Cross-cultural differences in the consumers perception of Corporate Social Responsibility : A quantitative study among Austrian, Canadian and Taiwanese customers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following thesis aims on investigating the perception consumers have of corporate social responsibility.Based on a quantitative survey, a cross-cultural comparison between Austria, Canada and Taiwan is conducted.The main aim of this analysis is to identify the influence of underlying cultural values on the consumers' perception and expectation of CSR practices.The thesis examines the consumers' general willingness to support socially responsible businesses as well as the allocated importance towards the economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities.The results of the study show that Austrian, Canadian and Taiwanese consumers have the same level of general support for corporate social responsibility.Nevertheless, differences in the attributed importance of the four corporate responsibilities exist.All three investigated societies rank the legal responsibilities as the most important ones.However, the Austrian and Canadian consumers evaluate the ethical responsibilities as the second most significant category whereas their Taiwanese counterparts put the economic one on the second place.For all three countries, the philanthropic responsibilities receive the least importance.These findings underline that there are differences in the consumers' perception of CSR across cultures.Nevertheless, in contrast to previous research, the similarities between the three investigated societies prevail over the disparities.Hence, the expectations consumers have towards CSR seem to assimilate in today's globalized business world.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".