A great deal of the research on cultural values comes out of the field of management and organizational behaviour. Hofstede’s seminal paper on “The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories”, laid out one of the most influential models for understanding cultural influences on organizational behavior. He outlines 4 characteristics that can be used to define different cultures. I have summarized them below.

1. Individualism vs Collectivism

This dimension of culture measures the relation between an individual and others. In individualistic cultures everybody is responsible for their own wellbeing and self-interest, which manifest in a large amount of freedom in the society to make this possible. In collectivist societies, the bond between people is much stronger, and society revolves around various in-groups. In these societies shared ideals and opinions are very strong and ideological change is very slow. Applying this cultural dimension to sustainability, we would expect that more individualistic, and therefore often more pluralistic societies would have a greater capacity to respond to environmental problems. We see that most sustainability work arises in individualistic cultures due to dispersed interest groups, and so there is good evidence that individualist cultures are more equipped to deal with problems of sustainability.

2. Large or Small Power Distance

Power distance refers to how a society deals with inequalities among its people. High levels of inequality are considered a high power distance, and low levels of inequality is considered low power distance. In terms of sustainability considerations societies with high levels of power distance creates a high degree of respect for authority which may lead to a weaker capacity for debate and weaker responsiveness to social issues such as environmental problems.

3. Strong or Weak Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty voidance has to do with how we deal with the future as an uncertain event. Some societies have socialized into accepting uncertainty and not being phased by it. These societies are more willing to take risks, and live each day as it comes, not working too hard. They are also more tolerant of differing opinions because they do not represent a threat to the society. On the other hand, some societies are concerned with managing the future uncertainty and will be very focused on creating security through three different avenues: technology, law, and/or religion. In societies that have strong uncertainty avoidance, there is much less tolerance of diverse opinions and protest and thus we may predict that these societies will be less responsive to environmental concerns.

4. Masculinity vs Femininity

This dimension classifies societies based on whether they try to minimize or maximize the division between social roles for males and females. In masculine societies, the division between men and women is more pronounced and traditional masculine social values permeate the whole society (for example showing off, performing, achieving something visible, making money, and “big is beautiful”). On the other hand, feminine societies minimize social differences between men and women and embody more feminine values (for example not showing off, putting relationships with people before money, minding the quality of life and the preservation of the environment, helping others, in particular the weak, and “small is beautiful”). It is fairly self evident that more feminine societies will likely have greater capacity to respond to environmental problems.