This literature review employs insights to the studies and findings done by previous prominent researchers on the topic of corporate social responsibility (CSR). In this literature review, the main sources consulting are including books, journals and dissertations that related to CSR.This topic is an extensive study and encompasses numerous concepts and related notions. Nevertheless, the main objective of this literature review is to recapitulate the studies into three main parts. Initially, history and terminology regarding CSR will be reviewed. Subsequent, imperative changes and development of CSR have also been identified, illustrated by three well-known models: Frederick’s model, Mohan’s model, and Carroll’s CSR pyramid. Thirdly, two approaches are employed to clarify the growth of CSR in large corporations which are economic approach and stakeholder theory.
2.0 HISTORY AND TERMINOLOGY
The concept of CSR is actively discussed since 1950s. This view is agreed by Sriramesh et al. (2009) and along with Maignan and Ferrell (2004) who recognized one of the earliest definitions of CSR which is the Bowen’s definition. According to Bowen (1953, p.6), CSR defined as “the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society.” Since then, profuse researches have been done on CSR and various definitions have been discovered including Carroll (1979), McWilliams and Siegel (2001), and Whetten et al. (2002). From readings, it is noteworthy that definition of CSR has been altered from the broad term society that narrowed down to stakeholders. (deBakker et al., 2005) This is confirmed by Table 1, showing the evolution of CSR definition. In addition, Clarkson (1995) made a similar observation which revealed that the term society is broadly defined, inclusive and obscured. The same author further mentioned that responsibility of business is not toward society all in all but, toward those who affected by the business, which is the stakeholders. Furthermore, the newest concept of corporate citizenship (CC) is again a subject of debate among CSR scholars. The term emerged since 1990s and one of the leading scholars, Post (2000) defined the terms in deeper framework. (Table 1) As stated by Sriramesh et al. (2009), the term of CC overlaps largely with the concept of CSR. The author noticed that the parameter of CC is identical to what CSR comprises. Additionally, another scholar Matten et al. (2003) described CC as a successor to CSR. As a contrary to the above-mentioned, Whitehouse (2003, p.299) identifies that “Corporate citizenship should be viewed, not as a replacement for CSR, but as a complement to it.” Nonetheless, the authors’ views aforementioned are subjective. 3.0 EVOLVING NOTION OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Form readings, transformation of CSR definition is undoubtedly related to the development of CSR studies. Ample evidences show that CSR has evolved from 1950s until today. 3.1 Frederick’s Model
A leading scholar, Frederick, 2006 (cited in Lawrence and Weber, 2008) has developed four evolving phases of CSR, as illustrated in Figure 1. The first phase is referred to as Corporate Social Stewardship, which parallel to the Stewardship principle that contributed to the explanation on how CSR began in the studies by Lawrence and Weber (2008). It is arguable that the phases in Frederick’s model also included in Mohan’s model, however in different time frame. 3.2 Mohan’s Model
Empirically illustrated by Mohan’s model cited in deBakker et al. (2005) as described in Figure 2, the latter model is begun with Business Ethics, and then Corporate Social Responsiveness in year 1975.(cf. Frederick’s model) Nevertheless, both of the authors agreed that the new term of Corporate Citizenship is begun since 1990s. When looking at the two models, there is a missing gap...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document