Convergent and Divergent Corporate Social Responsibility in South Korea: Collaborative and Adversarial NGO-Corporate Networks.

Background: The differences between NGO networks for two distinct types of CSR practices are underexplored: convergent CSR, which pertains to the global standards embraced by both the local and global institutions, and divergent CSR, which is framed primarily by local economic, political and social conditions. Purpose: Grounded in institutional and network theory, the study explores the significance of three forms of network centrality in different types of CSR (convergent/divergent) and varying modes of interaction (collaborative/adversarial) across global versus local NGOs in South Korea, a state-led market economy. Research Design: The study conducts network analyses and descriptive analysis of NGOs' collaborative and adversarial networks with corporations, in relation to their engagement in convergent and divergent CSR. Study Sample: The NGO/corporate network dataset consisted of 2073 nodes and 4158 edges (ties). The sample of CSR practices consisted of a total of 8715 instances of convergent CSR practices and 396 instances of divergent CSR practices. Data Collection and/or Analysis: A total of 260 reports from 52 South Korean corporations and a total of 430 reports from 78 NGOs in South Korea were used to develop a corpus of corporate/NGO network dataset (collaborative and adversarial) and the dataset of the type of CSR practices they engaged in (convergent/divergent). Then degree, eigenvector and betweenness centralities of the 78 NGOs were computed within the NGO-corporate network. The relationships between the three centralities and CSR types (convergent/divergent) were found through standard regression analyses and descriptive analyses. Results: The findings suggest that when engaging in convergent CSR, as opposed to divergent CSR, NGOs would benefit the most from developing collaborative ties to central others in their NGO-corporate network (eigenvector centrality). A descriptive analysis of the findings suggests that adversarial divergent CSR practices are primarily reported by a potentially isolated group of local NGOs. Conclusions: CSR practices develop in multiple forms within a national institution, rather than simply converging with the universal norms. They form under the communicative pressures of different types of global and local institutional actors, through different network positions (centralities) and nature of relationships (collaborative and adversarial). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]