||A Corporate Social Responsibility Study in Kaohsiung City's Financial Institutions|
The heightened competition and reducing profit-margin in the banking industry have forced banks to change for facing the struggle environment. In addition, many deceptive crime and practices happened recently are all related to the banking system, such as cheating ATM events and disclosure customers’ personal information inappropriately. Under the kind of situation, how to restore customers’ trust to banks has become the priority issue in the banking industry now. Therefore, the theme of social responsibility has come back to the table and attract intensive interests from both the academics and industry.
This research conducted an empirical study through a qualitative approach. The purpose of this study is trying to explore the framework on the corporate social responsibility for the financial institution. By in-depth interviewing 17 executives in the financial institutions and based on previous researches, this study concluded four categories of corporate social responsibility for financial companies.
1. Economic Responsibility: Good quality products, appeal channel for customers, business sales performance.
2. Legal Responsibility: Support the related laws and legislations for protecting environment.
3. Ethical Responsibility: Well system of employee training, support technology development, community citizenship, and the concept of respecting employees.
4. Discretionary Responsibility: Charity, helping the minority group, improving social problems, and corporate vision.
Overall, companies have accepted and taken some actions on both responsibilities, Economic and Legal. In addition, there are two constructs in the category of Ethical responsibility, employee training and respect employee, improved from the level of “acceptance” to “action”. In addition, the other two constructs in the category of Ethical responsibility, support technology development and community citizenship, have been accepted by the executives but can’t achieve the level of “action” as some related limited regulations. Finally, the construct of Discretionary responsibility has not been taken any action by these interviewed companies.