Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Business Ethics
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics 4/2019

23.08.2017 | Original Paper

Individual and Regional Christian Religion and the Consideration of Sustainable Criteria in Consumption and Investment Decisions: An Exploratory Econometric Analysis

verfasst von: Gunnar Gutsche

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 4/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This study aims to shed light on the relationship between individual and regional Christian religion (and religiosity) and individual sustainable behaviors in an exploratory manner, with a special focus on sustainable consumption and investment decisions. To this end, we econometrically analyze online representative survey data that contains information on the self-reported importance of the consideration of ecological and social/ethical criteria in the context of a large variety of individual behaviors. The target group are financial decisions makers in German households, i.e., important actors in the largest economy in Europe. Results of the econometric analysis suggest that Christian religion is positively related to a variety of (self-reported) ecological and social/ethical activities. Our findings empirically support explanations postulating a positive relationship between Christian religion and environmental behavior, such as the stewardship hypothesis, rather than opposite theories like White’s (Science 155(3767):1203–1207, 1967) dominion hypothesis. Particularly, we find that both individual and regional measures for Christian religion positively affect various behaviors emphasizing the importance of individual and contextual norms for individual behavior. Hence, we provide empirical evidence for the importance of Christian religion for another country than the USA, which is typically in the focus of similar studies. Our results can be used for targeted information campaigns by politicians to enhance sustainable behaviors or acceptance for related policy measures.
Vorheriger Artikel Sustainable Entrepreneurship: The Role of Perceived Barriers and Risk

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
Similar like Renneboog and Spaenjers (2012), we focus on the main Christian religions, namely Catholics and Protestants, as these are the major religious affiliations in Germany.
 
2
In Genesis 1:28, it is written: ‘God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”’.
 
3
Christian conservatism is not necessarily positively associated with dominion beliefs. For further discussion, see Pepper and Leonard (2016).
 
4
We use the term ‘Judeo-Christian’ as it was used in the corresponding study.
 
5
Analogously to footnote 4, we use the same expression as it is used in the study quoted.
 
6
The Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD 2013) and the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK 2015) recently published guidelines on SRI for institutional but also private investors. Besides emphasizing ethical and social issues on the basis of Christian values, both churches stress the integrity of creation, and thus the importance of considering ecological criteria in investment decisions. This might highlight the official position of the German Churches regarding the inclusion of sustainability criteria in investment decisions, but that does not necessarily mean that Christian religion positively or negatively affects individual investment decisions in context of SRI in Germany (particularly, as the guidelines of the Central Committee of German Catholics were published after our survey was conducted).
 
7
Comparing sample statistics with respect to age, gender, and place of religion at the federal state level with figures published by the Federal Statistical Office in Germany shows that we can speak of representativeness with good conscience. Sample statistics of religious affiliation and political orientation are also very similar to official figures. Solely in case of Catholics, our sample only contains a share of 26% of persons with a Catholic denomination compared official shares of 30 and 29% in Germany in 2013 and 2014, respectively.
 
8
We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis that indeed supported the way we constructed our ecological indices. Further, in case of this index Cronbach’s alpha is 0.8482 and the average inter-item covariance amounts to 0.59. A correlation matrix for all items is presented in Table 13 in the Appendix.
 
9
In case of this index, Cronbach’s alpha is 0.8012 and the average inter-item covariance amounts to 0.57.
 
10
In case of this index, Cronbach’s alpha is 0.8943 and the average inter-item covariance amounts to 0.73.
 
11
We also have information on the investment experiences of the respondents as we asked them to indicate which kinds of investment products they had in their portfolio (they could choose between savings account, stocks, equity funds, and twelve other products). Further information and descriptive statistics are available upon request.
 
12
See, for example, Hong et al. (2004) who use a similar question.
 
13
We also asked the respondents to self-assess their religious strength on a five-point Likert scale. However, due to multicollinearity issues we do not include this variable in the main analysis, but in the robustness checks in “Robustness Checks” section.
 
14
We also include the auxiliary variable ‘Share of others’ that contains the share of other religions, but also the share of unknown persons. Thereby, we ensure that the share of non-adherents serves as reference group.
 
15
Following previous studies by Salaber (2013), Kumar et al.(2011), and Kumar and Page (2014), we also created other measures for religion and religiosity (see “Robustness Checks” section). However, ‘Share of Catholics’ and ‘Share of Protestants’ reveal the most informative estimation results in our case.
 
16
Further empirical studies for the USA (e.g., Dunlap and McCright 2008; Ziegler 2015), Australia (Unsworth and Fielding 2014), and Germany (Ziegler 2015) show that conservative or right-aligned political views are negatively related to climate change beliefs, the perception of human contribution to climate change, and support for climate policy. Generally, previous studies in the field of pro-environmental or pro-social consumption find clear differences between left- and right-aligned voters (see, e.g., Costa and Kahn 2013; Dastrup et al. 2012; Kahn 2007), while empirical studies on this issue are rare in context of investment decisions and even reveal unexpected results. For example, Hood et al. (2014) analyze individuals’ stock holdings of US firms and find that investors from Democratic counties are less likely to invest in stocks with environmental strengths in terms of KLD ratings.
 
17
We included the Christian Democratic Party (CDU/CSU), Social Democratic Party (SPD), Liberal Party (FDP), Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen), Left Party (Die Linke), Alternative for Germany (AfD), Pirate Party (Piratenpartei), and the options “Another party”, and “No answer”.
 
18
According to figures for April 2013 and October 2014 published by the political and electoral research institute infratest dimap (2015), both parties were clearly on the left-hand side of a left–right scale at both time periods. The Green Party typically represents green and protest views (Schumacher 2014) and is also located on the left side on a left–right scale (infratest dimap 2015).
 
19
These figures are very close to those published by the German opinion research institute Infratest Dimap for December 2013 (see infratest dimap 2013).
 
20
Election results for six Thuringian counties are not listed in this dataset and were additionally collected from the official website of the Thüringer Landesamt für Statistik (2016).
 
21
Hence, we follow a similar approach as conducted by Georgarakos and Pasini (2011) who use information from the SHARE dataset for the year 2004 and measure sociability with a binary variable that takes the value one if (at least) one household member does voluntary or charity work, is member of a club, and/or politically active. However, contrary to the measurement of religiosity or political orientation, due to lack of information, we cannot include the degree of sociability at the community level, as, for example, Brown et al. (2008) do.
 
22
In this context, we mention that we are aware of the problem that applying a Poisson model with robust standard errors could be preferable as Negbin models are not even consistent if the underlying distribution assumptions do not hold.
 
23
We also considered multivariate ordered probit and a variety of (bivariate) binary probit models in an earlier version of this study in order to take the strong correlation between the different behaviors into account [see, e.g., Ziegler (2013) for the case of process and product innovations]. However, the results are very similar and we report the results in the less sophisticated ordered probit models to increase the readability of this study.
 
24
Note that we have to drop about 100 observations as several persons did not answer the question on how many times they actively pursue their religion per week.
 
Literatur
Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and Identity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 715–753.CrossRef
Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2010). Identity economics: How our identities shape our work, wages, and well-being. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
Andorfer, V. A. (2013). Ethical consumption in Germany. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 42(5), 424–443.CrossRef
Andorfer, V. A., & Liebe, U. (2012). Research on fair trade consumption—A review. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(4), 415–435.CrossRef
Andreoni, J., Payne, A. A., Smith, J., & Karp, D. (2016). Diversity and donations: The effect of religious and ethnic diversity on charitable giving. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 128, 47–58.CrossRef
Arruñada, B. (2010). Protestants and Catholics: Similar work ethic, different social ethic. The Economic Journal, 120(547), 890–918.CrossRef
Axsen, J., TyreeHageman, J., & Lentz, A. (2012). Lifestyle practices and pro-environmental technology. Ecological Economics, 82, 64–74.CrossRef
Bauer, R., & Smeets, P. (2015). Social identification and investment decisions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 117, 121–134.CrossRef
Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77(305), 1–19.CrossRef
Benjamin, D. J., Choi, J. J., & Fisher, G. (2016). Religious identity and economic behavior. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 98(4), 617–637.CrossRef
Benjamin, D. J., Choi, J. J., & Strickland, A. J. (2010). Social identity and preferences. American Economic Review, 100(4), 1913–1928.CrossRef
Blasch, J., & Farsi, M. (2014). Context effects and heterogeneity in voluntary carbon offsetting—A choice experiment in Switzerland. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 3(1), 1–24.CrossRef
Borgers, A., Derwall, J., Koedijk, K., & Ter Horst, J. (2015). Do social factors influence investment behavior and performance? Evidence from mutual fund holdings. Journal of Banking & Finance, 60, 112–126.CrossRef
Brown, J. R., Ivkovic, Z., Smith, Paul A., & Weisbenner, S. (2008). Neighbors matter: Causal community effects and stock market participation. The Journal of Finance, 63(3), 1509–1531.CrossRef
Carlsson, F., García, J. H., & Löfgren, Å. (2010). Conformity and the demand for environmental goods. Environmental & Resource Economics, 47(3), 407–421.CrossRef
Clark, C. F., Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2003). Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 237–246.CrossRef
Costa, D. L., & Kahn, M. E. (2013). Do liberal home owners consume less electricity? A test of the voluntary restraint hypothesis. Economics Letters, 119(2), 210–212.CrossRef
Cui, J., Jo, H., & Velasquez, M. G. (2015). The influence of Christian religiosity on managerial decisions concerning the environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(1), 203–231.CrossRef
Czajkowski, M., Hanley, N., & Nyborg, K. (2017). Social norms, morals and self-interest as determinants of pro-environment behaviours: The case of household recycling. Environmental & Resource Economics, 66(4), 647–670. doi:10.​1007/​s10640-015-9964-3.CrossRef
Dastrup, S. R., Graff Zivin, J., Costa, D. L., & Kahn, M. E. (2012). Understanding the Solar Home price premium: Electricity generation and “Green” social status. European Economic Review, 56(5), 961–973.CrossRef
Delmas, M. A., & Lessem, N. (2014). Saving power to conserve your reputation? The effectiveness of private versus public information. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 67(3), 353–370.CrossRef
Derwall, J., Koedijk, K., & Ter Horst, J. (2011). A tale of values-driven and profit-seeking social investors. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(8), 2137–2147.CrossRef
Di Giuli, A., & Kostovetsky, L. (2014). Are red or blue companies more likely to go green? Politics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 111(1), 158–180.CrossRef
Doran, C. J., & Natale, S. M. (2011). ἐµπάθεια (Empatheia) and Caritas: The role of religion in fair trade consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 1–15.CrossRef
Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2008). A widening gap: Republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 26–35.
EKD. (2013). Leitfaden für ethisch nachhaltige Geldanlage. Hannover.
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (2007). Disagreement, tastes, and asset prices. Journal of Financial Economics, 83(3), 667–689.CrossRef
Georgarakos, D., & Pasini, G. (2011). Trust, Sociability, and Stock Market Participation. Review of Finance, 15, 693–725.CrossRef
Greeley, A. (1993). Religion and attitudes toward the environment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32(1), 19–28.CrossRef
Hong, H., & Kostovetsky, L. (2012). Red and blue investing: Values and finance. Journal of Financial Economics, 103(1), 1–19.CrossRef
Hong, H., Kubik, J. D., & Stein, J. C. (2004). Social interaction and stock-market participation. The Journal of Finance, 59(1), 137–163.CrossRef
Hood, M., Nofsinger, J. R., & Varma, A. (2014). Conservation, discrimination, and salvation: Investors’ social concerns in the stock market. Journal of Financial Services Research, 45(1), 5–37.CrossRef
Iannaccone, L. R. (1998). Introduction to the economics of religion. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(3), 1465–1495.
Kahn, M. E. (2007). Do greens drive hummers or hybrids? Environmental ideology as a determinant of consumer choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 54(2), 129–145.CrossRef
Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2008). Conservation: From voluntary restraint to a voluntary price premium. Environmental & Resource Economics, 40(2), 195–215.CrossRef
Kumar, A., & Page, J. K. (2014). Deviations from norms and informed trading. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 49(04), 1005–1037.CrossRef
Kumar, A., Page, J. K., & Spalt, O. G. (2011). Religious beliefs, gambling attitudes, and financial market outcomes. Journal of Financial Economics, 102(3), 671–708.CrossRef
Martin, W. C., & Bateman, C. R. (2014). Consumer religious commitment’s influence on ecocentric attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business Research, 67(2), 5–11.CrossRef
Nilsson, J. (2008). Investment with a conscience: Examining the impact of pro-social attitudes and perceived financial performance on socially responsible investment behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 307–325.CrossRef
Pepper, M., & Leonard, R. (2016). How ecotheological beliefs vary among Australian churchgoers and consequences for environmental attitudes and behaviors. Review of Religious Research, 58(1), 101–124. doi:10.​1007/​s13644-015-0234-1.CrossRef
Renneboog, L., & Spaenjers, C. (2012). Religion, economic attitudes, and household finance. Oxford Economic Papers, 64(1), 103–127.CrossRef
Renneboog, L., Ter Horst, J., & Zhang, C. (2008). Socially responsible investments: Institutional aspects, performance, and investor behavior. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32(9), 1723–1742.CrossRef
Riedl, A., & Smeets, P. (2014). Social preferences and portfolio choice. CESifo working paper (4403).
Salaber, J. (2013). Religion and returns in Europe. European Journal of Political Economy, 32, 149–160.CrossRef
Schumacher, I. (2014). An Empirical Study of the Determinants of Green Party Voting. Ecological Economics, 105, 306–318.CrossRef
Schwirplies, C., & Ziegler, A. (2016). Offset carbon emissions or pay a price premium for avoiding them? A cross-country analysis of motives for climate protection activities. Applied Economics, 48(9), 746–758.CrossRef
Sherkat, D. E., & Ellison, C. G. (2007). Structuring the religion-environment connection: Identifying religious influences on environmental concern and activism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(1), 71–85.CrossRef
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2013). Zensus 2011: Erste Ergebnisse des Zensus 2011 nach verschiedenen Merkmalen wie z.B. Bildung, Erwerbstätigkeit, Migration und Religion für Kreise und kreisfreie Städte bzw. Bundesländer.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in socio-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27(6), 723–743.CrossRef
Unsworth, K. L., & Fielding, K. S. (2014). It’s political: How the salience of one’s political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support. Global Environmental Change, 27, 131–137.CrossRef
Videras, J., Owen, A. L., Conover, E., & Wu, S. (2012). The influence of social relationships on pro-environment behaviors. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63(1), 35–50.CrossRef
Weber, M. (1930). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (2nd ed.). London: Allen and Unwin.
Welch, M. R., Tittle, C. R., & Petee, T. (1991). Religion and deviance among adult catholics: A test of the “moral communities” hypothesis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(2), 159–172.CrossRef
Welsch, H., & Kühling, J. (2009). Determinants of pro-environmental consumption: The role of reference groups and routine behavior. Ecological Economics, 69(1), 166–176.CrossRef
White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203–1207.CrossRef
Winkelmann, R., & Boes, S. (2009). Analysis of microdata. Berlin: Springer.
Wins, A., & Zwergel, B. (2016). Comparing those who do, might and will not invest in sustainable funds: A survey among German retail fund investors. Business Research, 9(1), 51–99.CrossRef
Wolkomir, M., Futreal, M., Woodrum, E., & Hoban, T. (1997). Substantive religious belief and environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 78(1), 96–108.
ZdK. (2015). Ethisch-nachhaltig investieren. Neunkirchen. Retrieved September 13, 2016. Accessed 13 September 2016.
Ziegler, A. (2013). Disentangling technological innovations: A micro-econometric analysis of their determinants. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(2), 315–335.CrossRef
Ziegler, A. (2015). On the relevance of ideological identification and environmental values for beliefs and attitudes toward climate change: A empirical cross country analysis. MAGKS joint discussion paper series in economics (16-2015).
Metadaten
Titel
Individual and Regional Christian Religion and the Consideration of Sustainable Criteria in Consumption and Investment Decisions: An Exploratory Econometric Analysis
verfasst von
Gunnar Gutsche
Publikationsdatum
23.08.2017
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3668-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2019

Journal of Business Ethics 4/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Stakeholder Theory Through the Lenses of Catholic Social Thought

Original Paper

Ethics and Behavioural Theory: How Do Professionals Assess Their Mental Models?

Original Paper

Experiences of Embedding Long-Term Thinking in an Environment of Short-Termism and Sub-par Business Performance: Investing in Intangibles for Sustainable Growth

Original Paper

The Ethics of Entrepreneurial Shared Value

Original Paper

Sustainable Entrepreneurship: The Role of Perceived Barriers and Risk

Original Paper

Seriously Personal: The Reasons that Motivate Entrepreneurs to Address Climate Change