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

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


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



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