The Effect of Local Stakeholders Pressures on Responsive and Strategic CSR Activities: Evidence from Korean MNEs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study identifies the relationship between local stakeholder pressures and Korean foreign subsidiaries’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) from the stakeholder theory perspective. We classify local stakeholders into primary and secondary groups by their business relatedness as well as foreign subsidiaries’ CSR activities into responsive and strategic CSR by taking into account their willingness. By analyzing survey data of 177 Korean foreign subsidiaries, the key findings are as follows. First, local primary stakeholders, such as customers, employees and suppliers, have a positive impact on responsive CSR activities, but no influence on strategic CSR. In contrast, directly business related primary stakeholders have greater effect on responsive CSR activities rather than on strategic ones. Second, local secondary stakeholders in host countries, such as governments, non-government organizations (NGOs) and local communities, have strong influence on both responsive and strategic CSR activities, whereas secondary stakeholder groups have more influences on strategic CSR activities rather than responsive ones. This means that local secondary stakeholder groups have a strong expectation about subsidiaries’ aggressive social innovation and resource investment to solve issues with local involvement, while primary groups may have some defensive attitude toward business related strategic CSR. This exploratory study finds that foreign subsidiaries should exercise effective change management programs towards primary local stakeholders to practice business and innovation driven strategic CSR activities successfully.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".