Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory

Abstract

ABSTRACT. The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) field presents not only a landscape of theories but also a proliferation of approaches, which are controversial, complex and unclear. This article tries to clarify the situation, ''mapping the territory'' by classifying the main CSR theories and related approaches in four groups: (1) instrumental theories, in which the corporation is seen as only an instrument for wealth creation, and its social activities 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. In practice, each CSR theory presents four dimensions related to profits, political performance, social demands and ethical values. The findings suggest the necessity to develop a new theory on the business and society relationship, which should integrate these four dimensions.

Determinants of Nigerian managers’ environmental attitude: Africa's Ubuntu ethics versus global capitalism

“…The unequivocal message from key writers seeking to unpack the meaning and drivers of CSR from an African perspective is that ethical and philanthropic incentives are the key drivers (Amaeshi et al, ; Jamali & Mirshak, ; Visser, , ; Vives, ). This view is mostly consistent with Garriga and Mele's () common good ethical approach to CSR, as outlined above, and probably motivated by the cultural contingency approach to management and organizational behavior (cf. Hofstede, ; Huffman & Hegarty, ).…”

“…A popular and very useful framework for organizing the drivers of CSR puts these factors into three main categories: economic, institutional, and ethical motives (A. B. Carroll, , , ; Garriga & Mele, ; Jamali & Karam, ; Wood, ). This is based on over four decades of work derived essentially from refining Friedman's () original proposition that the primary motive of business was to make profits and enhance shareholders' wealth, and A.…”

“…The primacy of economic factors is rooted in the theory of the firm (Friedman, ; McWilliams & Siegel, ) and casts managers as homo economicus, which make decisions primarily by materialist‐instrumental reasoning (Porter & Kramer, ). As Windsor (, p. 226) puts it, “a leitmotiv of wealth creation progressively dominates the managerial conception of responsibility.” Garriga and Mele (, p. 54) affirm that profit maximization is the “supreme criterion to evaluate particular corporate social and environmental activity” in the West. The business case for responsibility is that firms do well (financially) by doing good (acting responsibly).…”

“…The common good approach places emphasis on the personhood of business and corporations. A company is likened to a citizen and, “as with any other group or individual in society, has to contribute to the common good because it is part of society” (Garriga & Mele, , p. 62). This approach bears very close resemblance to the Ubuntu philosophy, which, as we argue below, represents the dominant, if contested, view of a CSR driver in Africa.…”

How different are corporate social responsibility motives in a developing country? Insights from a study of Indian agribusiness firms

“…Such a response is motivated by the realization that compliance with societal expectations is necessary to safeguard some space for the freedom of action of business in the pursuit of profit. This “enlightened self‐interest” thesis is one of the pillars of the CSR literature in the West (Garriga & Melé, ). It implies that although it is not impossible for firms to engage in CSR on largely moral or ethical grounds, normally they do so to enhance corporate profit or shareholder gain.…”