Springer 2009

Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 91:485500

DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0095-z

The Influence of Cultural Values

on Perceptions of Corporate Social
Responsibility: Application of Hofstedes
Dimensions to Korean Public Relations
Practitioners

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,

Yungwook Kim
Soo-Yeon Kim

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 significant insights (p. 261).
Corporate citizenship is another significant term
reflecting corporations socially responsible role, and
Davenports (2000) rule of good corporate citizenship
also emphasized stakeholder commitment as one criterion. Mutually beneficial 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 beneficial
relationship between business and society.
Kim and Reber (2008) stated that public relations
practitioners roles in CSR vary from none to significant, depending on organizations and individual
practitioners values. The significant influence 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
specific 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

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 fill
the gap in the literature regarding the cultural elements that influence public relations practitioners
perceptions of social responsibility. Specifically, 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 defined 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 definition of public relations is the
management function that identifies, establishes, and
maintains mutually beneficial 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

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 first
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 significantly tied
together culture and public relations models.
Wu et al. (2001) showed a high correlation of the
masculinity dimension with five 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 significant differences in crisis communications of airline crashes
between Japan and the USA using Hofstedes five
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.

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 reflect 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 stratified, 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 fifth
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 reflected 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 fifth 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)
classified 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 influence 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 influence

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

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 profit-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 profits (Friedman, 1970).
He strongly disagreed that business has a social
conscience and argued that profit 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 influence of Hofstedes cultural
dimensions on ethical decision-making. The following studies have investigated the ethical attitudes of
practitioners, managers or consumers using Hofstedes

typology of cultural dimensions in business and

advertising fields. Christie et al. (2003) found a significant influence 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 influences 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.

The public relations practice status in South Korea

Korean public relations practice is still in the publicity stage, the first 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 confirmed 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 influence 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 benefits 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
first 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 significant 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 influence of individual
preferences for corporate responsibility on the perceptions of CSR, by using the dichotomy of a profitoriented 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 profit-oriented anti-CSR approach, whereas nonFriedman groups means a pro-CSR approach.
Research questions were established as follows:

490

Yungwook Kim and Soo-Yeon Kim

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?
RQ1:

Among Hofstedes five 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:

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.

Survey instrument
Korean public relations practitioners cultural
dimensions, and perceptions of social traditionalism
and CSR were examined. Social traditionalism
represents the so-called Friedman profit-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 modified Likert scales
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). The final 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 firms 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.
Specifically, 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).

Scale items for defining 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 profits and maximizing shareholder wealth,
as opposed also to focusing on a broad range of
stakeholders (p. 51). High social traditionalism
implies profit-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 significance 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 find out
demographic profiles of the sample. Among the total

491

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 reflect
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, Profits should be the key gauge
of how well a firm is fulfilling 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).

Yungwook Kim and Soo-Yeon Kim

492

Construction of measures

TABLE I
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

(46.0)
(38.7)
(3.3)
(11.3)

86
54
3
4

(57.3)
(26.0)
(2.0)
(2.7)

69
54
11
9
7

(46.0)
(36.0)
(7.3)
(6.0)
(4.7)

55
52
27
13

(37.4)
(35.4)
(18.4)
(8.8)

TABLE II
Means and standard deviations for Hofstedes dimensions
Dimensions
Femininity
Masculinity
Uncertainty avoidance
Confucian dynamism
Collectivism
Power distance
Individualism

SD

6.03
5.84
5.61
5.56
5.55
3.55
3.17

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.

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.

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 influence 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 defined 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 influenced 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 significant (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,

Culture and CSR

493

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 profits subject
to legal constraints
Decisions concerning social issues are the province of governmental policy makers, not
of corporate executives
Profits should be the key gauge of how well a firm is fulfilling its social role
Most actions taken by firms to improve society will not ultimately help shareholdersa
The business of business is business, not social activism
Profits and actions in the social sphere generally do not mix
The benefits to firms 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 firms merely to meet minimum legal constraints. Active social
involvement and concerned use of excess resources are not neededa

SD

2.30

1.02

3.60

1.58

2.77

1.58

4.30
2.58
3.81
2.72
3.20
4.15

1.65
1.16
1.63
1.31
1.21
1.31

2.60

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 significant

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 significant 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 coefficients 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

Good business
Commitment
PR role
Total CSR mean

M (for Friedman)

M (for non-Friedman)

t-Value

5.43
4.60
5.58
4.94

6.17
4.96
6.39
5.58

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

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 significant 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) significantly 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 significant. 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 significant 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

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
significantly. The results indicate that social traditionalism has more explanatory power than do
cultural value variables. The negative influence of
the Friedman perspective precedes cultural values.

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 significantly affect
Korean public relations practitioners perceptions of
CSR. Other models, including the total CSR
model, did not show any significant influence.
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

10

11

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

1. Hofstede power distance

0.153 0.198* -0.108
0.178*
0.058
0.050
-0.019
0.011
-0.164* -0.117
2. Hofstede uncertainty avoidance

-0.139
0.208*
0.371** 0.381** 0.432** 0.220** 0.243** 0.353** 0.351**
3. Hofstede individualism

-0.236** -0.186* -0.241** -0.205* -0.189* -0.238** -0.146

-0.225**
4. Hofstede collectivism

0.243** 0.328** 0.499** 0.442** 0.155

0.435** 0.452**
5. Hofstede masculinity

0.472** 0.317** 0.198*

0.071
0.182*
0.179*
6. Hofstede femininity

0.505** 0.350** 0.123

0.294** 0.324**
7. Hofstede Confucian dynamism

0.428** 0.266** 0.495

0.518**
8. Good business

0.449** 0.595** 0.797**

9. Commitment

0.298** 0.672**
10. PR role

0.880**
11. Total CSR mean

12. Social traditionalism mean

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for Hofstedes dimensions, CSR models, and social traditionalism

TABLE V

0.156
-0.195*
-0.012
-0.342**
-0.035
-0.276**
-0.346**
-0.475**
-0.174*
-0.522**
-0.513**

12

Culture and CSR

495

Yungwook Kim and Soo-Yeon Kim

496

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 (SE)

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

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

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 reflect 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 flexible 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 profit-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 significantly 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 significantly related
to public relations practitioners perceptions of CSR
in Korea. Each of the four CSR models showed that
Hofstedes cultural values significantly 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 significantly 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
significantly than did Hofstedes dimensions. Even
though cultural values are important enough to
influence 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 confirmed that the enlarged meaning of social
responsibility overcoming profit 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

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 significant 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
significance 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 find 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.

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 Defining 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 Profits, 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).

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
Define 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 (Mayfield, 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 Influences
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

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 Influence 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.

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 Influences 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.

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@ufl.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.