corporate social responsibility of the media: instrument development and validation

http://idv.sagepub.com/Information Development

http://idv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/17/0266666914559856The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0266666914559856

published online 18 November 2014Information DevelopmentChan Goo Lee, Jiyeon Sung, Jin Ki Kim, In Sook Jung and Kook Jin Kim

Corporate social responsibility of the media: Instrument development and validation

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Information DevelopmentAdditional services and information for

http://idv.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://idv.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Nov 18, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF OREGON on November 24, 2014idv.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV OF OREGON on November 24, 2014idv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://idv.sagepub.com/

http://idv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/17/0266666914559856

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://idv.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://idv.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://idv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/17/0266666914559856.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Article

Corporate social responsibility ofthe media: Instrumentdevelopment and validation

Chan Goo LeeMedia and Future Institute

Jiyeon SungMedia and Future Institute

Jin Ki KimKorea Aerospace University

In Sook JungGachon University

Kook Jin KimMedia and Future Institute

AbstractIn the media industry, in which public interest has been discussed, the importance of corporate social respon-sibility is magnified again. There is less literature on how to measure corporate social responsibility in themedia industry. This study aims to develop an instrument to measure corporate social responsibility in themedia industry. Using data from 253 experts in the communication area, this study verifies the proposed instru-ment. Results show that corporate social responsibility in the media consists of three major constructs, namelycredibility, usefulness and fairness.

Keywordscorporate social responsibility, public interest, media, instrument development, factor analysis

The social responsibility of media firms does not include social contributions.

Introduction

Modern society requests that firms take on obligations

related to corporate social responsibility (CSR) or

pursue activities that could be described as social con-

tributions. Many firms are trying to change and inno-

vate with greater emphasis on corporate ethics and

CSR. However, financial crises and economic down-

turns push firms to focus more on business expansion

or profit maximization than on social responsibility.

Companies are typically trying to distribute their busi-

ness profits within firms themselves or reinvest for

their future business rather than share with the soci-

ety. But global literature suggests that CSR actions

may help to create a reputation that a firm is reliable

and honest (Brik, Rettab and Mellahi, 2011) and is a

driver of customer satisfaction and therefore profit-

ability (Berens, Riel and Bruggen, 2005; Luo and

Bhattacharya, 2006). So creating shared value (CSV)

is derived from the notion that social responsibility of

firms can be utilized for brand image, promotion and

marketing.

In the digital age, CSR in the media company

also falls within these boundaries. Technical and

Corresponding author:Jin Ki Kim, Assistant Professor, Department of BusinessAdministration, Korea Aerospace University, 76 Hanggongdaehang-ro, Deogyang-gu, Goyang-City, Gyeonggi-do 412-791 South Korea.Tel:þ82-2-300-0353.Email: [email protected]

Information Development1–12ª The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permission:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0266666914559856idv.sagepub.com

at UNIV OF OREGON on November 24, 2014idv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://idv.sagepub.com


economical responsibilities of the media such as net-

work neutrality, copyright protection and information

disclosure become more important. However, the

products of media companies are information goods

that could affect the mental and emotional activity

of people (Jung, 2009).

In 1947, the Hutchins Commission Report on a Free

and Responsible Press shifted the paradigm that

emphasized free press. It presented an ideological

background for social responsibility theory that

strongly demands social responsibilities of the media

and ethics in journalism (Leigh, 1974). Peterson’s

social responsibility theory allows freedom of the press

without government interference but at the same time

suggests that the media should serve the public. The

media should fulfill its obligation of serving the public

without interference and should be self-regulating (Sie-

bert, Peterson and Schramm, 1956). According to this

Table 1. Concepts of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Definitions

Included concepts

EconomicResponsibility

LegalResponsibility

Ethical/Discretional

Responsibility

Bowen (1953) A businessman has a responsibility to do business ormake decisions from the perspective of socialpurpose and value.

�

Davis (1960) There is a responsibility for the decision makers toprotect and promote the social welfare as well asprofit.

� � �

McGuire (1963) The corporation has a responsibility to society beyondits economic and legal responsibility.

� �Johnson (1971) There is a responsibility for management, with a

balanced view, to consider the profit of theemployees, subcontractors, salespeople,communities and the nation beyond the profit of thestockholders.

� �

Carroll (1979) There is a responsibility to act as an ethical and faithfulcorporate citizen that goes above and beyond theresponsibility to make an effort to obey the law andmake profit.

� � �

Buono andNicholas(1990)

It is proposed that a corporation must contribute tothe realization of value in a broad range that goesbeyond the economic value as well as stockholdersand interested parties.

� �

Table 2. Measurements of Social Responsibility.

Reference Measurements

Sethi (1975) Social Obligation, Social Responsibility,Social Responsiveness

Carroll (1979) Economic Responsibility, LegalResponsibility, Ethical Responsibility,Discretionary Responsibility

Maignan andFerrell (2004)

Social responsibility as a socialobligation, social responsibility as anobligation for interest groups, socialresponsibility based on ethics andCSR as a managerial process

Abbott andMonsen (1979)

Social Accounting, Reputational Scales,Content Analysis of CorporatePublications

Cochran andWood (1984)

Reputation Index, Content Analysis

Table 3. Measurement of Credibility.

Meyer (1988) Flanagin and Metzger (2000)

Accuracy AccuracyFairness Being trustedBeing unbiased Being unbiasedBeing trusted RealityTelling the whole story Completeness

2 Information Development



theory, the management of media companies – the

decision-maker and gatekeepers, who determine which

information and opinions would be offered – have a

responsibility to communicate all important informa-

tion and views to the public. Even if they do not sup-

port the messages, they should deliver them fairly.

In this study, the concept of social responsibility in

the media starts from that notion. Taking into consid-

eration that the media can have a large impact on

viewers – media can influence public opinion and

help formulate the national culture and social consen-

sus – these managers have a responsibility to produce

and distribute content for social utility and with the

public interest in mind. Public relevance should be the

more important aspect of the products of media com-

panies. Thus, there exists a need to define and mea-

sure corporate responsibility of the media differently

from that of general firms.

Based on that notion, this study aims to develop an

instrument to better understand the CSR implemented

by the media from the view that the media contributes

to society through their main functions as well as

through the more general social responsibility tech-

niques used by ordinary firms, such as making contri-

butions to society and pursuing other related

activities.

Theoretical background

Corporate social responsibility

The concept of corporate social responsibility began

to garner lively discussion in the 1960s after having

been first proposed back in the 1930s. For the last

50 years, the concept of CSR has been recognized

as a very important theme (McGuire, 1963; Sethi,

1975). Its importance stems from the increasingly

entrenched public awareness that a corporate firm has

a responsibility to redistribute at least part of its prof-

its to the society from which those profits were

gained.

The long-established, traditional arguments have

been made both for and against the idea of business

assuming any responsibility to society beyond

profit-seeking and maximizing its own financial well-

being (Carroll and Shabana, 2010). A huge volume of

empirical CSR work focuses on outcomes of socially

responsible behaviors of various aspects of the firm,

such as, reputation, innovation and access to needed

resources (Meijer and Kleinnijenhuis, 2006; Wood,

2010).

Research has moved from a discussion of the

macro social effects to an organizational-level analy-

sis of CSR and its impact on organizational processes

and performance. Researchers have shifted from

explicitly normative and ethics-oriented arguments

to implicitly normative and performance-oriented

managerial studies (Lindgreen and Swaen, 2010).

Table 5. Measurements of Usefulness.

Davis(1989)Adams et al.(1992)

Hendrickson et al.(1993)

Work morequickly

Work morequickly

Accomplish taskquickly

Job performance Job performance Improveperformance

Increaseproductivity

Increaseproductivity

Increase productivity

Effectiveness Effectiveness Enhanceeffectiveness

Makes job easier Makes job easier Easier to do workUseful Useful Useful in work

Table 4. Measurement of Fairness.

Rosengren (1980) Westerstahl (1983)

Cognitive level Trust- being honest -being honest- being related -being appropriatedBehavioral level Impartiality- neutrality - neutrality- being balanced - being balanced

Table 7. Number of items and reliability check forconstructs.

Constructs Initial Version Pilot Test Main Test

Credibility 14 8 (0.882) 7 (0.917)Fairness 14 6 (0.876) 6 (0.910)Usefulness 12 8 (0.916) 8 (0.888)

( ) : Cronbach’ alpha.

Table 6. Subjects for the Survey.

Number of media

Broadcasting 4Newspaper 7Web (internet news and portal*) 6

*Portal refers to news gathering and redistributing internet media(such as yahoo and MSN).

Lee et al: Corporate social responsibility of the media: Instrument development and validation 3



This is because of recognition that good ethics is good

for business (Joyner and Payne, 2002; Tsalikis and

Fritzsche, 1989). The main CSR theories and related

approaches are classified in four groups: (1) instrumen-

tal theories, in which the social activities by firms are

only a means to achieve economic results; (2) political

theories, which concern themselves with the power of

corporations in society and a responsible use of this

power in the political arena; (3) integrative theories,

in which the corporation is focused on the satisfaction

of social demands; and (4) ethical theories, based on

ethical responsibilities of corporations to society (Gar-

riga and Mele, 2004). The three cultural phases of CSR

are: CSR reluctance, CSR grasp and CSR embedment.

The framework integrates organizational values and

culture together with management processes and oper-

ations (Maon, Lindgreen and Swaen, 2010).

However, it is not easy to reduce the concept of

CSR to a single definition because, as a concept, it

is very complex and broad (Maignan and Ferrell,

2004). Although the operational duties of a corpora-

tion have been included in the category of social

responsibility (Buono and Nicholas, 1990; Carroll,

1979; Davis, 1960), the concept of CSR has been

defined as ethical and discretionary responsibility

beyond the economic and legal responsibility (John-

son, 1971; McGuire, 1963; McWilliams and Siegel,

2001; Sethi, 1975). This definition stems from

Bowen’s (1953) earlier work, in which he defined a

businessman’s responsibility as having to do business

or make decisions from the perspective of social pur-

pose and value.

Standing on the basis of these discussions, the con-

cept of CSR can be understood as the business prac-

tice of maintaining good relations with all interested

parties (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Gruning and

Hunt, 1984; Stroup and Neubert., 1987; Wood and

Jones, 1995). CSR can also be explained as doing

business in a way that maintains or improves both the

customers’ and society’s well-being (Cambra-Fierro,

Wilson, Polo-Redondo, Fuster-Mur and Lopez-

Perez, 2013; Daub and Ergenzinger, 2005). That is,

CSR could be defined as a responsibility to contribute

to the society in which the corporation operates and to

pursue business practices that have a positive influ-

ence on members of the public.

Public interest of the media

The public interest of mass media is diversely defined

according to the era or political and social trends.

When we see the public interest in terms of the major-

itarian that Held (1970) referred to, the public interest

provides people with the things they want, actualized

by the majority of people. In terms of the unitarian,

the public interest is determined by a specific ideol-

ogy or dominant value, in this case guardians or spe-

cialists who investigate whether it is right or wrong

(McQuail, 1983). In Korea, while paternalistic public

ideology was initially adopted in the process of

accepting systems related to public interest and broad-

casting, it was then redefined by market-oriented

value. However, emphasis has been placed on the idea

that broadcasting is free from specific personal inter-

ests and works for the public.

The reason that mass media is classified as broad-

casting, particularly with regard to the public area, is

because mass media carries a huge social influence

and the spectrum is scarce. In general, a public con-

cept called the public trustee model is based on such

reasoning. Mass media magnifies social integration

by providing a public service that establishes public

information, public culture and public discourse. It

is related to Habermas’ theory of the public sphere.

He stated that the public sphere is ‘‘a realm of our

social life in which something approaching public

opinion can be formed’’ and is ‘‘the sphere of private

people coming together as a public’’ (Habermas,

1989: 176). Mass media can provide a physical foun-

dation for the public sphere. The utilitarian model is a

concept which assumes that universal service pro-

vides the biggest welfare for the largest audiences

(Lim and Park, 2008). Aside from these theories, the

public interest of mass media is defined by the delib-

eration democracy theory, the theory of social respon-

sibility (Hutchins, 1947) and so on.

However, the public concept of mass media has

been changing. The media environment has changed

as a result of convergence and market-logic and this

is weakening the conventional basis of the public-

logic. There is the possibility that universal service

will become the most crucial ideology rather than

quality of content. Second, as the efficiency of spec-

trum resources is increasing, the idea of spectrum

scarcity is beginning to be undermined (Winston,

2005). Third, public value has changed. After public

broadcasting becomes commercialized due to the

appearance of competition, the characteristics of

public value are altered. There is an insistence that

enjoyment and joy should be included in the concept

of public value. Finally, the concept of the citizen or

the public as audience has been lessened and the role




as the consumer broadened (Livingstone, Lunt and

Miller, 2007).

In the age of digital convergence, the concept of

public interest for the media has been redefined and

altered. Though the media environment and the user’s

media consumption propensity are changing, the

necessity of firmly maintaining the public utility

offered by mass media is still important. However,

most countries have inadequate criteria and proce-

dures to judge the public interest of mass media con-

tent and it is hard to find basic or practical research

related to this line of inquiry.

Moreover, a regulation system to evaluate the

public interest of content, which enables the realiza-

tion of and assessment of the value of public interest,

has not been introduced (Youn and Park, 2008).

Because an obvious and systematic case of regulat-

ing public interest evaluation is very rare, it is also

difficult to set a concrete evaluation standard and

process. For example, the public interest test in

America focuses on national security as part of the

qualitative entry regulation. In Korea, though a legal

basis to evaluate the value of public interest on

media content is inherent in some clauses of the

Broadcasting Act, the legal basis is inadequate to

embody the object, form and content of the public

interest test (Lee et al., 2009).

Research model

Measuring CSR is very hard because there are few

concrete definitions and methodologies on social

responsibility (Abbott and Monsen, 1979). There

could be significant differences in how to properly

define social responsibility and which factors should

be considered as important.

As mentioned before, social responsibility is classi-

fied into economic responsibility (e.g., profit chasing),

legal responsibility (e.g. to justify profit chasing) and

ethical or social contributions. Most studies have uti-

lized these classifications in their efforts to measure

CSR (Aupperle, Carroll and Hatfield, 1985; Carroll,

1979).

In this study, a different methodology from those

used on general firms should be applied because CSR

with respect to the media is more strongly connected

to the concept of public interest and has more power-

ful impacts on society than general CSR. Measuring

CSR cannot exclude the obligation of public interest

because media has a strong impact on society, for

example in shaping social opinions.

A content analysis of the publications that media

firms produce is an important tool in measuring CSR

(Abbott and Monsen, 1979; Cochran and Wood,

1984). This is because the content that is created by

a goods and services firm has the ability to influence

society. Therefore, it is necessary to emphasize the

context of content that goods and services media firms

create. Considering the social influence of media,

content analysis is an appropriate tool to measure the

CSR of media firms.

CSR studies in strategic management proposed

economic, legal and ethical or social contribution for

social responsibility for firms (Abbott and Monsen,

1979; Aupperle, et al., 1985; Carroll, 1979). Theories

on the public interest in the area of communications

suggested diversity, quality and responsibility for the

media (Held, 1970; Hou and Reber, 2011; Hutchins,

1947; Ihlen, Bartlett and May, 2011; McQuail,

1983; Youn and Park, 2008; Zyglidopoulos, Georgia-

dis, Carroll and Siegel, 2012). From both perspec-

tives, this study proposes three common aspects for

the major constructs of media CSR. Those are cred-

ibility, fairness and usefulness.

This study proposes a measurement methodology

with three major constructs, namely credibility, fair-

ness and usefulness, from the view of the content

responsibility of goods and services media firms in

measuring CSR.

Credibility

Social trust is generally formed through social rela-

tionships with family and friends. Trust within the

larger society is built with information that is pro-

vided indirectly. In particular, an individual must

depend on indirect information such as mass media

so as to recognize information from outside of the

local community (Severin and Tankard, 1997). Based

on this indirect information, the individual recognizes

and makes decisions about the social phenomenon or

affair that he has not experienced firsthand. Thus, the

media that provides indirect information performs an

important role of social trust building. This means that

the media firm has CSR.

Social trust (credibility) can be measured using five

constructs: accuracy, fairness, being unbiased, being

trusted and telling the whole story (Meyer, 1988).

According to a more recent study, it can also be mea-

sured with these five constructs: accuracy, being

trusted, being unbiased, reality, completeness (Flana-

gin and Metzger, 2000).




Fairness

Since the commercialism age arrived, the objectivism

of the news has been the main philosophy (Schudson,

2001). Fair and balanced reporting about both sides of

the case became accepted as an important principle in

particular (Gilboa, 2005). Because media has an

important role in building attitudes about specific

groups (Sigelman and Welch, 1993), the fairness of

the media has a larger social influence and thus, this

is a core factor of the social responsibility of media

firms.

Fairness has been discussed extensively. Some

papers assessed the importance of reporting on both

sides of controversial issues (Lacy and Fico, 1991),

while some papers determined that the core of fairness

is objectivity, which means that a media firm’s task

was to pull together data from both sides and that a

reporter’s personal opinion would not be shared

(Kitty, 1998).

Fairness has been measured with two constructs:

the cognitive level and the behavioral level (Roseng-

ren, 1980). Attempts were also made with two other

constructs: truth and impartiality (Westerstahl,

1983). Rosengren’s (1980) methodology included

sub-constructs: being honest and being related were

included at the cognitive level while neutrality and

being balanced came in at the behavioral level. Wes-

terstahl (1983) also included sub-constructs: being

honest and being appropriated were included under

trust and neutrality and being balanced were placed

under impartiality.

Usefulness

The use of media has relevance to the gratification of

media users (Palmgreen and Rayburn, 1982; Palm-

green, Wenner and Rayburn, 1981). This is because

users are aware of their needs by themselves and

choose the media that can satisfy their desires (Fergu-

son and Perse 2000). Although the motive for choos-

ing a particular media source or service is connected

to satisfying needs, perceptions take precedence over

activity choices. That is, when users are aware of the

high effective value expected in using types of media,

they use that media. This is the usefulness of media,

which in turn increases the use of media.

Usefulness has been measured using six dimen-

sions: work more quickly, job performance, increase

productivity, effectiveness, makes job easier and use-

ful (Adams, Nelson and Todd, 1992; Davis, 1989;

Hendrickson, Massey and Cronan, 1993). In another

case, measurements were made with two dimensions

(usefulness and effectiveness) and five sub constructs

(makes job easier, useful, increase productivity, effec-

tiveness and job performance) (Chin and Todd, 1995;

Segars and Grover, 1993).

Methodology

In order to measure media CSR using the constructs

developed in this paper, it is necessary that instrument

validation should precede other core empirical valida-

tions (Cook and Campbell, 1979). The previous liter-

ature usually recommended a step-by-step process of

instrument validation in order to develop new multi-

item scales having high reliability and validity (Com-

peau and Higgins, 1995; Moore and Benbaasat, 1991;

Smith, Milberg and Burke, 1996; Stroup and Neu-

bert., 1987; Webster and Martocchio, 1992). The

instrument development process usually includes

three steps: item creation, scale development and

instrument testing (Moore and Benbaasat, 1991).

Instrument validation is executed as follows: Pretest,

Technical validation, Pilot test of reliability and con-

struct validity and finally, Full scale survey (Stroup

and Neubert., 1987; Webster and Martocchio,

1992). Figure 1 is a schematic representation of the

outline of the process.

Item creation

The first step in our research involved the creation of

parameters to measure Media CSR. Item creation was

done by reviewing the previously available literature.

In this step, content validity was checked (Compeau

and Higgins, 1995). Content validity refers to the ade-

quacy of the content of a measuring instrument and its

relation to established literature (El-Shinnawy and

Markus, 1997).

First, a draft version of the instrument was devel-

oped. While developing the draft instrument, this

paper held a practices committee that included profes-

sors who had work experience of ten or more years.

During five meetings, we added, rewrote and elimi-

nated questions. After the meetings, the first version

of the instrument, which had 40 question items, was

prepared. In this version, a 5-point Likert’s scale was

used to elicit answers. Seven question items among

the 40 were reverse-coded because the questions were

asked in the negative (Suh, 1999; Webster and

Martocchio, 1992).




Pilot testing and main testing

A pilot test was executed. The pilot test was adminis-

tered to 60 students. Among them, 31 majored in the

department of business administration at a university

and 29 majored in the department of mass communi-

cation at a university in Korea. Students were encour-

aged the fill out the survey.

Exploratory factor analysis was done using the data

collected from the first version of the survey. The cut-

off criteria had a factor loading of 0.5. The question

item which had the lowest maximum factor loading

was removed. Finally, 18 items were removed. The

first version of the instrument, which had 22 question

items, was thus validated. The instrument had three

constructs after the test.

The second version of the instrument for the main

field survey had 22 question items. A field test was

implemented to verify the result of the pilot test using

the empirical study.

Data collection

Due to the characteristics of the media, its role varies

on the type and channel (McGuire, 1963) and on what

the society needs (Altschull, 1994). Also, CSR has

variability, so the scope of it may extend or generate

new things by chronological changes and demands

(Jung, 2008). The principles and criteria that define

the changes to CSR are a very important issue (Jung,

2008).

On this point, this research explored the common

instrument for media CSR, which focused on basic

role of the media offering fair and reliable informa-

tion. Also this research sets limits to nationwide

media as the subject of the evaluation in order to make

a common index. Among media offering comprehen-

sive information, the four national terrestrial broad-

casting agencies, seven nationwide newspapers and

six web media outlets (internet newspapers and portal

sites) were selected as the subject of this study.

As such, this paper conducted a field test of media

professionals in Korea from December 4 to 11, 2007.

A complete enumeration survey was carried out tar-

geting the members of the Korean Society for Journal-

ism and Communication Studies (KSCS). The KSCS

consists of professors, lecturers, journalists and media

professionals in Korea. Among the media profession-

als, there were employees of the 17 media companies

that were research objects. In that case, they were

excluded from the list due to bias. Finally, this paper

conducted its field survey targeting 557 members of

the KSCS. 253 of the respondents participated in the

main field test (response rate 45.4 percent).

Results

To identify the constructs, an exploratory factor analysis

was performed. For each construct, reliability has been

checked using Cronbach’s alpha. Table 8 shows the

results of the exploratory factor analysis in the final stage.

Three constructs have eigenvalues greater than 1.0

resulting from varimax rotation. (CR06, FA02, FA03,

FA06 and FA12 were reverse-scored.) These three con-

structs showed a total variance of 65.37 percent.

This paper named the factors based on the results

from the exploratory factor analysis. To determine

internal consistency, we performed a reliability check

with Cronbach’s alpha. It is recommended that factors

have values greater than 0.7 in the established study

and 0.6 in the exploratory study (Fornell and Larcker,

1981; Kahai and Cooper, 2003; Nunnaly, 1976).

Table 9 shows the names of constructs and their cor-

responding number of items. It shows that all con-

structs are greater than 0.7. The final instrument is

shown in Table 9. The instrument has three con-

structs, which consist of 21 question items.

Conclusion and discussion

Because of certain limitations in measuring CSR by

using the quality of media, the instrument tool for the

Figure 1. Instrument Development Process.




social responsibility of media was created from a

framework which consists of CSR and public interest.

The instrument tool that this paper newly proposed

has three constructs: credibility, fairness and useful-

ness. Based on the three constructs, 21 question items

were developed.

Generally, constructs of credibility, fairness and

usefulness had been used for measuring programs

such as news, dramas, documentaries and so on.

These programs are the main goods and services of

media firms and a social influence of public interest

is achieved with these programs. Thus, the social

responsibility of media firms has a lot of duties, not

only social contributions but also making programs

and broadcasts.

Nevertheless, when we discuss the social respon-

sibility of the media, the evaluation of social con-

tributions and programs is referred to differently.

However, social contributions and programs have

an ethical and public interest; they are realized

individually. Yet, when we evaluate the social

responsibility of the media, the basic functions of

media must be accounted for when measuring the

media.

From this point of view, this study adds not only

CSR but also the responsibility from the perspective

of the basic functions with respect to the distinct char-

acteristics of media. Therefore, this study gains sig-

nificance because it redefines the concept of social

responsibility for the media. Furthermore, this study

proposes a way to measure the social responsibility

of the media. In the past, the public interest evaluation

construct was only conducted using program screen-

ing based on content analysis. However, this study

provides implications for a modified and applicable

Table 8. Rotated Factor Loadings (Main Test).

ConstructItem C1 C2 C3

US01 0.769 0.1581 0.0969US02 0.7576 0.2751 0.1157US03 0.7371 0.3825 0.1293US04 0.72 0.2169 0.0973US05 0.6895 0.4085 0.1485US06 0.6803 -0.0156 0.1779US07 0.653 0.2693 0.1808US08 0.6383 -0.1025 0.1912CR01 0.1821 0.7829 0.3926CR02 0.2963 0.7554 0.0102CR03 0.192 0.7467 0.3709CR04 0.1808 0.7465 0.3122CR05 0.2554 0.7144 0.323CR06 0.2457 0.7073 0.429CR07 0.0151 0.6553 0.2547FA01 0.2009 0.144 0.8193FA02 0.1407 0.1113 0.8178FA03 0.3176 0.1985 0.7018FA04 0.4421 0.2126 0.7005FA05 0.4804 0.2374 0.6972FA06 0.3309 0.2457 0.691Eigenvalue 4.2013 4.9795 4.5499Percentage of variance 20.00% 23.71% 21.66%

Table 9. Instrument of Corporate Social Responsibility ofthe Media.

Construct Index Question Item

Usefulness US01 It provides necessary information formy leisure life (hobbies).

US02 The obtained information is used indaily life.

US03 The information provided is helpful inmy work.

US04 There is a variety of/a lot of interestinginformation.

US05 The provided information helps in self-development.

US06 The news is immediately/quicklycovered.

US07 It deals with a variety of information.US08 There is easy access to information.

Credibility CR01 The press releases are reliable.CR02 The press releases are detailed and

professional.CR03 Articles and news deal with facts.CR04 A lot of information shows trust to the

public.CR05 I will refer primarily to the media when

there are conflicting reports.CR06 When dealing with news, it is based on

real stories.CR07 Articles and news are not obscene/

offensive.Fairness FA01 The media is not disproportionate to

specific issues or parties.FA02 Articles and news are not biased by

political tendencies.FA03 There is non-biased coverage of global/

international issues and countries.FA04 There are balanced opinions as

opposed to reporting in the news.FA05 The information content is objective.FA06 Articles and programs reflect the values

of various groups.




construct to better measure the social responsibility of

the media.

The instrument from this study can provide the user

with a criterion for evaluating which media contri-

butes the content that promotes the public interest and

secures social utility. At the same time, it could be a

self-regulating system for the media company to eval-

uate the content they produced. This could be inte-

grated into their overall CSR plan. Furthermore, the

system was made through the interaction of social

needs and civic society. It has an advantage over the

practical limitation of self-regulation. For instance,

self-regulation could be a way to justify interests of

the company.

Limitations and further study

This paper proposed an instrument tool for the CSR of

the media. The CSR of media companies includes the

social responsibility as a basic function of media as

well as the social contribution activities as a company.

Thus, an integration tool and index need to be devel-

oped. This tool and index should measure the two

parts of CSR when the social responsibility of media

companies is discussed. This paper also set limits to

the broadcasters and the press reporting the news.

Recently however, the meaning of media has come

to include internet or social media sources, such as

SNSes and Twitter, which are outside of the tradi-

tional concept of mass media (Youmans and York,

2012). Therefore, further studies need to measure

CSR with respect to the Internet and social media.

References

Abbott WF and Monsen RJ (1979) On the measurement of

corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosures

as a method of measuring corporate social involvement.

Academy of Management Journal 22(3): 501–515.

Adams DA, Nelson RR and Todd PA (1992) Perceived use-

fulness, ease of use and usage of information technol-

ogy: A replication. MIS Quarterly 16(2): 227–247.

Altschull HJ (1994) Agents of Power: The media and pub-

lic policy (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Longman.

Aupperle KE, Carroll AB and Hatfield JD (1985) An

empirical examination of the relationship between cor-

porate social responsibility and profitability. The Acad-

emy of Management Journal 28(2): 446–463.

Berens G, Riel CBMv and Bruggen GHv (2005) Corporate

associations and consumer product responses: The mod-

erating role of corporate brand dominance. Journal of

Marketing 69(3): 35–48.

Brik AB, Rettab B and Mellahi K (2011) Market orienta-

tion, corporate social responsibility and business perfor-

mance. Journal of Business Ethics 99(3): 307–324.

Buono AF and Nicholas LT (1990) Stockholder and stake-

holder of business social role. In Hoffman WM and

Moore JM (Eds.) Business Ethics.

Cambra-Fierro J, Wilson A, Polo-Redondo Y, Fuster-Mur

A and Lopez-Perez ME (2013) When do firms imple-

ment corporate social responsibility? A study of the

Spanish construction and real-estate sector. Journal of

Management and Organization 19(2): 150–166.

Carroll A B (1979) A three dimensional conceptual model

of corporate social performance. Academy of Manage-

ment Review 4(4): 497–505.

Carroll AB and Shabana KM (2010) The business case for

corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts,

research and practice. International Journal of Manage-

ment Reviews 12(1): 85–105.

Chin WW and Todd PA (1995) On the use, usefulness and

esae of structural equation modeling in MIS research: A

note of caution. MIS Quarterly 19(2): 237–246.

Cochran PL and Wood RA (1984) Corporate social respon-

sivility and financial performance. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal 27(1): 42–56.

Compeau DR and Higgins CA (1995) Computer self-

efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS

Quarterly 19(2): 189–212.

Cook TT and Campbell D (1979) Quasi-Experimentation:

Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston,

Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Daub C-H and Ergenzinger R (2005) Enabling sustainable

management through a new multi-disciplinary concept

of customer satisfaction. European Journal of Market-

ing 39(9/10): 998–1012.

Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of

use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS

Quarterly 13(3): 319–340.

Davis K (1960) Can business afford to ignore social respon-

sibility. California Management Review 2, 70–76.

Donaldson T and Preston E (1995) T’he stakeholder thoery

of the corporation : Concepts, evidence and implica-

tions. Academy of Management Journal 29(1): 65–91.

El-Shinnawy M and Markus ML (1997) The poverty of

media richness theory: explaining people’s choice of

electronic mail vs. voice mail. International Journal of

Human-Computer Studies 46(4): 443–467.

Flanagin A and Metzger M (2000) Perception of Internet

information credibility. Jounalism and Mass Communi-

cation Quarterly 77(3): 515–540.

Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981) Evaluation structural equa-

tion models with unobservable variables and measure-

ment error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.

Garriga E and Mele D (2004) Corporate social responsibil-

ity theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business

Ethics 53(1–2): 51–71.




Gilboa E (2005) Effects of global television news on U.S.

policy in international conflict. In Seib P. (Ed.): Media

and conflict in the twenty-first century (pp. 1–32). New

Work: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gruning J and Hunt T (1984) Managing Public Relations.

New York: Holt, Renehart and Winston.

Held V (1970) The Public Interest and Individual Interests.

New York: Basic Books.

Hendrickson AR, Massey PD and Cronan TP (1993) On the

test-retest reliability of perceived usefulness and per-

ceived ease of use. MIS Quarterly 17(2): 227–230.

Hou J and Reber BH (2011) Dimensions of disclosures:

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting by

media companies. Public Relations Review 37(2):

166–168.

Hutchins R (1947) Commission on Freedom of the Press. A

Free and Responsible Press. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Ihlen Ø, Bartlett JL and May S (eds.) (2011) The Handbook

of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility:

Wiley-Blackwell.

Johnson JL (1971) Business in Contemporary Society. Bel-

mont: Wadsworth.

Joyner BE and Payne D (2002) Evolution and implementa-

tion: A study of values, business ethics and corporate

social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 41(4):

297–311.

Jung IS (2009) Corporate social responsibility of media

corporate in the age of convergence between broadcast-

ing and telecommunications. Paper presented at the

Annual Conference of the Korean Association of Com-

munications and Information.

Jung SY (2008) Mass media’s social responsibility and

accountability: Focusing on Hutchins Report (1947) and

media normative theory. Korean Communication and

Information Studies 47, 23–49.

Kahai SS and Cooper RB (2003) Exploring the core con-

cepts of media richness theory: the impact of cue multi-

plicity and feedback immediacy decision quality.

Journal of Management Information Systems 20(1): 263.

Kitty A (1998) Objectivity in journalism. Skeptic 6(1):

54–61.

Lacy S and Fico F (1991) Fariness and balance in the pres-

tige press. Journalism Quarterly 68(3): 363–370.

Leigh RD (ed.) (1974) A Free and Responsible Press: A

General Report on Mass Communication: Newspapers,

Radio, Motion Pictures, Magazines and Books. Chi-

cago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Lindgreen A and Swaen V (2010) Corporate social respon-

sibility. International Journal of Management Reviews

12(1): 1–7.

Livingstone S, Lunt P and Miller L (2007) Citizens and

consumers: Discursive debates during and after the

Communications Act 2003. Media, Culture and Society

29(4): 613–638.

Luo X and Bhattacharya CB (2006) Corporate social

responsibility, customer satisfaction and market value.

Journal of Marketing 70(4): 1–18.

Maignan J and Ferrell OC (2004) Corporate social resposi-

bility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal

of Academy of Marketing Science 32(1): 3–19.

Maon F, Lindgreen A and Swaen V (2010) Organizational

stages and cultural phrases: A critical review and a con-

solidative model of corporate social responsibility

development. International Journal of Management

Reviews 12(1): 20–38.

McGuire JW (1963) Business and Society. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

McQuail D (1983) Mass Communication Theory: an Intro-

duction. London: Sage.

McWilliams A and Siegel D (2001) Corporate social

responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Acad-

emy of Management Review 26(1): 117–127.

Meijer M-M and Kleinnijenhuis J (2006) Issue news and

corporate reputation: Applying the theories of agenda

setting and issue ownership in the field of business com-

munication. Journal of Communication 56(3): 543–559.

Meyer P (1988) Defining and measuring credibility of

newspapers: Developing an index. Journalism Quar-

terly 65, 567–587.

Moore GC and Benbaasat I (1991) Development of an

instrument to measure the peerceptions of adoption an

information technology innovation. Information Sys-

tems Research 2(3): 192–222.

Nunnaly JC (1976) PsychometricTheory. New Work:

McGraw Hill.

Palmgreen P and Rayburn JD (1982) Gratifications sought

and media exposure: An expectancy value model. Com-

munication Research 9, 561–580.

Palmgreen P, Wenner LA and Rayburn JD (1981) Gratifi-

cation discrepancies and news program choice. Commu-

nication Research 8(4): 451–478.

Rosengren KR (1980) Bias in news : Methods andn con-

cepts. In Wilhoit G. C. and Bock H. d. (Eds.) Mass Com-

munication Review Yearbook (Vol. 1, pp. 249–263).

Beverly Hills: Sage.

Schudson M (2001) The objectivity norm in American

journalism. Journalism Quarterly 2(2): 149–170.

Segars AH and Grover V (1993) Re-examining perceived

ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor anal-

ysis. MIS Quarterly 17(4): 517–525.

Sethi SP (1975) Demensions of corporate social perfor-

mance: An analytic framework. California Management

Review 17(58–64): 58.

Severin WJ and Tankard JW (1997) Communication The-

ories: Origins, methods and uses in the mass media

(4th ed.) New York: Longman.

Siebert FS, Peterson T and Schramm W (1956) Four The-

ories of the Press: The authoritarian, libertarian, social

responsibility and Soviet Communist concepts of what




the press should be and do. Urbana-Champaign, Il: Uni-

versity of Illinois Press.

Sigelman L and Welch S (1993) The contact attitudes. Pub-

lic Opinion Quarterly 50 (Winter): 459–486.

Smith HJ, Milberg SJ and Burke SJ (1996) Information pri-

vacy: Measuring individual’s concerns about organiza-

tional practices. MIS Quarterly 20(2): 167–197.

Stroup MA and Neubert R (1987) The evolution of social

responsibility. Business Horizons 30, 22–24.

Suh KS (1999) Impact of communication medium of task

performance and satisfaction: An examination of

media-richness theory. Information and Management

35(5): 295–312.

Tsalikis J and Fritzsche DJ (1989) Business ethics: A liter-

ature review with a focus on marketing ethics. Journal

of Business Ethics 8(9): 695–743.

Webster J and Martocchio JJ (1992) Microcomputer play-

fulness: Development of a measure with workplace

implications. MIS Quarterly 16(2): 201–226.

Westerstahl J (1983) Objective news reporting. Communi-

cation Research 10, 403–424.

Winston B (2005) Emancipation, the media and modernity:

Some reflections on Garnham’s Kantian turn. Media,

Culture and Society 27(4): 495–509.

Wood DJ (2010) Measuring corporate social performance:

A review. International Journal of Management

Reviews 12(1): 50–84.

Wood DJ and Jones RE (1995) A theoretical problem in

empirical research on corporate social performance. The

International Journal of Organizational Analysis 3(3):

229–269.

Youmans WL and York JC (2012) Social media and the

activist toolkit: User agreements, corporate interests and

the information infrastructure of modern social move-

ments. Journal of Communication 62(2): 315–329.

Youn S and Park A (2008) Public interest and contents reg-

ulation of broadcasting in the convergence era. Broad-

casting and Telecommunication Studies 66, 209–232.

Zyglidopoulos SC, Georgiadis AP, Carroll CE and Siegel

DS (2012) Does media attention drive corporate social

responsibility? Journal of Business Research 65(11):

1622–1627.

About the authors

Chan Goo Lee Chan is a director of the Broadcasting Pol-

icy Division in the Media & Future Institute. He is a PhD

candidate in the Department of Business Administration

(major in Strategic management) from Hanyang University

at Seoul in Korea. He has an MS and a BS from Hankook

University of Foreign Studies at Seoul in Korea. His inter-

ests are policy, management and strategy especially in

media, media convergence, smart media etc. His research

has appeared in Cyber Communication Academic Society

and the conference: AMCIS. Contact: Broadcasting Policy

Division, Media and Future Institute, 54 Banpo-daero 4-gil,

Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-867 South Korea. Tel: þ82-2-3471-

4172. Email: [email protected] (and PhD candidate, Busi-

ness School, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro,

Seongdong-gu, Seoul 133-791 South Korea).

Jiyeon Sung is a PhD student of the Department of Commu-

nication & Information in Inha University. She is also a

senior researcher at the Media & Future Institute. Her inter-

ests are media literacy, media content, media effect, media

policy in a multicultural society, and intercultural communi-

cation. Her research has appeared in Korean Association for

Communication and Information Studies, Korea Contents

Association Thesis Journal, Korean Journal of Broadcast-

ing, Korean Journal of Communication Studies, Korean

Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, and

Speech & Communication. Contact: Broadcasting policy

division, Media and Future Institute, 54 Banpo-daero 4-gil,

Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-867 South Korea. Tel: þ82-2-3471-

4172. Email: [email protected] (and PhD student, Depart-

ment of Communication and Information, Inha University,

100 Inha-ro, Nam-gu, Incheon 402-751 South Korea)

Jin Ki Kim is an associate professor of the Department of

Business Administration in the Korea Aerospace Univer-

sity. He received his PhD in Management Information Sys-

tems from the State University of New York at Buffalo. He

has an MS and a BS from Hanyang University at Seoul in

Korea. Prior to joining the doctoral program, he worked at

the Korea Information Society Development Institute

(KISDI) as a research fellow. His interests are media man-

agement and strategy, telecommunications policy and man-

agement, digital convergence, ICT strategy, ICT payoff

and emergency management systems. His research has

appeared in International Journal of Tourism Research,

International Journal of Mobile Communications, Informa-

tion Development, Electronic Commerce Research and

Applications, Information Systems Frontier, Communica-

tions of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS),

and Decision Support Systems, and the following confer-

ences: HICSS, AMCIS, TPRC and ITS. Contact:Depart-

ment of Business Administration, Korea Aerospace

University, 76 Hanggongdaehang-ro, Deogyang-gu,

Goyang-City, Gyeonggi-do 412-791 South Korea. Tel:

þ82-2-300-0353. Email: [email protected]

In Sook Jung is a Professor of the Department of Commu-

nications and Media in the Gachon University in Korea.

She received her PhD in New Media Policy Process from

the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. She has various




research achievements of media policy and regulation, policy

evaluation and media convergence. She wrote several books

such as Communication Core Theory, Understanding Broad-

casting Industry and Policy and Understanding Mass Media.

Her articles are published in International Journal of Digital

Television and Korean major journals as follows: Korean

Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, Korean

Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies,

Korean Journal of Communication & Information, Studies of

Broadcasting Culture, Journal of Broadcasting & Telecom-

munication Research. Contact: Department of Mass Commu-

nication, Gachon University, 1342 Seongnamdaero, Sujeong-

gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do 461-701 South Korea. Tel:

þ82-31-750-5265. Email: [email protected]

Kook Jin Kim is Senior Research Fellow and President of

the Media & Future Institute. He received PhD in Communi-

cation from Korea University. He worked at the Korea Infor-

mation Society Development Institute (KISDI) as a research

fellow for 17 years. At that time, His research interests include

ICT strategy, social impact of ICT, and diverse aspects of

‘convergence.’ Since 2005, His interests have been expanded

to Information Welfare, Media performance, and Future fore-

sight. Therefore these days his major interests are IOT, big

data, personal data protection regulations, and developing

of methodology for evaluation and foresight. Contact: Media

and Future Institute, 54 Banpo-daero 4-gil, Seocho-gu, Seoul

137-867 South Korea. Tel: þ82-2-3471-4171. Email:

[email protected]




corporate social responsibility of the media: instrument development and validation

Documents