Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 91:485500 DOI 10.

1007/s10551-009-0095-z

Springer 2009

The Inuence of Cultural Values on Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: Application of Hofstedes Dimensions to Korean Public Relations Practitioners

Yungwook Kim Soo-Yeon Kim

ABSTRACT. This study explores the relationship between Hofstedes cultural dimensions and public relations practitioners perceptions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in South Korea. The survey on Korean public relations practitioners revealed that, although Hofstedes dimensions significantly affect public relations practitioners perceptions of CSR, social traditionalism values had more explanatory power than cultural dimensions in explaining CSR attitudes. The results suggest that practitioners fundamental ideas about the corporations role in society seem to be more important than their cultural values to understand public relations practitioners CSR attitudes in Korea. KEY WORDS: corporate social responsibility, public relations, Hofstedes cultural dimensions, social traditionalism values, South Korea

Introduction In this era of global competition, most global corporations are conducting various social responsibility programs both domestically and internationally as the publics expectations and activist groups pressure for social legitimacy become stronger than ever before. Pohl (2006) explained that corporate social responsibility (CSR) is not content in and of itself, but instead represents the broad spectrum of a companys corporate culture. The values, beliefs, attitudes, and norms of a company play a pivotal role in conducting CSR. There have been many studies investigating CSR in public relations (e.g., Boynton, 2002; Clark,

2000; Esrock and Leichty, 1998; Kim and Reber, 2008). Public responsibility is understood as a basic concept of, and is sometimes synonymous with, public relations. Grunig and Hunt (1984) noted that public, or social, responsibility has become a major reason for an organization to have a public relations function (p. 48). Frederick (2006) addressed the stakeholder approach as one of the new paradigms used to theorize: CSRs dominant paradigm the stakeholder concept has run its course and now produces few new or theoretically signicant insights (p. 261). Corporate citizenship is another signicant term reecting corporations socially responsible role, and Davenports (2000) rule of good corporate citizenship also emphasized stakeholder commitment as one criterion. Mutually benecial relationships between the various stakeholders and the clients of public relations are the ultimate goal in public relations. CSR can be understood as one of the fundamental strategies of public relations for attaining a mutually benecial relationship between business and society. Kim and Reber (2008) stated that public relations practitioners roles in CSR vary from none to signicant, depending on organizations and individual practitioners values. The signicant inuence of values in CSR means that CSR can vary depending on different cultures and countries. For example, Boardman and Kato (2003) investigated a traditional Japanese concept, Kyosei, to understand culturally specic CSR. As another example, culture and religion are indistinguishable in the Middle East CSR model (Culture and Religion Vital to Middle East CSR model, 2007). However, little is known

486

Yungwook Kim and Soo-Yeon Kim relations practices using Hofstedes cultural dimensions to predict Grunigs models of public relations practice. Grunigs four historical models of public relations are press agentry/publicity, public information, two-way asymmetric, and two-way symmetric models (Grunig and Hunt, 1984). The rst two models are one-way models, which understand that the role of communication is only one way, from sender to receiver; the last two models are twoway models, which emphasize getting feedback from the public, acknowledging the importance of the public. Vasquez and Taylor approached Grunigs public relations models using Hofstedes cultural typology in the USA. Their study found a strong relationship between power distance and the oneway models, as well as collectivism and femininity with the two-way models; this signicantly tied together culture and public relations models. Wu et al. (2001) showed a high correlation of the masculinity dimension with ve of the models of public relations, as well as a strong correlation between collectivism and the two-way symmetrical model in Taiwanese public relations practices. Haruta and Hallahan (2003) found signicant differences in crisis communications of airline crashes between Japan and the USA using Hofstedes ve dimensions of culture. While in Japans strong Confucian culture a public apology was desirable for the crisis, US culture did not expect a public apology due to litigation concerns. The large power distance, high uncertainty avoidance, and masculine cultural characteristics of Japan tended to place one top person as the decisive leader and spokesperson in crisis situations.

about how public relations practitioners perceive, practice, or involve themselves in the role of social responsibility from culturally different perspectives. Culture has been regarded as one of the important elements in business ethical decision-making (Singhapakdi et al., 1994; Su, 2006). Culture is learned within a society, and it affects the basic values in peoples everyday lives. Perceived ethical sensitivity and actual ethical practices are closely related (Vitell et al., 2003). Social responsibility involves the ethics held in common, and it directly relates to the significant role of practitioners in helping organizations to be more socially responsible. People from different cultures and nations must have different programs and different perceptions of the roles corporations play in terms of social responsibility. How do public relations practitioners perceive the role of CSR in a different culture? How does culture affect public relations practitioners perceptions of CSR? These questions have not been answered. This study attempted to ll the gap in the literature regarding the cultural elements that inuence public relations practitioners perceptions of social responsibility. Specically, this study investigated the practices of CSR in South Korea, where the most dominant public relations practice is known as media relations (Jo and Kim, 2004; Shin, 2006).

Literature review Culture and public relations practices A stakeholder is dened as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organizations purpose (Freeman, 1984, p. 53). An often-cited denition of public relations is the management function that identies, establishes, and maintains mutually benecial relationships between an organization and the various publics on whom its success or failure depends (Cutlip et al., 1985, p. 4). Public relations is in charge of stakeholder management for the success of organizations. Cultural differences are a key variable affecting public relations practices (Rhee, 2002; Sriramesh and White, 1992; Vasquez and Taylor, 1999). In international public relations, several studies have investigated how culture affects the nature of public

Hofstedes cultural values Hofstedes cultural dimensions have been used widely to understand business practices (e.g., Christie et al., 2003; Moon and Franke 2000) and public relations practices (e.g., Rhee, 2002; Wu et al., 2001). However, there have been criticisms of Hofstedes cultural studies; for example, McSweeney (2002) criticized the data that Hofstede obtained from IBM employees, noting that it cannot represent national cultural values. Williamson (2002), however, agreed with Hofstede and rejected McSweeneys criticism. Williamson argued that organizational cultures, combined with

Culture and CSR country cultures, can reect national culture, and stated that Hofstedes model can explain relative, not absolute, measures of cultural values (p. 1,388). The Hofstedes cultural value dimensions include individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and longterm/short-term orientation (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). The dimension of individualism/collectivism implies the level of valuing individuals over the collective entity. Individualists are free from collectivistic obligations, but collectivists live in a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups with collectivistic bonds (Hofstede, 2001, p. 225). Individualism/collectivism is the dimension used to differentiate Western and Eastern cultures. The USA, Australia, and Great Britain are individualistic cultures, while Korea, Taiwan, and Indonesia are collectivistic cultures (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Power distance explains the level of hierarchy in a society. Large power distance denotes that power positions are vertically stratied, creating different levels of power status. Malaysia, The Philippines, and Mexico are high-power-distance countries (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Masculinity/ femininity refers to the role of gender in society. Masculine cultures are supposed to be assertive, tough and focused on the material success, while feminine counterparts are supposed to be more modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life (Hofstede, 2001, p. 297). Japan, Italy, and Germany have masculine culture, while Sweden, Norway, and The Netherlands have feminine cultures (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Uncertainty avoidance is a cultures level of tolerance with uncertainty. If less uncertainty can be endured, a society has more rules and standards imposed on individuals. Greece, Japan, and France have high uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Recently, Hofstede added long-term and short-term orientations as the fth dimension of cultural values (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Long-term orientation implies future-oriented values while short-term orientation represents pastand present-oriented values. This dimension is also called Confucian dynamism because it reected the results of a Chinese value survey (CVS) (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Confucian dynamism is more oriented to the future (e.g., perseverance and thrift),

487

which equates to long-term orientation (Hofstede and Bond, 1988). This fth dimension is unique to the East Asian countries of China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, and South Korea (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Many intercultural communication scholars regard South Korea as a society with high collectivism, large power distance, less tolerance of uncertainty, high masculinity, and long-term orientation (Hofstede and Bond, 1988; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Also related to long-term orientation, Confucianism, a main philosophy among South Koreans, has been widely discussed as an essential component to Korean culture (Hofstede and Bond, 1988; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005; Yum, 1987). Fukuyama (1995) classied Korea as a low-trust and family-oriented country under Chinese values. Cultural values among South Koreans are closely related to each other under the inuence of Confucianism. However, empirical results have been far from consistent. Rhee (2002) reported that Korean public relations practitioners showed both individualistic and collectivist values at the same time. The study reports a slightly lower level of power distance than does Hofstedes (1984) study, but still suggests the power distance level of Korean public relations practitioners to be fairly high. Also Korean public relations practitioners possessed both masculinity and femininity, and showed a lower level of Confucianism than in Hofstedes (1991) study. These results imply that Hofstedes model cannot be applied to the Korean situation unilaterally. Korean people who have experienced the drastic social changes since 1980 may possess a large span of cultural variations. The Hofstede model should be interpreted with consideration of individual variations, meaning that diverse cultural characteristics can exist in one culture simultaneously (Martin and Nakayama, 2000).

CSR and cultural inuence Robin and Reidenbach (1987) state that business ethics require that the organization or individual behave in accordance with the carefully thoughtout rules of moral philosophy (p. 45) and that

488

Yungwook Kim and Soo-Yeon Kim typology of cultural dimensions in business and advertising elds. Christie et al. (2003) found a signicant inuence of culture on business managers attitudes toward business ethics and practices in India, Korea, and the USA using Hofstedes typology. This study found that high individualism and low power distance strongly relate to high sensitivity to unethical activities. Blodgett et al.s (2001) research with marketing professionals in Taiwan and the USA suggests that uncertainty avoidance positively affects ethical sensitivity toward various stakeholders, while power distance, individualism, and masculinity negatively affect it. Moon and Franke (2000) compared the cultural inuences of Hofstedes cultural dimensions on advertising practitioners perceptions and practices in Korea and the USA, noting that practitioners in high-uncertainty-avoidance cultures, such as Korea, had less tolerance toward the unethical treatment of suppliers and customers. A few cultural studies have examined the concept of social responsibility in the business world. Maignan (2001) conducted a survey regarding consumers readiness and evaluations about socially responsible organizations in France, Germany, and the USA. The study concluded that French and German consumers more actively support socially responsible businesses than do US consumers. Vitell et al. (2003) examined US marketers perceptions of the role of ethics and social responsibility using Hofstedes cultural dimensions. Their study suggests that the characteristics of low power distance, high uncertainty avoidance, and high Confucian dynamism were positively associated with the perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility.

social responsibility is related to the social contract between business and society (p. 45). Matten (2006) includes business ethics as one of the motivations to engage in CSR. Joyner and Payne (2002) note that ethics/morality and CSR are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are interrelated and somewhat interdependent (p. 301). While ethical sensitivity or business ethics do not directly mean active engagement of CSR, active CSR can be understood as one kind of ethical behavior by corporations. However, the current issue of The Economist (2008) included arguments about criticism on CSR; CSR-related activities should be the job of elected governments, not prot-maximizing companies (p. 4) and CSR is a waste of shareholders money. Traditionally, Friedman, a Nobel-prize-winning economist, argued that the social responsibility of business is to increase its prots (Friedman, 1970). He strongly disagreed that business has a social conscience and argued that prot maximization is the goal of business. His argument is based on organization-oriented goal achievement. Friedmans view was a strongly libertarian view and consequently portrays an individualistic and atomistic society, stressing individual not collective responsibilities (LEtang, 2006, p. 411). According to Mudrack (2007), high social traditionalism is in the same context as a Friedman position and rejects the desirability of business social involvement. However, Wicks (1996) argued, Business ethics a pleonasm rather than oxymoron (p. 114) by objecting to the separation thesis, which sees business and ethics separate. Public relations is rooted in this non-Friedman position in that it considers the large and various publics as its stakeholders and approaches its main goal from the relationship management perspective. Public relations practitioners often view themselves as the consciences of their organizations (Judd, 1989). Hofstedes cultural dimension studies have been widely used in many cross-cultural studies predicting business ethics. Vitell et al. (1993) developed propositions relating the inuence of Hofstedes cultural dimensions on ethical decision-making. The following studies have investigated the ethical attitudes of practitioners, managers or consumers using Hofstedes

The public relations practice status in South Korea Korean public relations practice is still in the publicity stage, the rst in Grunigs model, which emphasizes propagandistic public relations (Jo and Kim, 2004; Kim and Hon, 1998). Kim and Hon conducted a survey with Korean practitioners in 1996 and concluded that most Korean practitioners practice the press agentry and publicity model, although they aspire to practice two-way models.

Culture and CSR This result has been conrmed by other studies (Jo and Kim, 2004; Rhee, 2002). Some studies have indicated that Confucianism, in particular, is a positive factor in excellent public relations (PR). Rhee (2002) examined Hofstedes cultural dimensions of Korean PR practitioners and emphasized how Confucianism and collectivism play a positive role in excellent public relations practice in Korea. Berkowitza and Lees (2004) study concluded that the concept of Cheong a spiritual tie that is the fundamental basis of Korean relationships between reporters and public relations practitioners can positively inuence media relations. However, other studies suggest that Confucianism negatively impacts media relations. Jo and Kim (2004) conducted in-depth interviews and surveys, concluding that Korean practitioners still prefer publicity in their practice. Focusing on the topic of media relations, which is the most important public relations function in Korea, they state, Relationship-oriented media relations comes from the Confucian tradition, which may account for the confusion over ethical standards or moral guidelines expressed by many of the interviewees (p. 299). Kim (2003) notes that the Confucian tradition has deteriorated ethical idealism by discouraging visible benets of sticking to professional ethics (p. 214). There have been a few studies which investigated Korean public relations practitioners perceptions on ethics or CSR. Kim (2003) investigated practitioners perceptions toward individuals ethical ideologies and found that ideology can explain the outcomes of practitioners ethical decision-making. According to Kims study, there are more idealists than relativists among Korean public relations practitioners, and high idealists thought that public interest should be kept during the public relations program at all times (p. 221). Shin (2006) found that Korean corporate public relations practitioners in large global companies devote their time mostly to media relations, followed by consumer relations, internal relations, and CSR. Their perception of the important aspects of public relations is a bit different from their actual practice, as media relations is considered the most important, followed by consumer relations, CSR, investor relations, and internal relations. To summarize, CSR was perceived by practitioners to be a more valued aspect of public relations (ranking third in importance) than it actu-

489

ally was in practice (ranking fourth). So far, very few studies have been conducted regarding how culture affects public relations practitioners ethical perceptions in Korea.

Research questions and hypotheses According to Grunigs model, Korean public relations practice is still in the publicity stage, i.e., the rst model (Jo and Kim, 2004; Kim and Hon, 1998). However, the hope for change is high, and CSR is increasingly accepted as a general practice of public relations. Rhee (2002) investigated Korean public relations practitioners practices as they related to cultural dimensions, concluding, Overall, culture was found to be related to public relations practices and excellence in public relations. Except for the masculinity dimension, all cultural dimensions had statistically signicant relationships with excellence index (p. 176). Rhee showed the possibility that cultural dimensions could explain public relations practices in Korea. Recognizing individual differences of corporate responsibility perceptions among Korean public relations practitioners, this study focuses on practitioners cultural values and their perceptions of CSR. Williamson (2002) supported the idea of Hofstedes cultural dimensions, describing them as manifestations of national culture, rather than as direct measures of national cultures (p. 1388). Hofstedes cultural dimensions were used in this study to measure Korean practitioners cultural values because the goal of this study was not to point out Korean national culture itself, but to examine the relationship between cultural values and CSR perceptions among public relations professionals. Before testing the relationship between cultural values and perceptions of CSR, the study tested social traditionalism, the inuence of individual preferences for corporate responsibility on the perceptions of CSR, by using the dichotomy of a protoriented Friedman and pro-CSR non-Friedman groups. This study is based on the premised similarity between Friedman and high social traditionalism, referred to herein as Friedman and non-Friedman perspectives, respectively. Friedman groups means a prot-oriented anti-CSR approach, whereas nonFriedman groups means a pro-CSR approach. Research questions were established as follows:

490
RQ1:

Yungwook Kim and Soo-Yeon Kim September 2007. The total number of initial practitioners was 240 and the survey was distributed to practitioners who had agreed in advance to participate in the study. In total, 150 practitioners (62.5%) agreed to participate in the survey.

How do Korean public relations practitioners perceive CSR from both Friedman and nonFriedman perspectives? RQ2: What are the relationships between Hofstedes cultural values and public relations practitioners perceptions of CSR? What differences occur when social traditionalism is considered at the same time? Among Hofstedes ve cultural values, the following two dimensions showed comparatively consistent results in the previous literature. Power distance is highly correlated with Grunigs one-way models, the press agentry and public information models, which contain comparatively less-ethical behaviors (Vasquez and Taylor, 1999). Uncertainty avoidance positively affects peoples ethical sensitivity toward various stakeholders (Blodgett et al., 2001). Two hypotheses are proposed: Large power distance negatively affects Korean public relations practitioners perceptions of CSR. H2: High uncertainty avoidance positively affects Korean public relations practitioners perceptions of CSR.
H1:

Survey instrument Korean public relations practitioners cultural dimensions, and perceptions of social traditionalism and CSR were examined. Social traditionalism represents the so-called Friedman prot-oriented approach, and the CSR instrument asks about different positions toward CSR through the lens of practitioners. The survey instrument is a self-administered questionnaire containing primarily closedended questions. The survey instrument includes 28 items to measure cultural dimensions, 10 items for social traditionalism, 14 items to measure CSR, and sociodemographic items. For those measures, the response choices consist of modied Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The nal questionnaire was translated from English to Korean by one researcher and validated by the other researcher after discussing discrepancies.

Methodology Scale items of Hofstedes dimensions Sample selection Korean practitioners from the public relations or external communication departments of diverse organizations and public relations rms were chosen as the study population. Since a complete sample frame for public relations practitioners does not exist in South Korea, a purposive sampling was used. Specically, the directory of the Korea Professional Advanced Public Relations Program (KPAPR), the well-known training program for public relations practitioners, was used for sample selection. KPAPR is an educational program for experienced public relations practitioners who actively seek new trends and knowledge. Thus, the survey participants can to some extent represent the perceptions of average practitioners in Korea. The survey questionnaire was distributed and collected by the research workers and was complemented by an email survey in The scales for measuring power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity, and Confucian dynamism in Hofstedes dimensions were adopted from Vitell et al. (2003), which examined marketers perceptions of the role of ethics and social responsibility using Hofstedes cultural dimensions. They developed power distance scales from Hofstedes (1984) power distance scale and Gordons (1976) greater conformity scale. Uncertainty avoidance scales come from Hofstede (1984), Norton (1975), Voich (1995), and Budner (1962). The individualism items are from Hofstede (1984), Triandis et al. (1988), Voich (1995), and Yamaguchi (1994). Masculinity items were adopted from Hofstede (1984) and Voich (1995). Confucian dynamism items were taken from the Chinese Culture Connection (1987) study and from Schwartz (1992). Other femininity and collectivism dimensions are adopted from Wu

Culture and CSR et al.s (2001) study, which adopted the items from Hofstede (1984) and Vasquez and Taylor (1999).

491

Scale items for dening attitudes towards social responsibility To estimate practitioners attitudes towards corporate responsibility, this study used 10 social traditionalism measures and 14 social responsibility measures. Social traditionalism measures were revised from Mudrack (2007). Mudrack tied Friedman perspectives in with high social traditionalism because both believed that managerial responsibilities should appropriately focus on prots and maximizing shareholder wealth, as opposed also to focusing on a broad range of stakeholders (p. 51). High social traditionalism implies prot-oriented CSR espoused by Freidman. Social responsibility measures are adapted from Ryan (1986), who measured public relations practitioners views of CSR, which is comprised of three dimensions (the relationship of social responsibility to good business practice, the commitment needed to ensure that a corporation is serious about social responsibility, and the role of public relations practitioners in helping a corporation act responsibly). This study explored Korean practitioners CSR perspectives in four dimensions including the three CSR models for each dimension and a CSR model that combines all three dimensions. This approach allowed CSR attitudes to be analyzed from various perspectives.

Analysis The study used t-tests to compare means of the Friedman and non-Friedman groups in RQ1. For RQ2 and hypotheses, linear regressions were conducted to test the causal relationships proposed. Statistical signicance was established at the level of 0.05. SPSS version 12 was used for data analysis.

Results Description of respondents Descriptive analysis was conducted to nd out demographic proles of the sample. Among the total

of 150 respondents, 93 (62.0%) were female and 57 (38.0%) were male practitioners. Regarding age, 72 practitioners (48.0%) were in their 20s, 56 (37.3%) were in their 30s, and 22 (14.7%) were over 40; mean age for the sample was 32 years. Fifty-eight practitioners (38.7%) had majored in mass communications including public relations, 69 (46.0%) had studied social science, 5 (3.3%) natural science, and 17 (11.3%) other majors. There were 86 public relations specialists (57.3%), 54 managers (26.0%), 3 directors (2.0%), and 4 others (2.7%). Regarding the type of organization they worked for, 69 (46.0%) worked for a public relations agency, 54 (36.0%) for a corporation, 11 (7.3%) for an organization type, 9 (6.0%) for a government type, and 7 (4.7%) for others. Regarding length of work experience in public relations, 55 practitioners (37.4%) had worked for less than 2 years, 52 (35.4%) for 25 years, 27 (18.4%) for 510 years, and 13 (8.8%) for more than 10 years. Mean length of PR practice was 4 years 3 months (Table I). The cultural values of Korean public relations practitioners were measured. Both femininity (M = 6.03, SD = 0.68) and masculinity (M = 5.84, SD = 0.73) showed high scores. Uncertainty avoidance (M = 5.61, SD = 0.83), Confucian dynamism (M = 5.56, SD = 0.79), and collectivism (M = 5.55, SD = 0.84) followed. Comparatively, power distance (M = 3.55, SD = 0.94) and individualism (M = 3.17, SD = 0.95) showed lower scores. These results reect different aspects of cultural values among Korean public relations practitioners compared even with the quite recent Hofstede and Hofstedes study (2005). These results verify the explicit variations of cultural values among Korean practitioners who do not follow Hofstedes generalization (Table II). The level of social traditionalism among Korean practitioners was estimated. Among ten items, the statement, Prots should be the key gauge of how well a rm is fullling its social role, ranked the highest (M = 4.30, SD = 1.65), but was still at a neutral level. Practitioners disagreed the most with the statement, Firms do not have to actively search for new ways to use their excess resources to improve society (M = 2.30, SD = 1.02). Overall, Korean practitioners seemed to disagree with Friedmans point of view by emphasizing diverse CSR roles for improving society (Table III).

492
TABLE I

Yungwook Kim and Soo-Yeon Kim Construction of measures Although scale validity was borrowed from previous studies (Mudrack, 2007; Ryan, 1986; Vitell et al., 2003), the reliability test was conducted again for various scales. Cronbachs alphas for Hofstedes cultural dimensions were as follows: power distance 0.72, uncertainty avoidance 0.70, individualism 0.59, collectivism 0.71, masculinity 0.60, femininity 0.84, and Confucian dynamism 0.70. Cronbachs alphas for the four different CSR models were as follows: good business model 0.78, commitment model 0.56, PR role model 0.70, and total CSR mean model 0.79. Cronbachs alpha for social traditionalism was 0.65. Scales that have Cronbachs alpha above 0.70 are considered to have adequate internal reliability (Nunnally, 1994). However, John and Benet-Martinez (2000) note that an alpha of 0.70 is not a benchmark every scale must pass (p. 346) but rather a guide. Therefore, even though alphas for the scales of individualism, masculinity, commitment model, and social traditionalism were less than 0.70, they were included in the analysis.

Frequencies of gender, age, major, title, organization type, and length of PR practice Frequency (%) Gender Female Male Age 20s 30s Over 40 Major Social science Mass communications including PR Natural science Other majors Title PR specialist Manager Director Other titles Organization type PR agency Corporation Organization Government Other organizations Length of PR practice Less than 2 years 25 years 510 years More than 10 years

93 (62.0) 57 (38.0) 72 (48.0) 56 (37.3) 22 (14.7) 69 58 5 17 86 54 3 4 69 54 11 9 7 55 52 27 13 (46.0) (38.7) (3.3) (11.3) (57.3) (26.0) (2.0) (2.7) (46.0) (36.0) (7.3) (6.0) (4.7) (37.4) (35.4) (18.4) (8.8)

Perceptions of CSR from the Friedman and non-Friedman groups Differences between the Friedman and non-Friedman groups based on social traditionalism were investigated to see how the differences of social traditionalism inuence public relations practitioners perceptions towards CSR (RQ1). The Friedman and non-Friedman groups were divided according to social traditionalism mean scores. The upper 40% of individuals were dened as a Friedman group, and the lower 40% as a non-Friedman group. The middle 20% were deleted for analysis. Even though most practitioners preferred the non-Friedman approach, the analysis was conducted to see whether the degree of preference inuenced perceptions of CSR. Thus the Friedman and non-Friedman groups actually represent the low- and high-CSR groups. The group differences between the Friedman (M = 4.94, SD = 0.50) and non-Friedman (M = 5.58, SD = 0.60) groups were signicant (t = 6.43, p < 0.01). For the relationship of social responsibility to good business practices, the Friedman (M = 5.43, SD = 0.76) and non-Friedman (M =6.17,

TABLE II Means and standard deviations for Hofstedes dimensions Dimensions Femininity Masculinity Uncertainty avoidance Confucian dynamism Collectivism Power distance Individualism M 6.03 5.84 5.61 5.56 5.55 3.55 3.17 SD 0.68 0.73 0.83 0.79 0.84 0.94 0.95

Likert-type items were scored from 1 to 7, with 7 being most positive.

Culture and CSR

TABLE III Means and standard deviations for social traditionalism Items Firms do not have to actively search for new ways to use their excess resources to improve societya We would be better off if companies simply tried to maximize their own prots subject to legal constraints Decisions concerning social issues are the province of governmental policy makers, not of corporate executives Prots should be the key gauge of how well a rm is fullling its social role Most actions taken by rms to improve society will not ultimately help shareholdersa The business of business is business, not social activism Prots and actions in the social sphere generally do not mix The benets to rms of socially responsible actions are often not underemphasizeda Corporate executives who declare that they will take socially responsible actions are guilty of assuming that they know whats best for society It is enough for rms merely to meet minimum legal constraints. Active social involvement and concerned use of excess resources are not neededa
a

493

M 2.30 3.60 2.77 4.30 2.58 3.81 2.72 3.20 4.15 2.60

SD 1.02 1.58 1.58 1.65 1.16 1.63 1.31 1.21 1.31 1.30

Likert-type items were scored from 1 to 7, with 7 being most positive. Items were partly restated for the proper valence with other items in this table.

SD = 0.75) groups showed a statistically signicant difference (t = 4.43, p < 0.01). Also for the role of public relations practitioners in helping a corporation act responsibly, the Friedman (M =5.58, SD = 0.61) and non-Friedman (M = 6.39, SD = 0.72) groups indicated a signicant difference (t = 6.79, p < 0.01). However, no group difference was found on the commitment needed to ensure that a corporation is serious about social responsibility. Overall, the results indicated that the non-Friedman group showed more positive attitudes about the issues of socially responsible activities than the Friedman group (Table IV).

Relationships between Hofstedes cultural values, CSR models, and social traditionalism Before conducting the regression analysis, the correlation coefcients between seven Hofstedes dimensions, four CSR models, and the social traditionalism mean were checked. Individualism was correlated negatively with CSR models, while uncertainty avoidance, collectivism, masculinity, femininity, and Confucian dynamism were correlated positively with CSR. In CSR attitudes, positive correlations were found between four different CSR models. Social

TABLE IV Mean estimates of Friedman and non-Friedman groups M (for Friedman) Good business Commitment PR role Total CSR mean 5.43 4.60 5.58 4.94 M (for non-Friedman) 6.17 4.96 6.39 5.58 t-Value 5.43* 1.82 6.79* 6.43*

n = 125; df = 123; Independent samples t-test at *p < 0.01.

494

Yungwook Kim and Soo-Yeon Kim CSR attitudes negatively (t = -2.71, p < 0.01). In the CSR PR role model, Hofstedes dimensions with social traditionalism affected CSR attitudes at the 0.01 level [F(8,138) = 13.60, p < 0.01] and R2 was 0.44. Uncertainty avoidance (t = 2.26, p < 0.05) and Confucianism (t = 2.89, p < 0.01) affected CSR attitudes positively, and social traditionalism affected CSR attitudes negatively (t = -4.74, p < 0.01). In the total CSR mean model, Hofstedes dimensions with social traditionalism affected CSR attitudes at the 0.01 level [F(8,138) = 14.20, p < 0.01] and R2 was 0.45. Therefore, except for the CSR commitment model, social traditionalism negatively affected CSR attitudes signicantly. The results indicate that social traditionalism has more explanatory power than do cultural value variables. The negative inuence of the Friedman perspective precedes cultural values.

traditionalism correlated negatively with most Hofstedes values and all four CSR models (Table V). A linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between public relations practitioners Hofstedes cultural values and perceptions of CSR (RQ2). Only signicant results were reported. In the CSR good business practice model, Hofstedes dimensions affected practitioners perceptions of CSR at the 0.01 level [F(7,141) = 7.49, p < 0.01] and R2 was 0.27. In this model, collectivism (t = 3.34, p < 0.01) and Confucianism (t = 2.07, p < 0.05) signicantly affected CSR. In the CSR commitment model, Hofstedes dimensions affected practitioners perceptions of CSR at the 0.01 level [F(7,141) = 3.10, p < 0.01] and R2 was 0.13. In this model, individualism negatively affected CSR attitudes (t = -2.47, p < 0.05). In the CSR PR role model, Hofstedes dimensions affected CSR perceptions at the 0.01 level [F(7,141) = 10.68, p < 0.01] and R2 was 0.35. Power distance negatively affected CSR attitudes (t = -2.56, p < 0.05), and uncertainty avoidance (t = 2.54, p < 0.05), collectivism (t = 2.77, p < 0.01), and Confucianism (t = 3.37, p < 0.01) positively affected CSR attitudes. In the total CSR mean model, Hofstedes dimensions affected practitioners perceptions of CSR at the 0.01 level [F(7,141) = 11.11, p < 0.01] and R2 was 0.36. Uncertainty avoidance (t = 2.18, p < 0.05), collectivism (t = 2.83, p < 0.01), and Confucianism (t = 3.51, p < 0.01) affected CSR attitudes positively. All four models predicting practitioners CSR attitudes with Hofstedes dimensions were signicant. Collectivism, Confucianism, and uncertainty avoidance positively affected CSR attitudes, although individualism and power distance negatively affected CSR attitudes (Table VI). Social traditionalism was added into a linear regression analysis. Only the signicant variables are reported in Table VII. In the CSR good business model, Hofstedes dimensions with social traditionalism affected CSR attitudes at the 0.01 level [F(8,140) = 10.00, p < 0.01] and R2 was 0.36. Collectivism affected CSR attitudes positively (t = 2.53, p < 0.05) and social traditionalism affected CSR attitudes negatively (t = -4.51, p < 0.01). In the CSR commitment model, Hofstedes dimensions with social traditionalism affected CSR perceptions at the 0.01 level [F(8,140) = 3.00, p < 0.01] and R2 was 0.15. Individualism affected

Hypothesis testing for causal relationships H1 asks whether large power distance negatively affects Korean public relations practitioners perceptions of CSR. H1 was not supported. Only in the PR role model did power distance signicantly affect Korean public relations practitioners perceptions of CSR. Other models, including the total CSR model, did not show any signicant inuence. H2 tests whether high uncertainty avoidance positively affects Korea public relations practitioners perceptions of CSR. H2 was supported. In a total CSR model as well as in a PR role model predicting public relations practitioners perceptions of CSR, uncertainty avoidance positively affected Korean public relations practitioners perceptions of CSR.

Conclusions and discussion This study mainly explored the relationship between public relations practitioners Hofstedes cultural values and perceptions of CSR in South Korea. Korean public relations practitioners exhibited high femininity, high masculinity, high Confucian dynamism, high uncertainty avoidance, and high collectivism, though they showed low power distance and low individualism in Hofstedes cultural values. In

TABLE V

Pearson product-moment correlation coefcients for Hofstedes dimensions, CSR models, and social traditionalism 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Culture and CSR

1. Hofstede power distance 0.153 0.198* -0.108 0.178* 0.058 0.050 -0.019 0.011 -0.164* -0.117 0.156 2. Hofstede uncertainty avoidance -0.139 0.208* 0.371** 0.381** 0.432** 0.220** 0.243** 0.353** 0.351** -0.195* 3. Hofstede individualism -0.236** -0.186* -0.241** -0.205* -0.189* -0.238** -0.146 -0.225** -0.012 4. Hofstede collectivism 0.243** 0.328** 0.499** 0.442** 0.155 0.435** 0.452** -0.342** 5. Hofstede masculinity 0.472** 0.317** 0.198* 0.071 0.182* 0.179* -0.035 6. Hofstede femininity 0.505** 0.350** 0.123 0.294** 0.324** -0.276** 7. Hofstede Confucian dynamism 0.428** 0.266** 0.495 0.518** -0.346** 8. Good business 0.449** 0.595** 0.797** -0.475** 9. Commitment 0.298** 0.672** -0.174* 10. PR role 0.880** -0.522** 11. Total CSR mean -0.513** 12. Social traditionalism mean

n = 150. *Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

495

496

Yungwook Kim and Soo-Yeon Kim

TABLE VI Regression for the Hofstedes dimensions and CSR models

Variable

B (SE)

1. CSR: Good business Collectivism 0.275 Confucianism 0.201 F = 7.494, p = 0.000, R2 = 0.27 2. CSR: Commitment Individualism -0.249 F = 3.104, p = 0.004, R2 = 0.134 3. CSR: PR role Power distance -0.155 Uncertainty avoidance 0.193 Collectivism 0.209 Confucianism 0.301 F = 10.68, p = 0.000, R2 = 0.350 4. Total CSR means Uncertainty avoidance 0.135 Collectivism 0.175 Confucianism 0.256 F = 11.112, p = 0.000, R2 = 0.359

0.082 0.097

0.285 0.198

3.341 2.068

0.001 0.040

0.101

-0.208

-2.473

0.015

0.061 0.076 0.076 0.089

-0.185 0.203 0.225 0.306

-2.558 2.541 2.765 3.372

0.012 0.012 0.006 0.001

0.062 0.062 0.073

0.173 0.229 0.316

2.181 2.827 3.507

0.031 0.005 0.001

TABLE VII Regression for the Hofstedes dimensions, social traditionalism, and CSR models Variable B B (SE) b t p

1. CSR: Good business Collectivism 0.200 Social traditionalism -0.411 F = 9.995, p = 0.000, R2 = 0.364 2. CSR: Commitment Individualism -0.276 F = 3.003, p = 0.004, R2 = 0.146 3. CSR: PR role Uncertainty avoidance 0.160 Confucianism 0.243 Social traditionalism -0.394 F = 13.600, p = 0.000, R2 = 0.441 4. Total CSR means Confucianism 0.207 Social traditionalism -0.327 F = 14.197, p = 0.000, R2 = 0.451

0.079 0.091

0.207 -0.348

2.529 -4.507

0.013 0.000

0.102

-0.231

-2.707

0.008

0.071 0.084 0.083

0.169 0.247 -0.345

2.261 2.892 -4.742

0.025 0.004 0.000

0.068 0.068

0.256 -0.348

3.033 -4.828

0.003 0.000

Hofstede and Hofstede (2005), Korea ranked low in uncertainty avoidance, and in Rhees study (2002) Korean public relations practitioners showed both individualistic and collectivist values at the same

time, and a slightly lower level of power distance than in Hofstedes (1984) study, but still at a fairly high level. In this sense, Hofstedes cultural dimensions in this study showed different and more varied

Culture and CSR cultural values than in previous studies. Different cultural value outcomes reect dynamic social changes currently underway in Korean society (Kim et al., 2008). Also, several studies have criticized the unilateral categorization of one culture (Martin and Nakayama, 2000; Merkin, 2005). This study demonstrates exible application of cultural values, even though traditional values such as collectivism and Confucianism still play pivotal roles in Korean society. Korean public relations practitioners perceptions of CSR were estimated by a social traditionalism measure using the terms Friedman and non-Friedman. Overall, Korean practitioners CSR perceptions were quite positive, even from the Friedman group, who keep to a prot-maximization approach. Four dimensions of CSR attitudes were also tested respectively as dependent variables. The three dimensions measure the relationship of social responsibility to good business practice, the commitment needed to ensure that a corporation is serious about social responsibility, and the role of public relations practitioners in helping a corporation act responsibly. Also, a total CSR mean model was tested that combined all three of the dimensions mentioned above. Except for the commitment model, the nonFriedman group showed signicantly more positive attitudes towards CSR than did the Friedman group in the other three models. Therefore, this shows that there is a clear difference in Korean public relations practitioners CSR perceptions according to their original understanding about the role of business. Hofstedes cultural values were signicantly related to public relations practitioners perceptions of CSR in Korea. Each of the four CSR models showed that Hofstedes cultural values signicantly explained practitioners CSR perceptions. Among the seven dimensions of Hofstedes cultural values, collectivism, Confucianism, and uncertainty avoidance consistently showed a positive relationship with CSR attitudes, while individualism and power distance partly showed negative relationships with CSR perception. Collectivism and Confucian dynamism emphasize collectivistic and societal values, in contrast to individualism. Uncertainty avoidance stresses risk-free and desired formal rules and regulations to ensure certainty and stability (Vitell et al., 2003, p. 74). CSR-related activities seem to be interpreted by public relations practitioners as one means to guar-

497

antee the success of both the organization and society at the same time. Confucianism and collectivism are still deeply rooted in Korean society and high uncertainty avoidance is also a key Korean cultural value. In this sense, traditional Korean cultural values are in harmony with the CSR philosophy, and this generally supports the great potential for Korean public relations practices to engage in CSR that is not incongruent with their cultural values. Korean public relations practitioners showed low power distance, and power distance did not signicantly affect their perceptions of CSR, though it was partly negatively affected. Rhee (2002) found that power distance negatively correlated with ethical and symmetrical communication of Korean public relations practitioners. In the meantime, the degree of power distance is changing from high to low, varies from one person to another, and cannot explain public relations practitioners perception of CSR. When comparing social traditionalism with Hofstedes cultural values, social traditionalism explained public relations practitioners CSR attitudes more signicantly than did Hofstedes dimensions. Even though cultural values are important enough to inuence public relations practitioners individual perceptions of CSR, practitioners fundamental ideas about the corporations role in society seem to be more important than their cultural values. The results conrmed that the enlarged meaning of social responsibility overcoming prot orientation is becoming a norm among Korean public relations practitioners. This study attempted to understand Korean public relations practitioners perceptions on CSR from the multidimensional perspectives of cultural values and social traditionalism. Hofstedes cultural values affect public relations practitioners perceptions of CSR. However, the cultural values were not identical to those in Hofstedes original study about general Korean public in 1984 as well as in other previous studies about Korean public relations practitioners (e.g., Rhee, 2002). Also, the study results suggest that different cultural values have hierarchical effects on the perceptions of CSR. Even though Hofstedes cultural values have some explanatory power regarding Korean public relations practitioners perceptions toward CSR, it should be emphasized that individual differences coexist with common

498

Yungwook Kim and Soo-Yeon Kim

Boardman, C. M. and H. K. Kato: 2003, The Confucian Roots of Business Kyosei, Journal of Business Ethics 48(4), 317333. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000005799.31770.57. Boynton, L. A.: 2002, Professionalism and Social Responsibility: Foundations of Public Relations Ethics, Communication Yearbook 26, 230265. doi:10.1207/ s15567419cy2601_7. Budner, S.: 1962, Intolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable, Journal of Personality 30, 2950. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x. Christie, P. M., I. G. Kwon, P. A. Stoeberl and R. Baumhart: 2003, A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Ethical Attitudes of Business Managers. India, Korea and the United States, Journal of Business Ethics 46(3), 263287. doi:10.1023/A:1025501426590 Clark, C. E.: 2000, Differences Between Public Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility: An Analysis, Public Relations Review 26(3), 363380. doi:10.1016/ S0363-8111(00)00053-9. Culture and Religion Vital to Middle East CSR Model: 2007, Business & the Environment with ISO 14000 Updates 18(1), 67. Cutlip, S. M., A. H. Center and G. M. Broom: 1985, Effective Public Relations, 6th Edition (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ). Davenport, K.: 2000, Corporate Citizenship: A Stakeholder Approach for Dening Corporate Social Performance and Identifying Measures for Assessing It, Business & Society 39(2), 210. doi:10.1177/000765 030003900205. Esrock, S. L. and G. B. Leichty: 1998, Social Responsibility and Corporate Web Pages: Self-Presentation or Agenda-Setting?, Public Relations Review 24(3), 305 319. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80142-8. Frederick, W. C.: 2006, Corporation, Be Good!: The Story of Corporate Social Responsibility (Dog Ear Publishing, Indianapolis, IN). Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman, Boston, MA). Friedman, M.: 1970, The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Prots, New York Times Magazine, September 13. Fukuyama, F.: 1995, Trust (Free Press, New York, NY). Gordon, L. V.: 1976, Survey of Interpersonal Values-Revised Manual (Science Research Associates, Chicago). Grunig, J. E. and T. Hunt: 1984, Managing Public Relations (Rinehart and Winston, New York). Haruta, A. and K. Hallahan: 2003, Cultural Issues in Airline Crisis Communications, Asian Journal of Communication 13(2), 122150. Hofstede, G.: 1984, Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Abbreviated edition (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA).

cultural values. Not only the culture in one country but also individual differences should be intertwined to understand the whole picture. In this sense, negative attitudes toward social traditionalism may create the momentum to diversify CSR activities in Korea.

Limitations and directions for future study There are limitations to this study. First of all, the seemingly signicant limitation to this study is that its sample frame was a purposive sampling from the directory of the KPAPR. In that sense, the results of this study are hard to generalize to the practices of all Korean public relations practitioners. However, the KPAPR group is one of the most well-known training programs for public relations practitioners, and the participants of the survey can to some extent represent the perceptions of average practitioners in Korea. The overrepresentation of females in their 20s could bias the results of this study. Even though it is true that young female public relations practitioners dominate the industry, they do not have the power to decide and engage in CSR programs, which are decided mainly by the dominant coalition role. Future studies should ask practitioners who actually run CSR programs to compare descriptive and normative perceptions. Acknowledging the signicance of cultural differences in international public relations, future studies can evaluate and compare public relations practitioners CSR perceptions in various countries and cultures. Those future studies would also attempt to nd if there are any consistent cultural or individual values to emphasize CSR in public relations.

References
Berkowitza, D. and J. Lee: 2004, Media Relations in Korea: Cheong Between Journalist and Public Relations Practitioner, Public Relations Review 30(4), 431 437. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2004.08.011. Blodgett, J. G., L.-C. Lu, G. M. Rose and S. J. Vitell: 2001, Ethical Sensitivity to Stakeholder Interests: A CrossCultural Comparison, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 29(2), 190202. doi:10.1177/03079459 994551.

Culture and CSR

Hofstede, G.: 1991, Culture and Organization: Software of the Mind (McGraw Hill, London). Hofstede, G.: 2001, Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd Edition (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA). Hofstede, G. and M. H. Bond: 1988, The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic Growth, Organizational Dynamics 16(4), 521. doi:10. 1016/0090-2616(88)90009-5. Hofstede, G. and G. J. Hofstede: 2005, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 2nd Edition (McGraw Hill, New York, NY). Jo, S. and Y. Kim: 2004, Media or Personal Relations? Exploring Media Relations Dimensions in South Korea, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 81(2), 292306. John, O. P. and V. Benet-Martinez: 2000, Measurement: Reliability, Construct, Validation, and Scale Construction, in H. T. Reis and C. M. Judd (eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY)), pp. 339369. Joyner, B. E. and D. Payne: 2002, Evolution and Implementation: A Study of Values, Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics 41, 297311. doi:10.1023/A:1021237420663. Judd, L. R.: 1989, Credibility, Public Relations and Social Responsibility, Public Relations Review 15(2), 3440. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(89)80052-9. Just Good Business: A Special Report on Corporate Social Responsibility (2008, January 19). The Economist. Kim, Y.: 2003, Ethical Standards and Ideology among Korean Public Relations Practitioners, Journal of Business Ethics 42(3), 209223. doi:10.1023/A:102228 1507601. Kim, Y., H. Cha and J. Kim: 2008, Developing a Crisis Management Index: Applications in South Korea, Journal of Public Relations Research 20(3), 328355. doi:10.1080/10627260801962962. Kim, Y. and L. C. Hon: 1998, Craft and Professional Models of Public Relations and Their Relation to Job Satisfaction among Korean Public Relations Practitioners, Journal of Public Relations Research 10(3), 155 175. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1003_01. Kim, S.-Y. and B. H. Reber: 2008, Public Relations Place in Corporate Social Responsibility: Practitioners Dene Their Role, Public Relations Review 34, 337 342. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.07.003. LEtang, J.: 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility and Public Relations Ethics, in J. LEtang and M. Pieczka (eds.), Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice (LEA, NJ), pp. 405421.

499

Maignan, I.: 2001, Consumers Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities: A Cross-Cultural Comparison, Journal of Business Ethics 30, 5772. doi:10.1023/ A:1006433928640. Martin, J. N. and T. K. Nakayama: 2000, Intercultural Communication in Contexts (Mayeld, London). Matten, D.: 2006, Why do Companies Engage in Corporate Social Responsibility? Background, Reasons and Basic Concepts, in J. Hennigfeld, M. Pohl and N. Tolhurst (eds.), The ICCA Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility (Wiley, West Sussex), pp. 346. McSweeney, B.: 2002, Hofstedes Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith A Failure of Analysis, Human Relations 55(1), 89118. Merkin, R.: 2005, Measuring Culture: The Utility of Verifying Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions, in W. J. Starosta and G. M. Chen (eds.), International and Intercultural Annual (Sage, Newbury Park, CA), pp. 257 274. Moon, Y. and G. R. Franke: 2000, Cultural Inuences on Agency Practitioners Ethical Perceptions: A Comparison of Korea and the U.S., Journal of Advertising 29(1), 5165. Mudrack, P.: 2007, Individual Personality Factors that Affect Normative Beliefs about the Rightness of Corporate Social Responsibility, Business & Society 46(1), 3362. doi:10.1177/0007650306290312. Norton, R. W.: 1975, Measurement of Ambiguity Tolerance, Journal of Personality Assessment 39(6), 607 619. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa3906_11. Nunnally, J. C.: 1994, Psychometric Theory, 3rd Edition (McGraw Hill, New York, NY). Pohl, M.: 2006, Corporate Culture and Csr How They Interrelate and Consequences for Successful Implementation, in J. Hennigfeld, M. Pohl and N. Tolhurst (eds.), The ICCA Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility (Wiley, West Sussex), pp. 4759. Rhee, Y.: 2002, Global Public Relations: A CrossCultural Study of the Excellence Theory in South Korea, Journal of Public Relations Research 14(3), 159 184. doi:10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1403_1. Robin, D. P. and R. E. Reidenbach: 1987, Social Responsibility, Ethics, and Marketing Strategy: Closing the Gap Between Concept and Application, Journal of Marketing 51, 4458. doi:10.2307/1251143. Ryan, M.: 1986, Public Relations Practitioners Views of Corporate Social Responsibility, The Journalism Quarterly 63(4), 740762. Schwartz, S. H.: 1992, Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries, Advances in Experimental

500

Yungwook Kim and Soo-Yeon Kim

Vitell, S. J., J. G. P. Paolillo and J. L. Thomas: 2003, The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility: A Study of Marketing Professionals, Business Ethics Quarterly 13(1), 6386. Voich, D.: 1995, Comparative Empirical Analysis of Cultural Values and Perceptions of Political Economy Issues (Praeger, Westport, CT). Wicks, A. C.: 1996, Overcoming the Separation Thesis: The Need for a Reconsideration of Business and Society Research, Business and Society 35(1), 89118. Williamson, D.: 2002, Forward from a Critique of Hofstedes Model of National Culture, Human Relations 55(11), 13731395. Wu, M., M. Taylor and M. Chen: 2001, Exploring Societal and Cultural Inuences on Taiwanese Public Relations, Public Relations Review 27, 317336. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(01)00089-3. Yamaguchi, S.: 1994, Collectivism Among the Japanese: A Perspective from the Self, in U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi and G. Yoon (eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Applications (Sage, London), pp. 175188. Yum, J. O.: 1987, Korean Philosophy and Communication, in D. L. Kincaid (ed.), Communications Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives (Academic, San Diego, CA), pp. 7186.

Social Psychology 25, 165. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601 (08)60281-6. Shin, H. J.: 2006 Analysis of the Perception and Reality of Integrated Communications (IMC) in Corporate Public Relations: A Study of South Korea, unpublished masters thesis (University of Florida, Gainesville, FL). Singhapakdi, A., S. J. Vitell and O. Leelakulthanit: 1994, A Cross-Cultural Study of Moral Philosophies, Ethical Perceptions and Judgments: A Comparison of American and Thai Marketers, International Marketing Review 11(6), 6578. doi:10.1108/02651339410073015. Sriramesh, K. and J. White: 1992, Societal Culture and Public Relations, in J. E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Erlbaum, Hillside, NJ), pp. 597614. Su, S.: 2006, Cultural Differences in Determining the Ethical Perception and Decision-making of Future Accounting Professionals: A Comparison Between Accounting Students from Taiwan and the United States, The Journal of American Academy of Business 9(1), 147158. The Chinese Culture Connection: 1987, Chinese Values and the Search for Culture-Free Dimensions of Culture, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 18(2), 143164. doi:10.1177/0022002187018002002. Triandis, H. C., R. Bontempo, M. Villareal, M. Asai and N. Lucca: 1988, Individualism and Collectivism: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Self-Ingroup Relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(2), 323338. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323. Vasquez, G. M. and M. Taylor: 1999, What Cultural Values Inuence American Public Relations Practitioners?, Public Relations Review 25(4), 433449. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(99)00030-2. Vitell, S. J., S. L. Nwachukwu and J. H. Barnes: 1993, The Effects of Culture on Ethical Decision-Making: An Application of Hofstedes Typology, Journal of Business Ethics 12, 753760. doi:10.1007/BF00881 307.

Yungwook Kim School of Communication, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 120-750, South Korea E-mail: kimyw@ewha.ac.kr Soo-Yeon Kim College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A. E-mail: skim1020@u.edu

Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.