Do owner-manager demographics in SMEs matter for corporate social responsibility?

Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy Volume 17 Issue 2 June 2022 p-ISSN 1689-765X, e-ISSN 2353-3293 www.economic-policy.pl Copyright © Instytut Badań Gospodarczych / Institute of Economic Research (Poland) This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ORIGINAL ARTICLE Citation: Çera, G., Khan, K. A., Bláhová, A., & Belas, J. Jr. (2022). Do owner-manager demographics in SMEs matter for corporate social responsibility? Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(2), 511–531. doi: 10.24136/eq.2022.018 Contact to corresponding author: Gentjan Çera, [email protected] Article history: Received: 3.01.2022; Accepted: 9.06.2022; Published online: 25.06.2022 Gentjan Çera Tomas Bata University in Zlin, Czechia orcid.org/0000-0002-9324-181X Khurram Ajaz Khan Tomas Bata University in Zlin, Czechia orcid.org/ 0000-0001-5728-8955 Andrea Bláhová Institute of Technology and Business in České Budějovice, Czechia orcid.org/0000-0002-5436-4999 Jaroslav Belas, Jr. Alexander Dubcek University in Trencin, Slovakia orcid.org/0000-0003-1796-8598 Do owner-manager demographics in SMEs matter for corporate social responsibility? JEL Classification: J16; M14 Keywords: CSR; corporate social responsibility; owner; manager; SMEs Abstract Research background: According to the EU agenda, CSR should be considered an integral element of the current organizational strategy, including SMEs. While the debate continues about the optimal approach for successful CSR adaptation in SME, yet there is a need to shed light on the impact of owner-manager’s demographics on CSR practices. Purpose of the article: The paper aims to examine whether owner-manager’s demographics (age, gender, education) matter for the implementation of CSR or not. Methods: The study is based on a questionnaire filled in by owner-managers of SMEs operating in Czechia (454) and Slovakia (368). Factor analysis and nonparametric methods are used to test the hypotheses. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(2), 511–531 512 Findings & value added: This study shows that the relationships between CSR and ownermanager’s demographics are not alike between Slovakia and Czechia. Compared to owners, the evidence shows that the Czech managers are more oriented toward the CSR practices, while in Slovakia there is no difference. Such finding can be explained by Hofstede culture difference. In addition, analysis demonstrates that female Slovaks are more oriented to CSR than men, while it is not true in Czechia. Moreover, Czech individuals who graduated in the same field as their business are more oriented to the CSR, whereas in Slovakia this is not. In addition, young and old Slovak entrepreneurs are more oriented to the CSR than those 35-55 years old, manifesting a U-shape type of relationship. The originality of this work is manifested by the fact that it enriches the literature since it is among the first studies to analyze the relationships between ownermanager’s demographics and CSR in the SME segment for Czechia and Slovakia. Introduction Studies show that businesses benefit from corporate social responsibility (CSR) in a variety of ways, including improving brand image, increasing consumer loyalty, motivating employees, increasing employees’ commitment and dedication, improving firm performance (Ali et al., 2020; Kunz, 2020; Stojanovic et al., 2020). The CSR initiatives are increasingly an element of a company’s long-term strategic aims. Since organizations’ management (managers and owners) are the strategists and decision-makers, the onus is on them to outline successful CSR activities that can benefit firms and help them accomplish their stated goals (Belas, et al., 2020a; Khan et al., 2020; Sahut et al., 2019). Personal choices made by entrepreneurs are crucial in building a good business strategy and reflecting their social goals (D’Andrea & Montanini, 2015). Hence, their demographic factors such as age, gender, etc., cannot be kept aloof because it might affect their decision-making and choices. Seeing it through theoretical lenses, the upper echelons theory (UET) suggests a linkage between a manager's characteristics and organizational outcomes (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Firms undertake CSR believing that it is the right thing to do and they do it of their own free will, without any compulsion or constraint (Grimstad et al., 2020; Smekalova et al., 2014). Thus, practicing CSR is more on the choice of the managers and owners. As a result, it is critical to explore and understand the managers’/owners’ perceptions of CSR and demarcate themselves based on demographic factors. Such focus lacks information in the context of central European nations. A study proposed that the owner/managers' values are vital drivers for CSR in SMEs. Managers are optimistic about CSR implementation and expect positive outcomes for the SMEs, and suggest that proactive and consistent SMEs can develop a positive image and a better position (Fraj-Andrés et al., 2012; Metzker & Streimikis, 2020). In summary, it can be linked that managers’ perception, attitude, and behavior, are influenced by managers’ Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(2), 511–531 513 demographic characteristics towards CSR practice, and this cannot be ignored and attracts the researcher's attention. It is found that the CSR-related research in the context of countries like Slovakia and Czechia is still under-researched, with little emphasis paid to the comparative studies (Remišová & Lašáková, 2014). Fijałkowska (2018) identified that there is still limited evidence on CSR practices and their effects, especially in central and eastern European nations. Another study suggested a need for CSR knowledge diffusion as it has the potential to influence businesses through innovative practices in European countries (Maon et al., 2015). The notion of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is relatively new in these Visegrad countries. According to a recent study on CSR, future studies should look at CSR from multiple perspectives, such as gender, age, and educational affiliation. Based on the perceived disparities in CSR between female and male owners and professional executives, old and young executives can be compared. Similarly, the educational profile of executives, and hence their cultural capital and cognitive schema, could be a fascinating area to research (Yamak et al., 2019). Most of the CSR-related studies conducted on large firms with enormous resources might contribute substantially to the economic output. Small size firms have a more decisive influence of owners-managers on the processes compared to large size corporations (Öksüzoğlu-Güven, 2015). That’s why this study focused on SMEs segments in Czechia and Slovakia. Most of the economic outputs in both countries are generated by SMEs, making them substantially crucial for the economy, society, and environment. Therefore, their role cannot be ignored concerning CSR, since most economic output comes from non-financial business (Dvorský et al., 2020; European Union, 2020; Khan et al., 2019). Regarding demographic factors, it has been found that old and young managers have different characteristics in terms of consultative and participative leadership styles. Compared to younger managers, more geriatric managers consulted more broadly and preferred more participation (Oshagbemi, 2004). A recent study on leaders of different age groups in various work environments revealed significant differences. Showing that the differences are arising from demographic factors such as age, gender, etc. (Larsson & Björklund, 2020). Another recent study comprehends the disparities in behavior between male and female managers during the implementation of CSR in businesses (Lu, J. et al., 2020). A study on young managers suggests that certain leadership behaviors may be enhanced or diminished depending on the leader's age (Buengeler et al., 2016). It has also been found that the entrepreneurial behavior in organizations varies depending on the age and educational level of their managers (Jiménez et Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(2), 511–531 514 al., 2021). The existing evidence motivates to explore the desired objective of the present study. The present analysis is conducted on the responses to a structured questionnaire designed using a Likert scale, filled by the owners and managers of SMEs in Czechia (454) and Slovakia (368). The hypotheses formulated are tested through non-parametric approaches. The following section gives details of the research methodology and statistical analysis. The last part of the paper provides results, discussion, and conclusions followed by the limitations and future research agenda. Literature review and hypotheses development The UET advocates that the organizational outcomes-strategic planning and choice, and organization performance levels are partially predicted by managerial background characteristics (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Top-level managers have different demographic factors; therefore, they might process, interpret, and implement information differently. That’s why different managers take different actions on the same information. Since the CSR activities are linked to strategic planning and strategic decisions (Heikkurinen, 2018; Idowu & Vertigans, 2017; Metzker & Zvarikova, 2021), managers' demographic factors might affect their CSR activities planning and choice. Several other studies related to different aspects, such as implementing strategies, firm's financial performance, etc., concerning managers and key people demographic factors identified substantial differences (Jespersen & Bysted, 2016; Liem & Hien, 2020). A study that evaluated SME owner–managers' mental models in relation to CSR and associated concepts across six nations in Europe discovered that the mental models of SME owner-managers have a few commonalities as well as a few variations (Fassin et al., 2015). Based on these arguments, the literature review section establishes the linkage of CSR perception to owners-managers and differences based on demographic features, age level, and education. Literature reveals that owners and managers in large firms do have some differences. Based on the theory of biases and heuristics, owners and managers interpret and think differently (Busenitz & Barney, 1997). It was also found in the past that entrepreneurs behave differently than managers, and all these variances are substantiated. A recent study compared the owners and managers of SMEs within the V4 nations about the disparities in the perception of business risks. The owners are altogether found more hopeful in their showcase risk assessment than the managers of SMEs. On the other hand, compared to the owners, managers display a more critical appraisal concerning the articulation that the business environment in their field of Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(2), 511–531 515 doing business is over-regulated. They also reflected some similarities; respondents indicated the same state of mind in the cases of operational and personnel risks (Dvorský et al., 2022). Owners' main aim is venture growth compared to managers whose primary concentration is generating family income (Stewart & Roth, 2001). Zhao and Seibert (2006) found that owners scored more than managers on conscientiousness, one of the personality dimensions. Specifically for CSR, it has been found that managers favor CSR practices in the firm. What matters is that each manager perceives the role of the business towards providing social welfare, which impacts their decisions to contribute to diverse CSR acts. Considering the discussed conditions above, even though the managers operate in more monitored and controlled situations, they still have a positive outlook towards CSR. It has been found that professional managers focus on stakeholder groups, such as customers, suppliers, and employees. In contrast, owners develop and use CSR as a strategic tool to relate to certain interest groups and stakeholders, such as the media, politicians, the state, and public opinion. The roles influence owners' and top managers' attitudes toward the social responsibility they perform in the firm (Tafel-Viia & Alas, 2009). On the one hand, a study found that CSR is only important to senior executives when their performance is close to their aim, not when it is significantly behind or over the target, especially if their shareholding is low (Kim & Kim, 2020). On the other hand, firms address social problems and consider CSR (Belas et al., 2020b). In such scenarios, it becomes imperative to investigate further the differences which are more conscientious to CSR owners or managers. Similarly, there are shreds of evidence that owners are more conscientious towards business and goals. It might influence owners more substantially towards CSR practices in small firms. The differences between owners and managers can be seen in their enthusiasm and motivation to manage the firm, risk-taking attitude, and level of expertise (Kulchina, 2017). It seems feasible and logical to understand further how managers and owners think differently towards implementing CSR practices. Thus, H1: There is a significant difference in CSR between owners and managers of SMEs, with owners being more conscientious about CSR. Different managers have different management styles. They follow different tools, tactics, personalities, interpersonal skills, etc., which they have gained from their different life experiences and learning (Johansen, 2007). These differences always create a vacuum for further investigation, espe- Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(2), 511–531 516 cially in recent times, when the participation of the female gender is increasing in every aspect, even in small business ownership and management. Considering the few previous studies, several differences were traced between male and female leadership and management. There are studies which found differences between females and males’ managers in different aspects such as in the perception of professional roles (Seghieri et al., 2015). Gender significantly differs in some aspects of leadership style (Oshagbemi & Gill, 2003). The involvement of women in corporate governance is positively linked to a company's financial performance (Amin et al., 2021). Companies with gender-diverse leaders are more effective at implementing environmentally friendly strategies than other companies (Glass et al., 2016). It is also found that the strategies female managers use have a favorable impact on business performance (Johansen, 2007). In recent times, it has been also found that female managers are more interested in environmental and CSR. Being an industrial nation, it is located in a recent study in China that environmental investment by women in leadership positions cuts pollution emissions considerably. Women managers' increased environmental investment stems mainly from their inherent commitment to social responsibility (Jiang & Akbar, 2018). The presence of women in actual leadership positions and the implementation of sustainable operations improve a company's financial performance and value (Bannò et al., 2021). Looking specifically into whether gender differences exist in CSR practices in firms, quite a few studies witnessed that female managers are more conscious regarding CSR values than male counterparts (Lu, J. et al., 2020). Titko et al. (2021) claim a significant difference between males' and females' perception of CSR. Female respondents, compared to male respondents regarding CSR, whether it is necessary or not, found that female opinions are firmer than male. Similarly, it is also found that females have more inclination towards internalized moral identity than males because females trust that a firm must be advantageous to people and society, which reveals women’s perceptions towards CSR. It also supports that gender plays an imperative role in perceptions of social responsibility (Hatch & Stephen, 2015). Hence, based on the above discussion, it seems reasonable to compare how male and female managers and owners perceive CSR, specifically in the Czechia and Slovakia. H2: There is a significant difference between males and females of SMEs, so that females score higher in CSR than males. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(2), 511–531 517 Owners-managers’ values shape the extent and types of CSR in firms (Saveanu et al., 2021). Another study supports that managers’ moral values significantly impact managers’ CSR perception (Tefera & He, 2020). It supports that CSR activities in small businesses depend on the attitude and behavior of managers and owners. It was found that managers’ years of age have a statistically significant influence in explaining CSR behavior (Kukanja et al., 2016). Age-related changes in motivation might lead to a greater emphasis on good emotional experiences and one's own and others' well-being (Scheibe et al., 2021). Birkinshaw et al. (2019) found that management styles are more diverse with age than any other characteristic of managers. The study revealed that older managers stress more on developing core competencies, customer retention, and relationships and are more concerned with the firm's broad image in the market. Contrary, young managers are more concerned with firms' competitive positioning in the business environment. In a nutshell, firms have benefits and challenges arising from the age diversity of managers since expectations and demands differ by generation. Greek managers trust that CSR actions offer several benefits (Leonidas et al., 2012), young French managers believe that the primary motivation to adopt CSR policies is to maintain and improve the corporate image. Amazingly, it has been found that managerial commitment to CSR is allied with learned qualities such as training and education rather than managers’ age (Quazi, 2003). Supporting the same, a study found that managers’ age has no impact on managers’ CSR perception (Tefera & He, 2020). Young executives may choose to focus on achieving high and consistent earnings in the short term. On the contrary, as top managers get older and face less market pressure in terms of career considerations. They may be more ready to address the concerns of a wide range of stakeholders, regardless of the immediate impact on the firm's profitability (Fabrizi et al., 2014). It indirectly reveals that older executives might look more toward CSR activities. Furthermore, another study suggests that the association between CEO career timeframe (age) and CSR is contingent on the circumstances or conditions that firms experience. It is significant to consider the industryspecific and ownership-specific boundary conditions concerning the CEO’s career horizon for the firm’s involvement in CSR (Oh et al., 2016). Since both of the mentioned studies reflect different aspects of how the age of top executives can affect CSR involvement gives scope for further investigation. Owners and managers are the key people who drive SMEs. Understanding their perceived differences based on their age about CSR becomes relevant. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(2), 511–531 518 Since the existing literature gives mixed results based on the age of owners and managers, the present study examines the impact of age on managers and owners in a specific segment of SMEs. H3: There is a significant difference in CSR between the different age groups of owners-managers. Based on the upper echelons theory (UET), education plays a considerable role in managers’ value and ethical decision-making and might form managers’ perception towards CSR practices in firms. Consequently, managers-owners' education can impact ethical behavior, ultimately affecting their perceptions of CSR. Owners-managers' perceptions regarding the business environment are influenced by the and their educational levels. It is believed that higher education gives more knowledge regarding economic regulations, a better understanding of the business environment, and the capability to forecast the challenges in the business environment accurately (Virglerova et al., 2017). One’s capability to accept and digest new and varied expertise and complex information is reflected in its education. Managers with advanced training were more receptive to new ideas and responsive to change. There can be a direct relation between managers’ education and CSR. The higher the education level, the higher the managers' concern over CSR (Lu, F. et al., 2021). Studies support that understanding CSR concepts and their application improves with higher education. There is a significant impact of educational level on comprehension of the notion of CSR (Karabasevic et al., 2016). Highlighting the importance of education, another study states that education and training can help firms lessen the influence of barriers of CSR practices (Pham et al., 2021). It has been found that education makes individuals more environmentally and socially responsible (Meyer, 2015). A study found a significant positive relationship between CEOs with MBAs and corporate environmental performance (Slater & Dixon-Fowler, 2010). The overall summary of the above discussion highlights the importance of education for managers and owners and how education level affects CSR perception in SMEs. Therefore, based on these arguments, one can formulate, H4: There is a significant difference in CSR across owners-managers’ educational levels. The present study extends its findings under the scope of UET theory. It investigates the owners' and managers' differences in CSR in SMEs based Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(2), 511–531 519 on their demographic factors. The investigation of the difference has usefulness, such as understanding the factors affecting the differences such as education, age or gender, etc. It can help researchers and policymakers to understand the major factors. Since UET theory supports that personal traits and features of managers and owners affect organizational outcomes (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). It becomes imperative to understand the key factors behind the differences in this case. The above-discussed literature tried to develop and show the linkage and importance of demographic characteristics. Of course, the part of the manager-owner's personality traits can affect their perception of CSR. In small firms, managers and owners are the key people who plan, make strategies, and are responsible for CSR. Hence, it is required to understand the demographic-related factors causing differences in perceived CSR in SMEs. The Visegrad nations are consistently working on the area of CSR not only with large companies, now even SMEs even started paying heed to CSR activities (Metzker & Streimikis, 2020). The focus is not only limited to large firms, but also SMEs. The interesting part of the study is to compare the manager and owner, considering the two are different. The different role of SMEs can influence their perception, and that is the novelty of the present study. To the extent of the authors' knowledge, no prior study has compared owners with managers to determine the differences in their CSR perception based on their demographic factors in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. Methods and procedures The paper aims to examine whether owner-manager demographics matter for CSR or not. The analysis is done in a survey based on a firm-level. The data are collected in December 2019–February 2020. The unit of the analysis in this study are owner-managers of SMEs operating in Czechia and Slovakia. Table 1 presents the sample profile. Four statements are used to measure CSR, as proposed by Çera et al. (2020). The proposed CSR construct tries to capture aspects from knowing the concept of CSR to its benefits and gained reputation for the company when it is implemented. These four indicators were formulated as a fivepoint Likert type of scale (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree). The lowest mean among the indicators was reported for the first statement (2.58), whereas the highest mean was for the second indicator (2.95). According to Shapiro-Wilk test, none of the indicators was statistically normality distributed, indicating the use of non-parametric methods. The association be- Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(2), 511–531 526 Grimstad, S. M. F., Glavee-Geo, R., & Fjørtoft, B. E. (2020). SMEs motivations for CSR: an exploratory study. European Business Review, 32(4), 553–572. doi: 10.1108/EBR-01-2019-0014. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education Limited. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. a. (1984). Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management, 9(2), 193–206. Hatch, C. D., & Stephen, S.-A. (2015). Gender effects on perceptions of individual and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 17(3), 63–71. Heikkurinen, P. (2018). Strategic corporate responsibility: a theory review and synthesis. Journal of Global Responsibility, 9(4), 388–414. doi: 10.1108/jgr-062018-0020. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26. doi: 10.9707/23070919.1014. Idowu, S. O., & Vertigans, S. (2017). Stages of corporate social responsibilityfrom ideas to impacts. In S. O. Idowu & S. Vertigans (Eds.). Research handbook on corporate social responsibility in context. Springer International Publishing. Jespersen, K. R., & Bysted, R. (2016). Implementing new product development: a study of personal characteristics among managers. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(3), 1–23. doi: 10.1142/S1363919616500432. Jia, Y., Yan, J., Liu, T., & Huang, J. (2019). How does internal and external CSR affect employees’ work engagement? Exploring multiple mediation mechanisms and boundary conditions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(14), 2–17. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16142476. Jiang, X., & Akbar, A. (2018). Does increased representation of female executives improve corporate environmental investment? Evidence from China. Sustainability, 10(12), 2–19. doi: 10.3390/su10124750. Jiménez, S. O., García, A. R. G., Osuna, B. A. L., & del Río, S. V. (2021). Entrepreneurial behavior of SMEs and characteristics of the managers of northwest mexico. Social Sciences, 10(1), 1–15. doi: 10.3390/socsci10010008. Johansen, M. S. (2007). The effect of female strategic managers on organizational performance. Public Organization Review, 7(3), 269–279. doi: 10.1007/s11 115-007-0036-1. Kahreh, M. S., Babania, A., Tive, M., & Mirmehdi, S. M. (2014). An examination to effects of gender differences on the corporate social responsibility (CSR). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 664–668. doi: 10.1016/J.SBS PRO.2013.12.525. Karabasevic, D., Petrovic, G., & Maksimovic, M. (2016). The impact of the levels of education on the perception of corporate social responsibility. Poslovna Ekonomija, 10(2), 106–117. doi: 10.5937/poseko10-12322. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(2), 511–531 527 Khan, K. A., Çera, G., & Netek, V. (2019). Perception of the selected business environment aspects by service firms. Journal of Tourism and Services, 10(19), 111–127. doi: 10.29036/jots.v10i19.115. Khan, K. A., Dankiewicz, R., Kliuchnikava, Y., & Oláh, J. (2020). How do entrepreneurs feel bankruptcy? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Knowledge, 8(1), 89–101. doi: 10.37335/ijek.v8i1.103. Kim, C. H., & Scullion, H. (2013). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on employee motivation : a cross-national study. Poznań University of Economics Review, 13(2), 5–30. Kim, K., Kim, M., & Qian, C. (2018). Effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance: a competitive-action perspective. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1097–1118. doi: 10.1177/0149206315602530. Kim, M., & Kim, T. (2020). When do CEOs engage in CSR activities? Performance feedback, CEO ownership, and CSR. Sustainability, 12(19), 2–13. doi: 10.3390/su12198195. Kordsachia, O. (2020). A risk management perspective on CSR and the marginal cost of debt: empirical evidence from Europe. Review of Managerial Science, 15(6), 1611–1643. doi: 10.1007/s11846-020-00392-2. Kukanja, M., Planinc, T., & Šuligoj, M. (2016). Influence of managers’ demographic characteristics on CSR practices in the restaurant industry: the case of Slovenia. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 22(2), 151–172. doi: 10.20867/thm.22.2.2. Kulchina, E. (2017). Do foreign entrepreneurs benefit their firms as managers? Strategic Management Journal, 38(8), 1588–1607. doi: 10.1002/smj.2618. Kunz, J. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and employees motivation— broadening the perspective. Schmalenbach Business Review, 72(2), 159–191. doi: 10.1007/s41464-020-00089-9. Larsson, G., & Björklund, C. (2020). Age and leadership: comparisons of age groups in different kinds of work environment. Management Research Review, 44(5), 661–676. doi: 10.1108/MRR-01-2020-0040. Leonidas, P., Mary, G., Theofilos, P., & Amalia, T. (2012). Managers’ perceptions and opinions towards corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Greece. Procedia Economics and Finance, 1(12), 311–320. doi: 10.1016/s2212-5671(12)000366. Liem, V. T., & Hien, N. N. (2020). The impact of manager’s demographic characteristics on prospector strategy, use of management accounting systems and financial performance. Journal of International Studies, 13(4), 54–69. doi: 10.14254/2071-8330.2020/13-4/4. Lu, F., Wang, Z., Toppinen, A., D’Amato, D., & Wen, Z. (2021). Managerial risk perceptions of corporate social responsibility disclosure: evidence from the forestry sector in China. Sustainability, 13(12), 2–16. doi: 10.3390/su13126 811. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(2), 511–531 528 Lu, J., Ren, L., Zhang, C., Wang, C., Petkeviciute, N., & Streimikis, J. (2020). Gender difference in corporate social responsibility implementation in Lithuanian SMEs. Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(3), 549–569. doi: 10.24136/OC .2020.023. Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2000). Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: the case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics 23(3), 283–297. doi: 10.1023/A:1006262325211. Maon, F., Swaen, V., & Lindgreen, A. (2015). One vision, different paths: an investigation of corporate social responsibility initiatives in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(2), 405–422. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2810-2. Maqbool, S., & Zameer, M. N. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: an empirical analysis of Indian banks. Future Business Journal, 4(1), 84–93. doi: 10.1016/j.fbj.2017.12.002. Metzker, Z., & Streimikis, J. (2020). CSR activities in the Czech SME segment. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Knowledge, 8(1), 49–64. doi: 10.373 35/IJEK.V8I2.101. Metzker, Z., & Zvarikova, K. (2021). The perception of company employees by SMEs with CSR concept implementation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Knowledge, 9(1), 81–96. doi: 10.37335/IJEK.V9I1.128. Meyer, A. (2015). Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe. Ecological Economics, 116, 108–121. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2015.04.018. OECD (2021). Education at a glance 2021. OECD. Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Cheng, Z. (2016). When CEO career horizon problems matter for corporate social responsibility: the moderating roles of industry-level discretion and blockholder ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(2), 279–291. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2397-z. Öksüzoğlu-Güven, G. (2015). Entrepreneurial ethical decision making. In Handbook of research on business ethics and corporate responsibilities. Hershey PA, USA: IGI Global, 106–122. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-7476-9.ch0 06. Oshagbemi, T. (2004). Age influences on the leadership styles and behaviour of managers. Employee Relations, 26(1), 14–29. doi: 10.1108/014254504105068 78. Oshagbemi, T., & Gill, R. (2003). Gender differences and similarities in the leadership styles and behaviour of UK managers. Women in Management Review, 18(6), 288–298. doi: 10.1108/09649420310491468. Pham, H., Pham, T., & Dang, C. N. (2021). Barriers to corporate social responsibility practices in construction and roles of education and government support. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. Advance online publicaton. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-03-2020-0199. Quazi, A. M. (2003). Identifying the determinants of corporate managers’ perceived social obligations. Management Decision, 41(9), 822–831. doi: 10.1108/00251740310488999. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(2), 511–531 529 Remišová, A., & Lašáková, A. (2014). CSR-related managerial decision-making preferences in the CEE region (results of the GLOBE student research). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 913–922. doi: 10.1016/j.sbsp ro.2013.12.937. Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., & Saaeidi, S. A. (2015). How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 341–350. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06. 024. Sahut, J. M., Peris-Ortiz, M., Teulon, F., & Boubaker, S. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 23(4), 901–912. doi: 10.1007/s10997-019-09472-2. Saveanu, T., Badulescu, D., Saveanu, S., Abrudan, M., & Badulescu, A. (2021). The role of owner-managers in shaping CSR activity of Romanian SMEs. Sustainability, 13(20), 2–19. doi: 10.3390/su132011546. Scheibe, S., Walter, F., & Zhan, Y. (2021). Age and emotions in organizations: main, moderating, and context-specific effects. Work, Aging and Retirement, 7(1), 1–8. doi: 10.1093/workar/waaa030. Seghieri, C., Rojas, D., & Nuti, S. (2015). Are there gender differences in how managers and professionals perceived organizational climate? The case of Tuscan healthcare system. Suma de Negocios, 6(13), 8–16. doi: 10.1016/j.sum neg.2015.04.002. Slater, D. J., & Dixon-Fowler, H. R. (2010). The future of the planet in the hands of MBAs: an examination of CEO MBA education and corporate environmental performance. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(3), 429–441. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2010.53791825. Smekalova, L., Hajek, O., Belas, J., & Machacek, J. (2014). Perception of small and medium entrepreneurship in the Czech Republic. Journal of Competitiveness, 6(4), 41–49. doi: 10.7441/JOC.2014.04.03. Stewart, W. H., & Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 145–153. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.145. Stojanovic, A., Milosevic, I., Arsic, S., Urosevic, S., & Mihajlovic, I. (2020). Corporate social responsibility as a determinant of employee loyalty and business performance. Journal of Competitiveness, 12(2), 149–166. doi: 10.7441/JOC.2020.02.09. Swanson, D. L. (2009). Top managers as drivers for corporate social responsibility. In C. McWilliams & M. Siegel (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford University Press doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/97801992 11593.003.0010. Tafel-Viia, K., & Alas, R. (2009). Differences and conflicts between owners and top managers in the context of social responsibility. Engineering Economics, 4(64), 86–94. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(2), 511–531 530 Tefera, M. A., & He, Y. (2020). Ethiopian managers’ corporate social responsibility perceptions: demographics and personal ethical values as predictors. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 9(5), 140–149. Tiep, L. T., Huan, N. Q., & Hong, T. T. T. (2021). Effects of corporate social responsibility on SMEs’ performance in emerging market. Cogent Business and Management, 8(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2021.1878978. Titko, J., Svirina, A., Tambovceva, T., & Skvarciany, V. (2021). Differences in attitude to corporate social responsibility among generations. Sustainability, 13(19), 1–12. doi: 10.3390/su131910944. Virglerova, Z., Dobes, K., Kramolis, J., & Kotaskova, A. (2017). The influence of SME owners’ education on their perception of business environment in Czech Republic. Economics and Sociology, 10(3), 321–332. doi: 10.14254/2071-789X .2017/10-3/22. Yamak, S., Ergur, A., Karatas-Ozkan, M., & Tatli, A. (2019). CSR and leadership approaches and practices: a comparative inquiry of owners and professional executives. European Management Review, 16(4), 1097–1114. doi: 10.1111/em re.12318. Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: a meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259–271. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.259. Acknowledgements The research was supported by VEGA project No. 1/0364/22: Research on ecoinnovation potential of SMEs in the context of sustainable development. Annex Table 1. Sample profile (%) Variable Total (n=822) Slovakia (n=368) Czechia (n=454) Owner - manager Owner 78 77 78 Manager 22 23 22 Gender Female 30 31 29 Male 70 69 71 Education links No 64 62 65 to business Yes 36 38 35 Age (years old) < 36 16 18 15 36 – 45 23 22 23 46 – 55 28 29 27 > 55 33 32 35 Table 2. Testing H1, H2 & H4 Sample Mean rank (mr) Mann - Whitney U Z p Ownermanager Owner Manager Czechia 235 199 14869 2.451 0.014 Slovakia 182 194 11062 0.902 0.367 Gender Female Male Czechia 213 234 19212 1.500 0.124 Slovakia 150 200 10611 4.182 0.000 Education links to business No Yes Czechia 237 209 20514 2.162 0.031 Slovakia 187 181 15480 0.487 0.626 Table 3. CSR and age (years old) Sample Age categories Kruskal Wallis < 35 36 - 45 46 - 55 > 55 Mean rank χ 2 (3) p Czechia 223 231 226 228 0.165 0.926 Slovakia 139 197 205 183 17.314 0.015