Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate cross-cultural perspectives of corporate social responsibility (CSR) based on Carroll’s (1979, 1991) hierarchical CSR model. The present study examines the role of government and business trust in shaping publics’ expectations of business responsibility. Design/methodology/approach The primary data were derived from a cross-sectional survey in the USA, UAE and South Korea (N = 1,121). This paper compares publics’ prioritizations of business responsibilities across countries and examines how public trust in the government and business is related to CSR perceptions. Findings The paper presents evidence that publics’ perception of CSR differs significantly across the countries. Moreover, in a trusting society like the UAE, publics tend to put more emphasis on economic and philanthropic duties for business, whereas in a distrusting society like South Korea, publics consider legal and ethical responsibility to be important. Originality/value This study adds to the current understanding of diverse publics’ perception of CSR across culture and societies by highlighting the role of public trust in government in defining CSR.

No abstract

In response to growing public scrutiny of ethical business practices, corporations have become actively engaged in reporting their social and environmental performances publicly. Drawing on the institutional theory to explain the growing diffusion of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting on a global, yet distinctively specific level of adoption, this study examines the level of transparency signaling in CSR reports in three countries: the United States, South Korea, and China. In addition, within each country, the study compares the level of transparency signaling between environmentally sensitive and nonsensitive industries. Using a computer-aided content analysis program, DICTION 7.0, the study analyzed 181 CSR reports from 2014 to 2017.Results show that the three dimensions of transparency signaling-participation, substantial information, and accountability-in CSR reports varied across different countries. Firms in the United States and South Korea showed higher scores in the participation and accountability dimensions than China, whereas firms in China showed relatively high scores in the substantial information dimension. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.