4.6 Article

Which CSR Activities Are Preferred by Local Community Residents? Conjoint and Cluster Analyses

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su131910683

关键词

corporate social responsibility; CSR; industrial estate; community acceptance; conjoint analysis; cluster analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research aimed to identify the preferred CSR dimensions and activities of local communities surrounding the Amata City Industrial Estate in Chonburi, Thailand. The study found that economy and environment were the two most preferred CSR dimensions, and residents were categorized into seven segments through K-means clustering. These findings can benefit IE management in Thailand and support the initiation of citizen-centric CSR activities by companies and local governments.
Industrial estates (IEs) are important for economic growth, but they also negatively impact the living environment of local communities. To foster community acceptance, IEs and companies often implement corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs. However, very few studies have explored the preferences of local communities. Therefore, the first objective of this research was to identify the CSR dimensions and activities preferred by local communities surrounding Amata City Industrial Estate in Chonburi, Thailand, while the second objective was to categorize residents based on their CSR preferences using K-means clustering. Data were collected from 309 residents and assessed using a choice-based conjoint analysis, with the two most preferred CSR dimensions identified as economy and environment. The results confirmed heterogeneity within a community. Seven segments were identified as wellness enthusiasts, sustainable developers, knowledge supporters, balanced conservators, nature lovers, utilitarian developers and economic persons. The findings should be beneficial for IE management in Thailand and could be used by companies and local governments to initiate citizen-centric CSR activities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据