[CSR Monitor Vol.2] Anti-Corporate Sentiment and International Comparison of CSR Perceptions: Diversity and Characteristics by Type

Key Findings from the 2013 RADAR Korea Survey

Why International Comparison of CSR Perceptions is Important

This report analyzes data from an international CSR perception survey conducted in 26 countries, organized by the international polling firm GlobeScan, with the East Asia Institute and the Social Enterprise Research Center participating as the responsible research institutions in Korea. Although discussions on CSR in Korea have been significantly influenced by international CSR discourse, there has been insufficient understanding of how CSR is viewed globally.

Comparing the perception of CSR in the international community with that of the Korean public is important for two main reasons. First, changes in the overall global trend serve as a significant external environmental factor influencing the direction of CSR in Korean society. In Korea's context, which is heavily influenced by the global economy, changes in the relationship between corporations and society, and between government and corporations, are crucial strategic considerations for determining the developmental path of the Korean government, corporations, and society. Second, for Korea, which relies on overseas trade as much as its domestic market, understanding the CSR public opinion in various countries is becoming increasingly important in the process of overseas investment and economic cooperation.

Therefore, it is crucial to accurately grasp the universality and particularity of CSR perceptions in Korean society by comparing them with international perceptions of CSR. Above all, it is necessary to distinguish between areas where international perceptions are converging in a specific direction regarding key CSR issues and areas where differences among country groups are intensifying. For areas that have become universal global trends, an active adoption strategy should be pursued, while for areas where national differences are inevitable, a CSR strategy tailored to Korea's specific characteristics needs to be developed. To this end, attention should be paid to the perceptions of citizens in advanced CSR countries. Benchmarking their mature socio-economic civic consciousness and consumer behavior culture, accumulated through longer economic development experiences than ours, is important. Conversely, it is also time to pay attention to countries whose economic scale or corporate sector lags behind ours. In Korea's case, given its changed status, various international aid and investment efforts are being undertaken by the government and private corporations towards the international community and individual countries, and these efforts can provide important implications for finding effective strategic measures to ensure their success.

This study examines the trust base in corporations, which serves as the most critical infrastructure (environmental factor) within each country's CSR environment, and organizes the diversity of international CSR perceptions based on (1) perspectives and approaches to CSR and (2) consumer CSR practices, which more directly express each country's CSR perception types. Based on this, we aim to provide policy implications for future directions by outlining the characteristics of advanced country-type CSR perceptions and developing country-type CSR perceptions, and by positioning the type of CSR perception in Korea.

CSR Infrastructure: Comparison of Anti-Corporate Sentiment

Korea's Trust in Large Corporations Ranks Lowest Among 23 Countries

The most noteworthy finding from the 2013 survey on trust in large corporations across 23 countries is the highest level of distrust in large corporations among the Korean public. While perspectives on corporations are multifaceted, the results indicate a severe degree of corporate distrust perceived by the Korean public.

In contrast, emerging Asian powers such as Indonesia (82%), China (76%), and India (75%), and Pakistan (62%), as well as African emerging developing countries like Kenya (78%), Ghana (77%), and Nigeria (69%), where overseas investment and aid are rapidly increasing, were identified as representative countries with strong pro-corporate sentiment. Furthermore, traditional economic powers (OECD) like Canada (73%), Australia (72%), Germany (64%), and the United Kingdom (59%) also perceived corporations quite favorably, and in countries experiencing economic recession such as the United States (54%), Poland (53%), and France (52%), more than half of the population showed trust in corporations.

However, in European countries directly hit by the economic crisis, such as Spain (44%) and Greece (38%), the OECD country in South America, Chile (49%), Mexico (43%), and Russia (44%), which is emerging as a strong power but has not escaped its slump, trust in large corporations fell below the majority.

[Figure 1] Trust in Large Corporations in 23 Countries: Percentage Responding 'Trust'

Source: GlobeScan, East Asia Institute, Social Enterprise Research Center RADAR 2013 International Survey (Q1At_b)

Relationship Between Economic Development Level and Trust in Large Corporations: A Curvilinear (U-shaped) Relationship

Typifying countries based on their level of trust in large corporations and economic development reveals very interesting results. [Figure 2] cross-tabulates the distribution of respondents who expressed trust in large corporations in each country based on their level of economic development (Gross National Income per Capita). Among the 23 surveyed countries, contrasting relationship types are derived with Korea (per capita income around $20,000) as a reference point.

Overall, for the group of advanced capitalist countries with a per capita income of $20,000 or more, a linear relationship is observed where the higher the per capita income, the higher the trust in large corporations. That is, a strong correlation is confirmed between the level of national economic development and trust in large corporations. Emerging economies in the developing stage also show trust in large corporations that surpasses that of advanced countries, despite their lower per capita income levels. Specifically, countries exceeding $30,000 in per capita income, along with those below $5,000 (China), are classified as countries that trust large corporations. The results above indicate that the relationship between the level of economic development and trust in large corporations is U-shaped.

[Figure 2] Correlation Between Economic Development Level and Trust in Large Corporations

Source: GlobeScan, East Asia Institute, Social Enterprise Research Center RADAR 2013 International Survey (Q1At_b), WDI (World Bank)

The emerging developing countries included in the survey are not experiencing chronic economic recession but rather exhibit high economic dynamism. As confirmed in [Table 1], this includes emerging economic powers like China (9.3%), Indonesia (6.5%), and India (6.3%) which recorded high economic growth as of 2011, African emerging developing countries (Ghana 15%, Nigeria 7.4%) that have shown remarkable high growth, and major Latin American countries in transition (Peru 6.9%). However, countries whose economic development level is in the lower-middle or close to the lower-middle range among OECD countries show a decline in trust in large corporations, indicating an inverse relationship. Lower-middle income OECD countries such as Poland, Chile, Mexico, and Korea, around $10,000-$20,000 per capita income, or emerging economic powers like Russia experiencing slowing growth, and Greece and Spain, recently identified as the origin of the European economic crisis within the club of advanced economies, have reached a higher level of economic development than emerging developing countries, but their view of corporations is cynical.

Korea is located at the inflection point. This appears to be due to a shift in perception towards large corporations, which were predominantly viewed positively during the government-led high economic growth period of the 1960s-70s and the transition to the economic liberalization phase of the 1980s-90s, leading to corporate-led economic growth. This perception has transformed into one where large corporations are seen as targets for reform in economic democratization, symbolized by the 'trap of growth' and economic crises (Kim Sang-jo 2012; Hong Ki-hyun 2011). According to the 'World Values Survey' data from the Seoul National University's Institute for Social Development and Policy Research, the average public trust in large corporations was positive in the 1981 survey, indicating relatively strong public trust, but it consistently declined in the 1990s, falling below -10 points. Although trust in large corporations seemed to recover somewhat in the 2004 survey, it has recently worsened again (Lee Jae-youl 2011, Jeong Han-wool 2013). Furthermore, Korea has a higher level of anti-large corporation sentiment than any other country in the world, and whether it can establish an advanced country-type corporate trust base in the future will be a very important variable for both Korean CSR and the national economy.

[Table 1] Economic Development Indicators of Surveyed Countries

Source: WDI (World Bank)

Variations in the Concept of CSR as Seen Through Public Opinion

The concept of corporate social responsibility is highly contentious. Primarily, based on the scope and content of social responsibility, two perception types have been in opposition: the CSR concept that emphasizes fulfilling the corporation's inherent economic functions, such as profit generation and job creation, within legal boundaries (economic responsibility primacy), and the normative CSR concept that emphasizes ethical management and encompasses contributions to environmental issues, poverty, education, healthcare, and local communities, involving the interests of all stakeholders (social responsibility primacy).

CSR Concept Debate: Shifting to a Normative CSR vs. Strategic CSV Framework

Recently, there has been growing interest in strategic CSR and the new concept of CSR from the perspective of creating shared value (CSV), which integrates social ethical values and responsibilities with economic value and legal compliance. This reflects a growing skepticism towards the dichotomous views that either excessively justify the ethical/normative dimension of CSR in existing CSR debates or, conversely, limit the role of corporations solely to economic responsibility. This discussion is led by the theory of Porter and Kramer, which argues that social responsibility and economic responsibility should be viewed not as opposing but as complementary, from the perspective of 'creating shared value' (CSV). They assert that the economic and social values pursued by corporations are compatible, and that sustainable corporate management can be achieved when both values are shared, necessitating a paradigm shift in thinking (Jones 1995; Pirsch et al. 2006; Porter and Kramer 2011).

The reason this theory is gaining attention is that as long as corporate economic and social responsibilities are understood as opposing, corporations, unable to abandon their economic responsibilities, will inevitably provide constant grounds for cynicism and distrust. This implies that the more the normative justification for corporate social responsibility is strengthened, the more the view of CSR activities as hypocritical will intensify, leading to the dilemma of CSR (Porter and Kramer 2011).

In reality, the traditional debate framework is losing its influence as discussions emphasizing that corporate responsibility should be limited to economic responsibility have rapidly weakened in Western academia and advanced countries throughout the 2000s. Instead, the focus of the debate has shifted to a competition between the normative CSR perspective, which argues that social responsibility should take precedence over economic responsibility within a broad consensus on CSR, and the CSV theory (CSR from a strategic or instrumental perspective) that advocates for an integrated view of social and economic responsibility (Jones 1995; Porter and Kramer 2006).

Differences in CSR Perceptions Between Developed and Developing Countries

Examining the survey results from Western advanced capitalist countries, which have led CSR discussions and practices, confirms a shift in the competitive framework from one between CSR emphasizing economic responsibility and normative CSR theory prioritizing social responsibility, to one between normative CSR theory and strategic CSR (CSV) theory. [Figure 3] presents the results of a survey asking citizens in each country which of the following claims they prefer: "Large corporations should focus on generating profits within the bounds of the law, paying taxes, and creating jobs" (economic responsibility primacy), "Large corporations should establish high ethical standards beyond legal requirements and actively contribute to creating a better society for all" (social responsibility primacy), or "A compromise should be pursued between the two positions" (parallel pursuit of social and economic responsibility).

[Figure 3] Distribution of Perceptions on Large Corporations' Social Responsibility Activities by Country (%)

Source: GlobeScan, East Asia Institute, Social Enterprise Research Center RADAR 2013 International Survey (Q6t)

Note: The proportions for 'Little to expect,' 'Don't know/No response' outside these three categories are not shown.

The survey results from 24 countries show that in Western advanced capitalist countries, the view that both positions should be compromised or pursued in parallel constitutes the majority, while public opinion supporting social responsibility primacy and economic responsibility primacy, which formed the traditional debate axis, represents a relative minority. The parallel pursuit of social and economic responsibility was prominent in Australia (53%), the United Kingdom (51%), the United States (50%), and Canada (46%). Among advanced countries, Germany was somewhat lower at 34%. Furthermore, in Indonesia (51%) and Poland (50%), which do not have high economic levels, the support for the parallel pursuit of both approaches reached a majority, indicating a wide distribution of countries emphasizing CSV. These results demonstrate that the traditional debate between social responsibility primacy and economic responsibility primacy has significantly lost its meaning.

In contrast, in the latecomer group, including emerging developing countries and emerging economic powers such as Mexico (13%), Nigeria (16%), Russia (20%), Brazil (22%), India (22%), Ghana (23%), and Kenya (25%), the proportion of public opinion that does not exclusively view social and economic responsibilities as mutually exclusive was small. In other words, in these countries, social responsibility and economic responsibility are still perceived as competing concepts regarding the social responsibility of large corporations. However, with the exception of India (23%), most of these countries show a majority supporting social responsibility primacy over economic responsibility primacy, indicating that normative CSR theory has become a universal concept. Notably, in Brazil (53%), Nigeria (46%), Mexico (46%), Kenya (45%), Chile (45%), and Russia (43%), the normative CSR concept, emphasizing broad social and ethical responsibilities, holds a majority public opinion.

[Figure 4] Support Rate for Social Responsibility Primacy (CSR) vs. Trust in Large Corporations (%): Comparison by OECD Membership

Source: GlobeScan, East Asia Institute, Social Enterprise Research Center RADAR 2013 International Survey (Q1t_b, Q6t)

Among advanced countries, continental European countries (France 39%, Spain 36%, Germany 34%, Greece 32%) show comparable levels between the strategic approach of pursuing both and the traditional social responsibility primacy. In China and Korea, the debate structure has shifted from the traditional competition between social responsibility primacy and economic responsibility primacy to a close contest between the parallel pursuit of social and economic responsibility and social responsibility primacy. In Korea, support for the parallel pursuit was 36%, and support for social responsibility primacy was 35%. In China, support for the parallel pursuit was 36%, and support for social responsibility primacy was 41%, showing nearly equal levels.

In conclusion, observing the distribution of public opinion across countries regarding the role and scope of CSR, it is evident that in developing countries that are later in their economic development, the traditional debate framework of 'social responsibility primacy' versus 'economic responsibility primacy' is maintained. In contrast, in Western advanced capitalist countries, as well as Korea and China, a competitive framework between CSV-friendly or strategic CSR concepts and normative CSR theory prioritizing social responsibility is observed, indicating significant differences in perceptions among country groups.

[Figure 5] Support Rate for Parallel Pursuit of Social and Economic Responsibility (CSV) vs. Trust in Large Corporations (%): Comparison by OECD Membership

Source: GlobeScan, East Asia Institute, Social Enterprise Research Center RADAR 2013 International Survey (Q1t_b, Q6t)

Countries with High Corporate Trust Prefer CSV; Countries with Low Corporate Trust Prefer CSR

To identify the factors causing the differences in perception types regarding the role and scope of CSR explained above, we examined the impact of corporate trust. Since the relationship between the level of economic development and corporate trust shows contrasting patterns between developed and developing countries, this article divides and compares countries based on whether they are OECD members or not. [Figure 4] is a scatter plot showing the proportion of respondents supporting social responsibility primacy (normative CSR) in each country relative to their trust in large corporations, along with the regression line between the two variables. Regardless of OECD membership, generally, the higher the trust in large corporations, the lower the support rate for traditional social responsibility primacy. This implies, conversely, that countries with higher distrust in large corporations have higher support rates for social responsibility primacy, suggesting that CSR public opinion may be a product of anti-corporate sentiment.

In contrast, [Figure 5], which shows the support rate for the parallel pursuit of social and economic responsibility (CSV) relative to trust in large corporations, reveals that countries with higher trust in large corporations exhibit stronger CSV-friendly public opinion. This implies that if creating shared value between social and economic value is important for sustainable CSR, then resolving distrust in corporations must be prioritized. Conversely, this result indicates that the transition from CSR to CSV may not be easy in situations where corporate distrust is not resolved.

Debate on Regulatory Methods: Self-Regulation vs. Government Regulation

The second debate related to CSR concerns the methods of realizing corporate social responsibility. Debates have been ongoing regarding the "self-regulation" approach, which advocates for CSR to be driven by voluntary corporate awareness and self-governance, and the "government regulation" approach, which argues for its implementation through government regulation or legal compulsion (Sethi 2003; Vogel 2008).

Public opinion strongly favors the government regulation approach to CSR in emerging developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, such as Australia (65%), Korea (84%), and Turkey (67%) among OECD member countries, and Nigeria (76%), China (71%), Ghana (70%), Indonesia (69%), Kenya (67%), and Peru (64%), Chile (63%). In contrast, among OECD countries, excluding the aforementioned three, market-oriented advanced Western countries like the United Kingdom (54%), the United States (45%), Germany (40%), and Spain (39%) showed relatively lower public opinion favoring CSR regulation.

Countries with High Economic Development Levels Show Weak Support for Government Regulation of CSR

In OECD advanced countries, there is a division between countries that prefer CSR regulation and those that prefer a self-regulatory approach. However, in non-OECD developing countries and late-developing economies, regulation-based approaches form the majority public opinion. Comparing public opinion on CSR regulation with trust in large corporations reveals a different pattern than that observed in CSR perception types discussed earlier.

As confirmed in [Figure 7], while both OECD and non-OECD countries show a pattern where lower trust in large corporations leads to higher support for normative and ethical social responsibility primacy, there were variations within advanced countries regarding CSR regulation. Among OECD countries, the regression line below (countries with weak regulatory opinion) primarily includes Western advanced countries, while the regression line above (countries with relatively strong regulatory opinion) includes countries on the border between advanced and developing nations within the OECD, such as Korea, Turkey, and Mexico, excluding Australia and Canada. In non-OECD countries, the higher the trust in large corporations, the higher the proportion of agreement with government regulation of CSR.

[Figure 6] National Attitudes Towards Government Legislation to Strengthen CSR (%)

Source: GlobeScan, East Asia Institute, Social Enterprise Research Center RADAR 2013 International Survey (Q8At_dt)

To explore the factors creating variations within OECD countries, we examined the proportion of agreement with government regulation of CSR based on economic development level (per capita income) within the OECD and non-OECD country groups, with the results shown in [Figure 8]. Both in the OECD and non-OECD country groups, a pattern emerged where the higher the per capita income, the lower the proportion of people agreeing with government regulation of CSR. Consequently, the economic development level of a country and the proportion of agreement with government regulation of CSR showed an inverse relationship. That is, even among non-OECD countries, countries with higher levels of economic development have higher public opposition to CSR regulation.

The most prominent exception is Korea. Despite having a moderate level of economic development (per capita income around $20,000), which is higher than that of non-OECD countries, Korea shows the highest support rate for government regulation of CSR among the surveyed countries. It is important to consider that Korea may retain a favorable perception of government regulation compared to other countries due to its long experience with developmental dictatorship (Lee Jae-youl 2011; Hong Ki-hyun 2011). In particular, following the local elections in 2010 and leading up to 2012, as welfare and economic democratization issues gained prominence in Korea and various corporate scandals emerged, negative public sentiment towards large corporations appears to have led to increased support for regulation (CSR Monitor 2013-01).

[Figure 7] Agreement Rate with Government Regulation of CSR vs. Trust in Large Corporations (%): Comparison by OECD Membership

Source: GlobeScan, East Asia Institute, Social Enterprise Research Center RADAR 2013 International Survey (Q8At_dt)

[Figure 8] Agreement Rate with Government Regulation of CSR vs. Economic Development Level (%): Comparison by OECD Membership

Source: GlobeScan, East Asia Institute, Social Enterprise Research Center RADAR 2013 International Survey (Q8At_dt)

In summary, in Western advanced countries with high economic development levels and high trust in large corporations, there is a strong CSV-friendly public opinion emphasizing the sharing of economic and social values, and a preference for self-regulation over government regulation as a means to achieve this. However, in emerging economic powers and developing countries with lower economic development levels but high expectations and trust in corporations, the traditional framework that dichotomously separates the pursuit of social and economic values, rather than the CSV perspective, still operates, and there is a marked preference for government regulation as a means to implement it.

Korea, as a representative exception, shows a relatively advanced level of economic development but has very high distrust in large corporations. This distrust appears to influence the rise of public opinion favoring CSR regulation. Notably, Korea is distinguished from late-developing countries by its strong distrust of large corporations, yet it exhibits a similar public opinion distribution to these developing countries in terms of favoring CSR regulation. Furthermore, despite strong distrust in large corporations, Korea shows a nearly equal and high level of agreement with the principles of CSV and prioritizing social responsibility, suggesting that with sufficient effort, there is ample room to move towards an advanced country model for realizing sustainable CSR.

Above all, in OECD countries, public opinion favoring CSV, aligned with advanced economies, is strengthened as the level of economic development and corporate trust increases. Conversely, CSR regulation-favoring public opinion weakens with higher economic development. Therefore, for the spread and establishment of advanced CSR perceptions, restoring trust in corporations based on economic development and improved national income levels appears to be a prerequisite.

Ethical consumerism

Ethical consumerism can be defined as all activities by which consumers decide whether to consume the services or products offered by a company based on their own assessment of the company's CSR activities, and attempt to influence the consumption activities of others. Ethical consumerism also influences the formation of a company's reputation, making it a factor that can determine whether a company's CSR activities can be linked to its Corporate Financial Performance (CFP) (Orlitzky et al. 2003).

Therefore, ethical consumerism also acts as a disciplinary mechanism that compels companies to act in accordance with consumer expectations, driven by market logic. The mechanisms that regulate corporate profit-seeking activities to be conducted in a manner that fulfills social and environmental responsibilities can be broadly categorized into market discipline, which influences the consumption of products created in the market; legal and administrative regulations by the government (Sethi 2002; Vogel 2008); social pressure led by NGOs (Guay et al. 2004); and discipline through international standards (Tencati et al. 2004).

Among these, market discipline and government regulation are considered the most fundamental disciplinary mechanisms. For market discipline to function properly, consumer evaluations must strongly influence actual consumer behavior, such as purchasing or boycotting the company's products, and exert significant influence on the formation of the company's reputation and image. When the reward-punishment mechanism operates in the market, companies whose primary goal is survival in the market are compelled to voluntarily engage in social responsibility activities.

As examined in the previous chapter, advanced countries are relatively passive regarding CSR regulation through government intervention, while strong public opinion favoring government regulation is evident in developing countries. Conversely, it can be inferred that ethical consumerism is relatively active in Western advanced countries, whereas it is likely weak in developing countries. To verify this, we will compare the levels of ethical consumerism in various countries from different perspectives.

Who Leads Ethical Consumer Behavior?

Consumer behavior based on socio-ethical standards can be divided into positive behavior, such as purchasing products from or positively evaluating a company, and negative behavior, such as boycotting products from or negatively evaluating a company.

First, regarding the question, "In the past year, have you ever purchased products from or spoken positively about a company you believe acts responsibly?" the proportion of respondents who answered "Yes, I have actually done so" showed significant variation even among advanced countries (Figure 9, left). Generally, countries with Anglo-American capitalism showed high response rates around the majority. In contrast, European advanced countries showed lower levels of positive consumer behavior. France (36%) and Greece (35%) were in the middle range, while Germany reported 13%, Spain 13%, Turkey 8%, and Mexico 8%.

[Figure 9] Ethical Consumer Behavior by Country: Positive and Negative Consumer Behavior (%)

Source: GlobeScan, East Asia Institute, Social Enterprise Research Institute RADAR 2013 International Survey (Q13At, Q_16At)

Conversely, in late-developing countries, with the exception of Nigeria (51%) and Kenya (33%), ethical consumerism was very low. Emerging economic powers such as India (21%), China (14%), Russia (14%), and Brazil (12%) remained at the 10-20% level, while Indonesia and Chile recorded 8% and 5% respectively.

Meanwhile, regarding the question, "In the past year, have you ever decided not to purchase products from or spoken negatively about a company you believe does not act responsibly?" the results, though slightly lower than for positive consumer behavior, generally showed a similar pattern (Figure 9, right). Boycotting/criticism experiences were relatively high in Anglo-American capitalist countries and some European OECD countries, including Australia (46%), the UK (40%), the US (38%), Canada (37%), Greece (37%), and France (33%). Korea also ranked relatively high in boycotting/criticism behavior based on CSR, with 29%. Among the same OECD countries, Germany (15%), Spain (9%), Mexico (9%), and Turkey (8%) showed very low rates of negative consumer behavior, similar to their low rates of positive consumer behavior. However, in emerging developing countries, unlike Nigeria and Kenya which showed relatively high levels of positive consumer behavior, the experience of ethical consumerism in the negative dimension was in the mid-to-high teens.

Perception Types of Market Discipline through Consumer Behavior and Government Regulation

There are national differences in the maturity of consumer behavior as a mechanism to enforce corporate CSR activities. Furthermore, as observed earlier, diverse perception gaps exist regarding CSR regulation through government intervention. As expected, developing countries showed strong public opinion favoring government regulation in the absence of active ethical consumerism. OECD advanced countries exhibit high levels of ethical consumerism and a relative aversion to government regulation. However, in absolute terms, public opinion favoring CSR regulation through government intervention exceeded the majority in countries like Korea, Australia, Canada, and the UK. Conversely, countries such as Germany and Spain showed ethical consumerism levels comparable to developing countries, indicating considerable variation.

To systematically classify the public opinion distribution regarding CSR regulation methods in each country, we will compare the perception types of the surveyed countries by cross-referencing government regulation methods and ethical consumerism-based regulation methods, which are fundamental to CSR regulation. Specifically, by cross-referencing opinions for and against CSR government regulation with the maturity of ethical consumerism, we can categorize countries into four types: (1) strong public opinion for CSR government regulation but weak ethical consumerism; (2) strong public opinion for both CSR government regulation and ethical consumerism; (3) weak public opinion for both CSR government regulation and ethical consumerism; and (4) weak public opinion for CSR government regulation but strong ethical consumerism. Type (1) represents a government-regulation-driven CSR approach, while Type (4) represents a market-centric, consumer-behavior-driven approach. Type (2) involves dual regulation where both government and market discipline are strong, and Type (3) represents a situation where both government and market discipline are weak, potentially involving a third type of regulation (e.g., social coordination mechanisms) or no regulatory mechanism for corporations at all.

Figure 10 shows that there are differences in CSR regulation perception among country groups. Primarily, emerging economies in China, Indonesia, India, Brazil, and Africa are generally positioned in Type (1) (circular marker in the upper left), characterized by weak ethical consumerism and high agreement with CSR government regulation. Notably, within OECD countries, Chile, Mexico, and Turkey, where market liberalism is relatively less mature, were also included in Type (1). Countries with a strong tradition of market liberalism, such as the US, UK, and Canada (liberal market economies, LMEs), often fall into Type (4) (diamond marker in the lower right), with strong consumer behavior but relatively low public support for government regulation of CSR. As observed earlier, Australia, Canada, and the UK, as expected, showed the most active ethical consumerism, but simultaneously, their support for government regulation of CSR also exceeded the majority, differentiating them from the US, France, and Greece. Meanwhile, Korea and Nigeria, while not having particularly low levels of ethical consumerism, showed very high public support for government-regulation-driven CSR, placing them close to Type (2). Conversely, countries classified as social market economies or coordinated market economies (CMEs), such as Germany, or those with weak markets like Russia and Spain, fall into Type (3), characterized by both weak ethical consumerism and a passive stance towards government CSR regulation.

Consequently, countries with activated liberal market economies or late-developing countries appear to have a certain social consensus regarding regulatory approaches. However, in countries where liberal market economies are less mature or where the social economy sector is large, perception gaps different from those in Anglo-American liberal market economies or late-developing countries were identified.

[Figure 10] CSR Regulation Perception Types by CSR Government Regulation Agreement Rate versus Ethical Consumer Behavior (%)

Source: GlobeScan, East Asia Institute, Social Enterprise Research Institute RADAR 2013 International Survey (Q13At, Q_16At)

Conclusion: From Standardization to Diversity in CSR Perception

The preceding sections have examined the CSR perception types in various countries worldwide, focusing on the main findings of the international survey jointly conducted by GlobeScan, the East Asia Institute, and the Social Enterprise Research Institute. The key findings of this report are summarized as follows.

First, regarding trust in large corporations, which can be considered the social infrastructure of CSR, trust was high in countries considered economically advanced and in developing countries with high economic growth rates despite lower current economic development levels. In contrast, countries positioned between advanced and developing economies showed a U-shaped distribution with a weaker foundation of corporate trust.

Second, the past debate surrounding the concept of CSR, namely the conflict between CSR emphasizing economic and legal responsibilities versus normative CSR emphasizing higher ethical and social responsibilities, is primarily maintained in late-developing countries. In contrast, advanced capitalist countries have shifted the debate to a conflict between normative CSR theory and CSV-friendly CSR theory, which emphasizes the integration of social and economic responsibilities. Normative CSR theory is mainly supported in countries with strong distrust in corporations, while CSV-friendly CSR theory receives strong support in countries with a solid foundation of corporate trust.

Third, perceptions of government regulation as a CSR promotion method showed significant variation depending on the level of economic development and the country's economic type. Developing countries, despite high trust in large corporations, showed strong support for government regulation of CSR. Conversely, among OECD advanced countries, those with a strong inclination towards market liberalism exhibited a predominantly negative perception of government regulation of CSR. However, countries like Korea, and others among the OECD countries with relatively lower economic development and weaker traditions of market liberalism, showed a tendency to favor government regulation of CSR.

Fourth, examining the relationship between CSR government regulation and market discipline through consumers' ethical consumption behavior revealed further diverse perception gaps. As expected, in Anglo-American countries with strong market liberalism, ethical consumerism was significantly activated in contrast to a negative stance on government regulation. Conversely, in developing countries, there was a positive attitude towards government regulation but a subdued level of ethical consumerism. However, countries like Korea and Australia, belonging to the Anglo-American liberal market economy group, exhibited a dual-track approach with strong support for government regulation alongside considerable pressure from ethical consumerism. Conversely, countries like Germany, Russia, and Spain were characterized by both negativity towards government regulation and a lack of activated ethical consumerism.

These findings carry significant implications. Most importantly, attention should be paid to the fact that rather than converging towards a specific direction, there exist diverse perceptions regarding key CSR issues within the international community. This underscores the importance of seeking CSR directions tailored to the specific perceptions of each country, rather than pursuing a uniform approach to CSR promotion. This suggests that applying the outcomes of international standardization discussions (e.g., ISO 26000, GRI, Global Compact) in a standardized manner could actually hinder CSR advancement.

Korea, in particular, as a middle power positioned between advanced Western capitalist countries and late-developing countries, exhibits a distinct type of perception distribution compared to both groups. Trust in large corporations was the lowest among the 23 countries surveyed, and support for government-regulation-based CSR approaches was the highest, indicating a strong perception of regulation-driven CSR relative to its level of economic development.

Based on the above discussion, the tasks for Korea to transition to sustainable CSR and an advanced country model in the long term can be summarized as follows: First and foremost, there is a need for a broader dissemination of CSV-friendly perceptions that share economic and social value, rather than normative CSR theory. To achieve this, expanding the foundation of trust in corporations alongside economic development and maturity is urgent. When the foundation for autonomously regulating and coordinating CSR through ethical consumerism is formed, and companies voluntarily practice CSR, corporate trust can be doubled. In Korea's case, the level of awareness regarding CSV is nearly as high as that of normative CSR theory, suggesting that if corporate trust is secured through the active efforts of the government, corporations, and society, the realization of sustainable CSR and CSV will be possible.

When there is sufficient trust in corporations, the public demands that corporations realize social value in addition to their inherent roles, and corporations, influenced by this, seek business opportunities that can lead social change. In other words, through the realization of CSR where corporations and society coexist, social innovation and sustainable development become possible, which ultimately enhances corporate trust, forming a virtuous cycle that actively realizes CSV.

The arguments and content of this report are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent the official position of the co-research institutions, the East Asia Institute and the Social Enterprise Research Institute. When citing data from this report, please specify that it is from the "GlobeScan, East Asia Institute, Social Enterprise Research Institute Survey."