Search results

This paper aims to contribute to the corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature by providing holistic insights into financial analysts’ personal values, perceived behavioural risk and investment decisions relating to the social aspects of CSR. Specifically, this paper examines whether analysts’ personal values, such as religiosity, spirituality and social consciousness, influence their investment decisions relating to a highly profitable firm that is alleged of exploiting labour rights. This study also examines the mediating role of analysts’ perceived behavioural risk between personal values and investment decisions.

Data were collected, using a scenario-based survey, from 145 financial analysts at both public and private companies in Pakistan.

The results show that analysts’ values, including religiosity, spirituality and social consciousness, have a significant negative impact on their investment decisions. The results also demonstrate that perceived behavioural risk mediates the relationship between these values and investment decisions.

This study has implications for the globalised business world, regulators and researchers for incorporating personal and ethical values into risk and investment decision-making.

This study establishes the importance of analysts’ personal values in risky investment decision-making.

During the great post–World War II economic expansion, modernization theorists held that the new American capitalism balanced mass production and mass consumption, meshed profitability with labor's interests, and ended class conflict. They thought that Keynesian policies insured a near full-employment, low-inflation, continuous growth economy. They viewed the United States as the “new lead society,” eliminating industrial capitalism's backward features and progressing toward modernity's penultimate “postindustrial” stage.⁷ Many Americans believed that the ideal of “consumer freedom,” forged early in the century, had been widely realized and epitomized American democracy's superiority to communism.⁸ However, critics held that the new capitalism did not solve all of classical capitalism's problems (e.g., poverty) and that much increased consumption generated new types of cultural and political problems. John Kenneth Galbraith argued that mainstream economists assumed that human nature dictates an unlimited “urgency of wants,” naturalizing ever increasing production and consumption and precluding the distinction of goods required to meet basic needs from those that stoke wasteful, destructive appetites. In his view, mainstream economists’ individualistic, acquisitive presuppositions crown consumers sovereign and obscure cultural forces, especially advertising, that generate and channel desire and elevate possessions and consumption into the prime measures of self-worth. Galbraith held that production's “paramount position” and related “imperatives of consumer demand” create dependence on economic growth and generate new imbalances and insecurities.⁹ Harsher critics held that the consumer culture blinded middle-class Americans to injustice, despotic bureaucracy, and drudge work (e.g., Mills, 1961; Marcuse, 1964). But even these radical critics implied that postwar capitalism unlocked the secret of sustained economic growth.