Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia

World Association for Triple Helix and Future Strategy Studies (세계트리플헬릭스미래전략학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Network Arrangements Underlying Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Findings from Globalized Cyberspace and Lessons for Asian Regions

  • Choi, Jin-A (Department of Communication, William Paterson University of New Jersey) ;
  • Park, Sejung (Division of Global and Interdisciplinary Studies, Pukyong National University, Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia) ;
  • Lim, Yon Soo (School of Advertising and Public Relations, Hongik University, Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia) ;
  • Nam, Yoonjae (Department of Culture, Tourism & Content, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Nam, Inyong (Department of Mass Communication, Pukyong National University) ;
  • Park, Han Woo (Department of Media & Communication, YeungNam University, Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia)
  • Published : 2021.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to introduce a synergetic configuration of stakeholders, especially government and university, into the corporate social responsibility strategy. The alignment of a company's CSR efforts with its business practices and values must be communicated strategically for effective and successful business outcomes. Therefore, the proposed process of CSR evaluation takes into account the three helices of the Triple-Helix perspective, university, industry, and government (UIG), and investigates how involvement in the Triple Helix actors influence corporations with CSR initiatives. Specifically, whether the public's awareness of a corporation's CSR activities is heightened by the concurrent support of the three helixes will be examined. We propose a methodology that enables corporations to determine effective levels of integration with government and educational institutions. The intensity of Triple-Helix indicators will be examined.

Keywords

References

  1. Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K, & Sonnenfeld. J.A. (1999). Who matters to Ceos? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and Ceo values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507-525. https://doi.org/10.5465/256973
  2. Alrousan, R. M., Bader, M. A., & Abuamoud, I. (2015). Stakeholders approach in influencing corporate social responsibility: A case study at two hotels in Jordan. International Journal of Tourism Policy, 6(1), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTP.2015.075135
  3. Bansal, P. & Hoffman, A. (Eds.). (2001). Oxford handbook of business and the environment. New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Bendheim, C. L., Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1998). Determining best practice in corporate-stakeholder relations using data envelopment analysis: An industry-level study. Business & Society, 37(3), 306-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039803700304
  5. Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488-506. https://doi.org/10.2307/256972
  6. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2011). Open innovation diplomacy and a 21st century fractal research, education and innovation (FREIE) ecosystem: building on the quadruple and quintuple helix innovation concepts and the "mode 3" knowledge production system. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2(3), 327-372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0058-3
  7. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1979.4498296
  8. Cummings, J. L., & Doh, J. P. (2000). Identifying who matters: mapping key players in multiple environments. California Management Review, 42(2), 83-104. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166034
  9. Dauvergne, P., & Lister, J. (2012). Big brand sustainability: Governance prospects and environmental limits. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 36-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.007
  10. Dawkins, C., & Ngunjiri, F. W. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in South Africa A Descriptive and Comparative Analysis. Journal of Business Communication, 45(3), 286-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608317111
  11. Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Voght, P. (2000, March). Firms' disclosure reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence. In Accounting forum (Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 101-130). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6303.00031
  12. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9503271992
  13. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x
  14. Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. (2007). Organizational change for corporate sustainability. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
  15. Estrada, I., Faems, D., & de Faria, P. (2016). Coopetition and product innovation performance: The role of internal knowledge sharing mechanisms and formal knowledge protection mechanisms. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 56-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.013
  16. Etzkowitz, H., & Viale, R. (2010). Polyvalent knowledge and the entrepreneurial university: A third academic revolution?. Critical Sociology, 36(4), 595-609. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920510365921
  17. Ferus-Comelo, A. (2014). CSR as corporate self-reporting in India's tourism industry. Social Responsibility Journal.
  18. Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88-106. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165018
  19. Galbreath, J. (2006). Corporate social responsibility strategy: strategic options, global considerations. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society.
  20. Handelman, J. M. & Arnold, S. J. (1999). The role of Marketing Actions with a Social Dimension: Appeals to the Institutional Environment. Journal of Marketing, 63 (July), 33-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299906300303
  21. Hernandez-Trasobares, A., & Murillo-Luna, J. L. (2020). The effect of triple helix cooperation on business innovation: The case of Spain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120296
  22. Hoffman, A. (2001). From heresy to dogma: An institutional history of corporate environmentalism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  23. Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management-new perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1), 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006400707757
  24. Jones, T. M. (2016). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. The Corporation and its stakeholders, 205-242.
  25. Kim, H. J. (2018). Multi-stakeholders in public and cultural diplomacies as seen through the lens of public-private partnerships: A comparative case study of Germany and South Korea. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 17(1), 68-93. https://doi.org/10.17477/JCEA.2018.17.1.068
  26. Kim, D., & Nam, Y. (2012). Corporate relations with environmental organizations represented by hyperlinks on the Fortune Global 500 companies' websites. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(4), 475-487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0980-0
  27. Lubin, D., & Esty, D. (2010). The sustainability imperative. Havard Business Review, 88 (May), 42-50.
  28. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and public policy, 23(5), 279-286.
  29. Lu, L. (2008). Creating knowledge-based innovation in China: The strategic implications of triple helix model. Journal of Technology Management in China, 3(3), 249-263. https://doi.org/10.1108/17468770810916168
  30. Martinez, P., & Del Bosque, I. R. (2013). CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of trust, customer identification with the company and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.009
  31. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Profit maximizing corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 504-505.
  32. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of management review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022105
  33. Nam, Y. (2015). Institutional network structure of corporate stakeholders regarding global corporate social responsibility issues. Quality & Quantity, 49(3), 1063-1080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0035-6
  34. Ogden, S., & Watson, R. (1999). Corporate performance and stakeholder management: Balancing shareholder and customer interests in the UK privatized water industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 526-538. https://doi.org/10.2307/256974
  35. Park, H. W. (2014). Transition from the triple helix to N-tuple helices? An interview with Elias G. Carayannis and David FJ Campbell. Scientometrics, 99(1), 203-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1124-3
  36. Park, S., & Park, H. W. (2020). The effects of infotainment on public reaction to North Korea using hybrid text mining: Content analysis, machine learning-based sentiment analysis, and co-word analysis. El Profesional de la Informacion, 29(5).
  37. Park, S., & Park, H. W. (2021). A webometric network analysis of electronic word of mouth (eWOM) characteristics and machine learning approach to consumer comments during a crisis. El Profesional de la Informacion, 29(5). In press.
  38. Park, S., Li, H., & Park, H. W. (2017). Can sustainability information on corporate website reflect CSR strategies?: A semantic network analysis of top companies in South Korea and China. Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society, 19(1), 43-54. https://doi.org/10.37727/jkdas.2017.19.1.43
  39. Phillips, F. (2014). Triple helix and the circle of innovation. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 13(1), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.17477/JCEA.2014.13.1.057
  40. Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 285-301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9729-9
  41. Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advante and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84 (December), 78-92.
  42. Porto-Gomez, I., Aguirre-Larracoechea, U., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2018). Tacit coopetition: chimera or reality? Evidence from the basque country. European Planning Studies, 26(3), 611-634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1402866
  43. Rangan, K., Chase, L., & Karim, S. (2015). The truth about CSR. Harvard Business Review, 93(1/2), 40-49.
  44. Razak, A. A., & Saad, M. (2007). The role of universities in the evolution of the Triple Helix culture of innovation network: The case of Malaysia. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 6(3), 211-225. https://doi.org/10.1386/ijtm.6.3.211_1
  45. Romero, I., Gomez, I. P., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2019). 'Cookpetition': Do restaurants coopete to innovate? Tourism Economics, 25(6), 904-922. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816618811551
  46. Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887-910. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022107
  47. Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534-559. https://doi.org/10.2307/257052
  48. Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (May), 225-243. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838
  49. Serra-Cantallops, A., Pena-Miranda, D. D., Ramon-Cardona, J., & Martorell-Cunill, O. (2018). Progress in research on CSR and the hotel industry (2006-2015). Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 59(1), 15-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965517719267
  50. Sharma, B. (2013). Contextualising CSR in Asia: Corporate social responsibility in Asian Economies. Lien Centre for Social Innovation.
  51. Signitzer, B., & Prexl, A. (2007). Corporate sustainability communications: aspects of theory and professionalization. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627260701726996
  52. Thelwall, M., & Wilkinson, D. (2008). A generic lexical URL segmentation framework for counting links, colinks or URLs. Library & Information Science Research, 30(2), 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.06.009
  53. Van Geenhuizen, N. (2016). Living labs as boundary-spanners between triple helix actors. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 15(1), 78-97. https://doi.org/10.17477/JCEA.2016.15.1.078
  54. Worasinchai, L., Ribiere, V., & Arntzen Bechina, A. A. (2009). The role of knowledge flow in the Thai GUIN version of the triple helix model. Electronic journal of knowledge management, 7(2), 287-296.
  55. Yang, H., & Jung, W.S. (2016). Assessing knowledge structures for public research institutes. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 15(1), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.17477/JCEA.2016.15.1.027
  56. Yoon, J.W., & Park. H.W. (2017). Triple Helix Dynamics of South Korea's Innovation System: A Network Analysis of Inter-Regional Technological Collaborations. Quality & Quantity, 51(3), 989-1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0346-x