ). (60.0% ). (0.0%). (100%). 1. 3. 4. 2. 10. (10.0% ). (30.0% ). (40.0% ). (20.0% ). .000. ( 1.123). III. Business Strategy Versus Social Responsibility Behavior Table 5 shows the cross frequency of strategy typology by social responsibility behavior. The Chi-square value is 20.715 and P value is .014. Due to limited sample size, the Chi-square test should be recognized as a reference only. As we can see, with defender strategy, more firms are proactive in social responsibility behavior which emphasizes communication and prop. r value=20.715,. p. .014,. (100%. sample size=68. aganda. Meanwhile there are 10 and 8 firms of defender strategy that are charismatic and reactive patterns respectively. The overall results for defender give the impression that defen der does not have specificly focus on its social responsibility behavior. Such a wide-spread behavior was originally expected to appear only with analyzers who do not have a specific strategy. Yet the results show that both defender and analyzer have similar wide spread char. a canonical analysis is used to correlate the '12 strategic dimensions and the 6 so responsibility behavioral factors. The results reveal that 2 sets of canonical correlations ve P values smaller than .01, which suggests that there are some correlations between strategic dimensions and social responsibility behavior factors. Table 6 depicts the canonical. acteristics in their social responsibility behaviors. The aggressive strategy of prospector firms emphasizes new product development and new customer base penetration. When facing labor issues, the prospector firms are apt to employ charismatic behavior which emphasizes strong control and less institutionalization and laws. None of prospector firms has reactive social responsibility behavior. Thus the result for pros pector is rather reasonable since labor relations and litigation are time-consuming. Further,. In the first set of canonical coefficients, product mix change and environmental monitoring are That is, a firm's emphasis on communication will positively affect its frequency of pro uct mix and the amount of attention it gives to environmental issues, while at the same time preventing the firm from resisting labor-issue confrontations.. since the judicial process in Taiwan is still at its embryonic stage, litigation would significant Table 6. Canonical correlation between business strategy and social responsibility behavioral. ly delay a firm's growth.. factors The reactor strategy also matches quite well with our expectations that most of them (60%). strategic dimension. employ reactive social responsibility behaviors when facing labor issues. Reactor behaviors. canonical. coefficient. emphasize government and legal agents while resisting the pressure. Besides, none of reactors. 1. new product leader. .1972. V2. -.1633. is willing to be charismatic in persuading employees.. 2. product mix 3. new product development. .3306. -.0779. .2155. .0898. 4. strategic objective. .1434. -.1638. 5. product range. .2074. .0914. -.0801. -.1775. .1274. -.6707. Table 5. Cross analysis of business strategy by social responsibility behavior. VI. 6. emphasis on strategy social responsibility behavior. 7. competitive edge. 79.

(14) 8. environmental monitoring.. .5397 -.1778. 9. management attitude toward growth 10.marketing approach. .2556 .1654 -.1651. .0051 -.2768. 11.customer base 12.growth pattern. degree of formalization. .1365. social responsibility. difference in. behavior factor. formalization. WI. factor 1. W2. .7509 .2097 -.1302. factor 2 factor 3 factor 4. .0317 .4959 -.:-3578. factor 5 factor 6. (11.8%). (2.9%). (13.2%). (29.4%). (26.5%). (16.2%). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. less formalized. of labor issue. -.1399. .2724. (0.0%). .1752 -.2004. orientation. .3417 -.1211. much formalized. 5. 7. 7. 11. lO. 21. 7. (7.4%). (10.3%). (10.3%). (16.2%). (14.7%). (30.9%). (10.3%). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. great difference. no difference. 3. 12. 6. 11. 7. 20. 9. (4.4 %). (17.6%). (8.8%). (16.2%). (lO.3%). (29.4 %). (13.2%). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. to solve. 7 to. mini mize. employee's problem. .4674 .7611. 7. 9. 12. 18. 8. 9. 5. (10.3%). (13.2% ). (17.6%). (26.5%). (11.8%). (13.2%). (7.4% ). organizational. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. level involved. low level. The second set of coefficients relates that firms with less emphasis on strategy. will be more likely to resist, controlling the employee's pressure. This may imply that. company losses. actual frequency of. lack of business strategy may be an indicator of a firm's insufficiency of social re. labor issues. sponsibility acknowledge, therefore resistence become instinct rule of their social re sponsibility behavior.. conflict. high level. 0. 0. 2. 8. 12. 31. 15. (0.0%). (0.0%). (2.9%). (11.8%). (17.6%). (45.6%). (22.1 %). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. seldom. 7 often. 21. 19. 3. lO. 8. 5. 2. (30.9%). (27.9%). (4.4%). (14.7%). (11.8%). (7.4 %). (2.9%). Basically most firm's decision makers in business strategy and labor issues are similar. And. The rest of this section is devoted to comparing the decisional component of strategy. labor issues receive signaficant emphasis in most of the firms. Also the difference of emph. and social responsibility behavior. Table 7 summarizes the results.. asis between business strategy and social responsibility behavior is less than expected. Yet formalization of labor issue management differs from firm to firm, and the difference of for Table 7. Comparisons of decisional components in strategy and social responsibility behavior decisional components. malization between business strategy and labor issue management is also wide-spread. Summarized, the above descriptions suggest that firms in Taiwan recognize labor issues to be. frequency (%). degree of similarity. 1. of decision makers. dissimilar. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. very similar. 2. 4. 2. 4. 8. 32. 16. (2.9%). (5.9%). (2.9%). (5.9%). (11.8%). (47.1%). degree of emphasis. (23.5%). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. on labor issue. 6. 7. much emphasis. degree of. 2. 4. 2. 1. 14. 27. 18. (2.9%). (5.9~). (2.9%). (1.5%). (20.6%). (39.7%). (26.5%). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. difference in emphasis. no emphasis. great diffenence 0. 8. no difference 2. 9. 20. 18. 11. almost important as business strategy and that high-level decision makers are handling both business strategy and labor issues, though the management process of labor issue may still not be as formalized as that of business strategy. The decisional orientations of labor issue distribute quite symmetrically around the neutral point. It shows that firms differ quite significantly in decisional orientation. Some firms prop ort to resolve employee's problem, some just want to minimize company losses. Finally in Table 7 we can see that a noticeable precentage of firms (22.1 %) often encounter labor issue, which reflects that labor issues are currently an important social responsibility topic in Taiwan. 81.

(15) 8. environmental monitoring.. .5397 -.1778. 9. management attitude toward growth 10.marketing approach. .2556 .1654 -.1651. .0051 -.2768. 11.customer base 12.growth pattern. degree of formalization. .1365. social responsibility. difference in. behavior factor. formalization. WI. factor 1. W2. .7509 .2097 -.1302. factor 2 factor 3 factor 4. .0317 .4959 -.:-3578. factor 5 factor 6. (11.8%). (2.9%). (13.2%). (29.4%). (26.5%). (16.2%). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. less formalized. of labor issue. -.1399. .2724. (0.0%). .1752 -.2004. orientation. .3417 -.1211. much formalized. 5. 7. 7. 11. lO. 21. 7. (7.4%). (10.3%). (10.3%). (16.2%). (14.7%). (30.9%). (10.3%). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. great difference. no difference. 3. 12. 6. 11. 7. 20. 9. (4.4 %). (17.6%). (8.8%). (16.2%). (lO.3%). (29.4 %). (13.2%). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. to solve. 7 to. mini mize. employee's problem. .4674 .7611. 7. 9. 12. 18. 8. 9. 5. (10.3%). (13.2% ). (17.6%). (26.5%). (11.8%). (13.2%). (7.4% ). organizational. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. level involved. low level. The second set of coefficients relates that firms with less emphasis on strategy. will be more likely to resist, controlling the employee's pressure. This may imply that. company losses. actual frequency of. lack of business strategy may be an indicator of a firm's insufficiency of social re. labor issues. sponsibility acknowledge, therefore resistence become instinct rule of their social re sponsibility behavior.. conflict. high level. 0. 0. 2. 8. 12. 31. 15. (0.0%). (0.0%). (2.9%). (11.8%). (17.6%). (45.6%). (22.1 %). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. seldom. 7 often. 21. 19. 3. lO. 8. 5. 2. (30.9%). (27.9%). (4.4%). (14.7%). (11.8%). (7.4 %). (2.9%). Basically most firm's decision makers in business strategy and labor issues are similar. And. The rest of this section is devoted to comparing the decisional component of strategy. labor issues receive signaficant emphasis in most of the firms. Also the difference of emph. and social responsibility behavior. Table 7 summarizes the results.. asis between business strategy and social responsibility behavior is less than expected. Yet formalization of labor issue management differs from firm to firm, and the difference of for Table 7. Comparisons of decisional components in strategy and social responsibility behavior decisional components. malization between business strategy and labor issue management is also wide-spread. Summarized, the above descriptions suggest that firms in Taiwan recognize labor issues to be. frequency (%). degree of similarity. 1. of decision makers. dissimilar. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. very similar. 2. 4. 2. 4. 8. 32. 16. (2.9%). (5.9%). (2.9%). (5.9%). (11.8%). (47.1%). degree of emphasis. (23.5%). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. on labor issue. 6. 7. much emphasis. degree of. 2. 4. 2. 1. 14. 27. 18. (2.9%). (5.9~). (2.9%). (1.5%). (20.6%). (39.7%). (26.5%). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. difference in emphasis. no emphasis. great diffenence 0. 8. no difference 2. 9. 20. 18. 11. almost important as business strategy and that high-level decision makers are handling both business strategy and labor issues, though the management process of labor issue may still not be as formalized as that of business strategy. The decisional orientations of labor issue distribute quite symmetrically around the neutral point. It shows that firms differ quite significantly in decisional orientation. Some firms prop ort to resolve employee's problem, some just want to minimize company losses. Finally in Table 7 we can see that a noticeable precentage of firms (22.1 %) often encounter labor issue, which reflects that labor issues are currently an important social responsibility topic in Taiwan. 81.

(16) Conclusion. Namiki, N., "Miles and Snow's Typology of Strategy, Perceived Environmental Uncertainty,. This study has explored the possible relationships between firm's business strategy and social responsibility behavior with regard to labor issues. Largely, business strategy has been satis. and Organizational Performance", Akron Business and Economic Review, 20 (2), Summ er 1989, pp. 72-88.. factorily grouped into categories similar to Miles and Snow's typology. About one half of the samples are of defender strategy since the data are gathered from mainly medium-large firms. in Taiwan. This implies that large firms are not as aggressive as medium-small firms. Social. Pavlik, J.V., Public Relations: What Research Tells Us, CA: Sage Publications, 1987. Porter, Michael E., Competitive Strategy, New York: Free Press, 1980.. responsibility behaviors are also grouped into 4 distinct types of which adaptive, proactive, and reactive behaviors closely match their counterpart behaviors in business strategy. While. Post, J.E., Corporate Behavior and Social Change, Reston Publishing Company, 1978.. accommodative behavior does not match with any group in this study. Generally the more aggressive a finn's business strategy is, the more persuasive and com. Ryan, MH., C.L. Swanson, & RA. Buchholz, Corporate Strategy, Public Policy & the For. municative its social responsibility behavior will be. Reactor and analyzer do not have consis. tunate 500 : How America's Major Corporations Influence Government, New York: Ba sil Blackwell, 1987.. tent strategies and their social responsibility behaviors are more reactive in nature.. References Ansoff, H.L, Corporate Strategy, New York: McGraw-Hili, 1965.. Stopford, J.M. & L.T. Wells Jr., Managing the Multinational Enterprise, New York: Basic Books, 1972.. Buchholz, RA., Business Environment and Public Policy: Implications for Management and Strategy Formulation, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1987. Frederic, W.c., K. Davis, & J.E. Post, Business and Society, Singapore: McGraw-Hill, 1988. Grunig, J.E., "Organizations and Public Relations: Testing a communication Theory", Jour nalism Monographs, 1976. Hwang, J.Y., Business and Society, Taipei: Association of Management Science, 1989. Hwang, J.Y. & Y.Y. Liu, "Social Responsibility and Financial Performance", City Bank of Taipei Monthly, 24 (12), Dec. 1989, pp. 2-12. Lin, Wong-Shang, SAS: Adavanced Statistics,. Taip~i:. Zu-Lin Press, 1989.. Miles, RE., and c.c. Snow, Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, New York : Mcgraw-Hill, 1978.. 83.

(17) Conclusion. Namiki, N., "Miles and Snow's Typology of Strategy, Perceived Environmental Uncertainty,. This study has explored the possible relationships between firm's business strategy and social responsibility behavior with regard to labor issues. Largely, business strategy has been satis. and Organizational Performance", Akron Business and Economic Review, 20 (2), Summ er 1989, pp. 72-88.. factorily grouped into categories similar to Miles and Snow's typology. About one half of the samples are of defender strategy since the data are gathered from mainly medium-large firms. in Taiwan. This implies that large firms are not as aggressive as medium-small firms. Social. Pavlik, J.V., Public Relations: What Research Tells Us, CA: Sage Publications, 1987. Porter, Michael E., Competitive Strategy, New York: Free Press, 1980.. responsibility behaviors are also grouped into 4 distinct types of which adaptive, proactive, and reactive behaviors closely match their counterpart behaviors in business strategy. While. Post, J.E., Corporate Behavior and Social Change, Reston Publishing Company, 1978.. accommodative behavior does not match with any group in this study. Generally the more aggressive a finn's business strategy is, the more persuasive and com. Ryan, MH., C.L. Swanson, & RA. Buchholz, Corporate Strategy, Public Policy & the For. municative its social responsibility behavior will be. Reactor and analyzer do not have consis. tunate 500 : How America's Major Corporations Influence Government, New York: Ba sil Blackwell, 1987.. tent strategies and their social responsibility behaviors are more reactive in nature.. References Ansoff, H.L, Corporate Strategy, New York: McGraw-Hili, 1965.. Stopford, J.M. & L.T. Wells Jr., Managing the Multinational Enterprise, New York: Basic Books, 1972.. Buchholz, RA., Business Environment and Public Policy: Implications for Management and Strategy Formulation, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1987. Frederic, W.c., K. Davis, & J.E. Post, Business and Society, Singapore: McGraw-Hill, 1988. Grunig, J.E., "Organizations and Public Relations: Testing a communication Theory", Jour nalism Monographs, 1976. Hwang, J.Y., Business and Society, Taipei: Association of Management Science, 1989. Hwang, J.Y. & Y.Y. Liu, "Social Responsibility and Financial Performance", City Bank of Taipei Monthly, 24 (12), Dec. 1989, pp. 2-12. Lin, Wong-Shang, SAS: Adavanced Statistics,. Taip~i:. Zu-Lin Press, 1989.. Miles, RE., and c.c. Snow, Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, New York : Mcgraw-Hill, 1978.. 83.

(18)