Search for much more papers by this author

Open college of Israel, room of Management and Economics, Israel

Search for much more papers by this author
Please testimonial our Terms and also Conditions of Use and also check box below to share full-text variation of article.

You are watching: The economic model of social responsibility

Shareable Link

Use the link below to re-superstructure a full-text variation of this write-up with her friends and colleagues. Discover more.

Decades of conflict on corporate social obligation (CSR) have actually resulted in a considerable body of literature offering a variety of philosophies that regardless of real and relevant differences amongst their theoretical presumptions express consensus about the basic idea that organization corporations have actually an obligation to occupational for social betterment. Every accounts that CSR identify that business firms have many different kinds of responsibility, and seek to specify both the border of corporate obligation in society and the criteria for measuring organization performance in the society arena.11 because that instance, Carroll, A. B., “A three-dimensional conceptual model of that company performance,” Academy of monitoring Review 4, 4(1979): 497– 505; Clarkson, M. B. E., “A stakeholder structure for examining and examining corporate society performance,” Academy of management Review 20, 1(1995): 92– 117; W. C. Frederick, Corporation, be Good! (Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Publishing, 2006); Sethi, S. P., “Dimensions that corporate society responsibility: an analysis framework,” California administration Review 17, 3(1975): 58– 64; Swanson, D. L., “Addressing a theoretical trouble by reorienting the social power model,” Academy of monitoring Review 20, 1(1995): 43– 64; Waddock, S. A., “Creating that company accountability: foundational principles to make corporate citizenship real.” newspaper of business Ethics 50, 4(2004): 313– 327; Wood, D. J., “Corporate social power revisited,” Academy of administration Review 16, 4 (1991): 691– 718. Waddock22 Waddock, S. A., “Parallel universes: companies, academics, and the progression of corporate citizenship,” service and culture Review 109, 1(2004): 5– 42. used the an allegory of a branching tree to explain how the ar has advanced into its present understanding that CSR, an expertise that attempts to connect the relatively parallel universes of theory and also practice, and to illustrate exactly how various theoretical branches are pertained to each other. Fruitful together the advancement of a substantial organizing framework for the field has been, we room still left v the same quagmire that definitional troubles that beclouded the old debate around the exact nature the CSR. The old claim that CSR “means something, but not constantly the exact same thing to everybody”33 Votaw, D., “Genius i do not care rare: a discuss the theory of social duty Part. I.” California administration Review 15, 2(1972): 25– 31. is no much less true today. This write-up seeks to include clarity to CSR theory and also research by focusing on the core responsibilities that type the tribe of the branching CSR tree. A comparative analysis of three well-known CSR models—represented graphically as a pyramid,44 because that instance, Carroll, “A three-dimensional theoretical model of this firm performance.” intersecting circles,55 for instance, Jones, T. M., “An integrating frame for study in business and also society: a action toward the elusive paradigm?” Academy of monitoring Review 8, 4(1983): 559– 564; Schwartz, M. S. And Carroll, A. B., “Corporate social responsibility: a three-domain approach.” service Ethics Quarterly 13, 4 (2003): 503– 530. 6. Adapted right here from the Committee because that Economic development (CED), Social responsibilities of business Corporations, (New York: Author, 1971). 7. W. C. Frederick, “Theories the corporate social performance,” in Business and Society: size of Conflict and Cooperation, eds. S. P. Sethi and also C. Falbe (New York: Lexington Books, 1987): 142–161. and concentric circles6—might aid locate and also clarify ambiguities v revealing systematic distinctions in their underlying assumptions, theoretical structure, methodological tools, and also managerial implications.

In the following section i briefly review the evolution of the CSR concept and also its extensions. Ns next current the three CSR models beginning with a an essential analysis the Carroll"s CSR pyramid, a leading model that has actually enjoyed large popularity among business and culture scholars; I will certainly then study the intersecting one (IC) model, a CSR configuration representing overlapping duty areas; I will conclude v the concentric circle (CON) model, originally occurred by the Committee because that Economic advancement (CED), and also reformulated right here so together to adjust to recent breakthroughs in CSR thought. In each ar of the to compare analysis, ns will first portray the general idea the the model, and also then comment on its theoretical assumptions and also its ramifications for research and practice. The last section discusses few of the ramifications of this evaluation for future CSR research and teaching.

indigenous CSR BRANCHES come CSR TRUNK

Early interpretations of CSR, or CSR1 in Frederick"s7 well-accepted classification, lugged heavy philosophic overtones. The abstract and also often very elusive ethics governing CSR1 yielded, toward the so late 1970s, to the action-oriented managerial ide of corporate society responsiveness (CSR2) and also corporate social power (CSP). The brand-new theoretical viewpoints to CSR went past the previous rather narrower focus and, instead, aimed to develop much more comprehensive frameworks the incorporate operational and behavioral elements of that company endeavor, said the corporation to its outside environment, and also ground CSR/CSP concept in one or an ext social sciences–humanities disciplines.88 because that a in-depth review, view for example, Carroll, A. B., “Corporate social responsibility: advancement of a definitional construct.” company and society 38, 3(1999): 268– 295; Frederick, Corporation, it is in Good!; Waddock, “Parallel Universes.” 9. Carroll, “Three-Dimensional.”

Carroll"s foundational write-up on social performance9 detailed a three-dimensional model defined by category of CSR (economic, legal, ethical, and also discretionary) top top the first dimension, managerial ideologies or settings of social responsiveness (reaction, defense, accommodation, and also proaction) top top the 2nd dimension, and also the variety of social problems that service must deal with (e.g., consumerism, environment, product safety) on the third dimension. Wartick and also Cochran presented their development of the CSP model, which expanded Carroll"s version recasting his 3 dimensions of responsibility, responsiveness, and also social problems into a framework of values (using Carroll"s four-part definition of CSR), processes (social responsiveness—the general means to the ends of satisfying corporate social obligations), and also policies (social problems management).1010 Wartick, S. L. And also Cochran, P. L., “The evolution of the this firm social performance model,” Academy of administration Review 10, 4(1985): 758– 769. 11. Wood, “Corporate social power revisited,” 693. lock emphasized that CSP can incorporate the three dominant orientations in the ar of business and also society: the philosophical orientation (relates mostly to the principles of society responsibility), the institutional orientation (relates mostly to the process of society responsiveness), and the business orientation (relates mostly to the policies of social issues management).

In what became an important framework that continues to form the conceptualization of the field, Wood, building on Wartick and Cochran"s CSP model, integrated much the the ahead theoretical developments in one acknowledged definition of CSP together the “configuration the the principles of social responsibility, procedures of society responsiveness, and policies, programs, and observable outcomes as they relate to the firm"s societal relationships.”11 This definition permits CSP to be viewed as an assessment tool, a guiding framework that provides an outline of what demands to be considered (policies, programs, processes, and social outcomes) in analyzing CSR. It, however, does no clarify even if it is or to what extent processes that responsiveness and observable social outcomes are connected to principles of responsibility. In various other words, the CSP design escapes the central issue of defining the borders of CSR. Indeed, as lumber noted, among the major attractions that the CSP model has been its capacity to sever the implicit identity of responsibility, responsiveness, and social outcomes and to indicate, because that example, the a firm having actually social programs and also policies can be viewed as responsive to social expectations, but not necessarily thus as socially responsible.

In an initiative to integrate normative and descriptive approaches to CSP, Swanson reoriented Wood"s framework through shifting the focus of fist from the CSP branches—processes of corporate social responsiveness, programs, policies, and also social results of this firm behavior—to the CSP trunk: the core duties that cannot be escaped since they space integral come action.1212 Swanson, “Addressing theoretical problem”; cf., Swanson, D. L., “Toward an integrative theory of business and also society: a research study strategy for corporate society performance,” Academy of administration Review 24, 4(1999): 506– 521. 13. W. C. Frederick, Values, Nature, and society in the American copy, group (New York: Oxford university Press, 1995). 14. Waddock, “Creating this firm accountability,” 313. 15. M. B. E. Clarkson, values of Stakeholder administration (Toronto: The Clarkson centre for service Ethics, 1999). using Frederick"s nature-based method to foundational this firm values,13 it seems that Swanson was in search of a an ext process-oriented, dynamic model of CSP that can accommodate mutual impacts and merged effects of different clusters the values.

Consistent with Swanson"s reorientation the the CSP model, there has actually been newly renewed attention in the core values or principles that carry out the behavioral and also philosophical rationale because that socially responsible that company practices. For example, Waddock says “generally agreed values of this firm citizenship,”14 Clarkson lists seven ethics for stakeholders management,15 Hemphill proposes set of ethics of excellence for regulating corporate relationships with major stakeholders,1616 Hemphill, T. A., “Corporate citizenship: the situation for a brand-new corporate governance model,” company and culture Review 109, 3(2004): 339– 361. Logsdon and Wood carry out a “relatively small collection of simple universal principles”1717 Logsdon, J. M., and Wood, D. J., “Business citizenship: from domestic to an international level of analysis,” organization Ethics Quarterly 12, 2(2002): 177. the govern the company"s conduct, and Goodpaster gift the Caux round Table ethics of worldwide business together “one that the finest known sets of transcultural principles available today.”1818 Goodpaster, K. E., “Some obstacles of society screening,” newspaper of company Ethics 43, 3(2003): 239. 19. Carroll, “Corporate social responsibility.” Observing transforms in social expectations native the business community, scholars may revise and also adapt existing formulations that CSR, but, as Carroll noted,19 it appears unlikely that brand-new concepts could build apart and also distinct from the groundwork that has actually been established to date.

See more: How To Break In Longboard Wheels, How To Powerslide On A Longboard

Rather 보다 articulating a set of ethics that purports to offer necessary and also sufficient problems for CSR, this article focuses on the conceptual structure that CSR and also the relations in between its aspects as illustrated in three different schematic descriptions (Figure1): pyramid, intersecting circles, and also concentric circles.