The main purpose of this paper is to explore the difference between collectivistic and individualistic countries for the perceived importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR), especially among the generation of students between the age of 18 and 30. The author refers to the cultural dimension of individualism of Hofstede (1984) and the three-pillar model of Crane and Matten (2008). A survey in Taiwan and Germany was conducted to find out about the level of individualism and collectivism and the perceived importance of the factors of general perceived importance, individual buying behavior and personal sacrifice.
The survey consisted of 12 questions and was analyzed for statistical significance between the factors with different statistical test like regression, ANOVA and Mann-Whitney-U test. In total, 86 answers were collected with 43 participants in each country.
The empirical evidence demonstrates that individuals in collectivistic countries feel a higher importance for CSR in general, especially for the social factor. For the individual buying behavior, both countries show to value the fact of social and environmental product aspects, also with Taiwanese participants answering to value those aspects more than Germans. The authors justify the results with the high social aspect of the culture in a collectivistic country resulting in a higher sensitivity for social and environmental aspects as part of a long-lasting good relationship between the members of the society as well as with the nature.

The main purpose of this paper is to explore the difference between collectivistic and individualistic countries for the perceived importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR), especially among the generation of students between the age of 18 and 30. The author refers to the cultural dimension of individualism of Hofstede (1984) and the three-pillar model of Crane and Matten (2008). A survey in Taiwan and Germany was conducted to find out about the level of individualism and collectivism and the perceived importance of the factors of general perceived importance, individual buying behavior and personal sacrifice.
The survey consisted of 12 questions and was analyzed for statistical significance between the factors with different statistical test like regression, ANOVA and Mann-Whitney-U test. In total, 86 answers were collected with 43 participants in each country.
The empirical evidence demonstrates that individuals in collectivistic countries feel a higher importance for CSR in general, especially for the social factor. For the individual buying behavior, both countries show to value the fact of social and environmental product aspects, also with Taiwanese participants answering to value those aspects more than Germans. The authors justify the results with the high social aspect of the culture in a collectivistic country resulting in a higher sensitivity for social and environmental aspects as part of a long-lasting good relationship between the members of the society as well as with the nature.

Acton, C., Miller, R., Maltby, J., Fullerton, D., Acton, C., Miller, R., … Fullerton, D. (2017). Crosstabulation. In SPSS for Social Scientists. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-01390-3_7
Ali, A. J., Lee, M., Hsieh, Y., & Krishnan, K. (2005). Individualism and collectivism in Taiwan. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 12(4), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600510798105
Altmeppen, K.-D., Hollifield, C. A., & Loon, J. van. (2017). Media Business and Innovation Value-Oriented Media Management Decision Making Between Profit and Responsibility. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/series/11520
Ardichvili, A., & Kuchinke, K. P. (2002). Leadership styles and cultural values among managers and subordinates: a comparative study of four countries of the former Soviet Union, Germany, and the US. Human Resource Development International, 5(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860110046225
Beder, S. (2014). bp : Beyond Petroleum ? (February).
Briggs, A., Coleman, M., & Morrison, M. (2012). Research Methods in Educational Leadership & Management (3rd ed.). 3rd ed. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957695
Brosius, F. (1998). Einfaktorielle ANOVA. Spss 8.
Chang, K., & Ding, C. G. (1995). The influence of culture on industrial buying selection criteria in Taiwan and Mainland China. Industrial Marketing Management, 24(4), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-8501(95)00001-Q
Clark, T. S., & Grantham, K. N. (2012). What CSR is not: Corporate social irresponsibility. In Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability (Vol. 4). https://doi.org/10.1108/S2043-9059(2012)0000004010
Crane, A. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: In global context. (May 2014), 3–20.
Crane, Andrew, & Matten, D. (2010). Business Ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. In Business ethics : managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization.
Darwish, A.-F. E., & Huber, G. L. (2003). Individualism vs Collectivism in Different Cultures: A cross-cultural study. Intercultural Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/1467598032000044647
Development., W. C. on E. and. (1987). Our common future. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Eilks, I. (2015). Science education and education for sustainable development - justifications, models, practices and perspectives. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1313a
Flora, J. D. (1982). Chi-Square Test. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(10)60834-X
Gelfand, M. J., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). Converging Measurement of Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118–128.
Gooch, J. W. (2011). Mann-Whitney U Test. In Encyclopedic Dictionary of Polymers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6247-8_15277
Halkos, G., & Skouloudis, A. (2016). M P RA Cultural dimensions and corporate social responsibility: A cross-country analysis Cultural dimensions and corporate social responsibility: A cross-country analysis. (69222).
Hampp Verlag, R. (2005). www.ssoar.info Corporate Social Responsibility: eine Begriffserläuterung Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with. Retrieved from https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-358871
Harpe, S. E. (2015). How to analyze Likert and other rating scale data. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2015.08.001
Heuping, M. (2019). Corporate Social Responsibility: Immer mehr Unternehmen setzen auf Nachhaltigkeit - Münsterland - Westfälische Nachrichten. Retrieved May 9, 2019, from wn.de website: https://www.wn.de/Muensterland/3604987-Corporate-Social-Responsibility-Immer-mehr-Unternehmen-setzen-auf-Nachhaltigkeit
Hiller, J. S. (2013). The Benefit Corporation and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1580-3
Hofstede, G. (1984). International Differences in Work-Related Values. In International Differences in Work-Related Values.
Hofstede, G. (1991). National Cultural Dimensions. Geert Hofstede Research.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences : comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2009). Lokales Denken, globales Handeln : interkulturelle Zusammenarbeit und globales Management. München: Dt. Taschenbuch-Verl.
Laerd Statistics. (2017). One-way ANOVA in SPSS Statistics.
Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2009). Marketing Research: An Applied Approach. In World Wide Web Internet And Web Information Systems.
McHugh, M. L. (2012). The Chi-square test of independence. Biochemia Medica. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.018
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith - A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702551004
Nachar, N. (2016). The Mann-Whitney U: A Test for Assessing Whether Two Independent Samples Come from the Same Distribution. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.1.p013
Peres, R., Shachar, R., & Lovett, M. J. (2011). On Brands and Word-of-Mouth. In SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1968602
Porter, M. (1990). Competitive Advantage of Nations. Competitive Intelligence Review. https://doi.org/10.1002/cir.3880010112
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantege: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. In Strategic Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb054287
Preston, L. E., & Turnbull, S. (2007). Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 85(4), 132–133. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=97080282&site=ehost-live
Schulz, J. (2012). Research methods in educational leadership and management. International Journal of Research & Method in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727x.2012.752206
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and Methodological Refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), 240–275.
Skala, F. (2019). Fridays for Future in München - Rekordprotest im Regen - München - Süddeutsche.de. Retrieved May 9, 2019, from süddeutsche.de website: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/fridays-for-future-demo-muenchen-1.4369926
Souza, A. G. De, & Brito, M. P. De. (2014). Cultural dimensions and image : an essay on the impacts of masculinity and individualism on the interpretation of the sustainability of tourism destinations Dimensões culturais e imagem : um ensaio sobre os impactos da masculinidade e individualismo sobre. 8(2), 238–260.
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the Impact of Culture’s Consequences: A Three-Decade, Multi-Level, Meta-Analytic Review of Hofstede’s Cultural Value Dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018938.supp
Unilever. (2018). Unilever Annual Report Notes to the Annual Report and Accounts. 153. Retrieved from www.unilever.com/sustainable-living%0Ahttps://www.unilever.com/Images/ARA-2014-Strategic-Report_tcm244-421153.pdf