Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a very controversial topic. A question that has been debated for the past few decades is; is it corporately viable to introduce social responsibility as a proposed addition to the work ethic of business organisations. As well as, if adopting the framework of corporate social responsibility would yield positive improvements for those organisations. The purpose of this essay is to research the notion of CSR and uncover its true framework and outline what social responsibility truly means to corporate organisations, and whether it should be seriously considered to be a legitimate addition to the corporate framework of an organisation. This will be done by outlining some of the basics through the explanation of some terms underpinning CSR and managerial involvement. An explanation of how CSR is an essential part of business language. This will then be followed by a breakdown of the complex framework that CSR is believed to have. The social expectations that consumers have of business, and ways those businesses can meet these expectations will be addressed. Then an outline of the role management plays in the incorporation of socially responsible attributes to a corporation will be expressed, evidence to suggest that if this means that there a social contract that requires business to honour a moral bare minimum, then a business manager is duty-bound to obey it' (Bowie 1991: 56-66). This essay shall also investigate some of the classical theories of CSR and its contribution to profit maximisation. Finally, some specific arguments that state that the introduction of social responsibility is not a good idea and how it has failed to create the good society' (Friedman 1970: 122-126) will be discussed. Corporate social responsibility has undergone a definitional evolution over the past half century but has always and will always remain an essential part of business language. Definitions of CSR have became more specific; since the 70's, with alternative emphases, being placed on issues such as the understanding of corporate citizenship (which is a key concept of CSR), and the stakeholder theory. In early writings CSR was referred to more often as social responsibility (SR) rather than as CSR. Bowen (1953: 6) set forth an initial definition of the social responsibility: "It refers to 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". However, nowadays CSR is simply defined as operating a business in a manner that meets or exceeds the ethical, legal, commercial and public expectations that society demands of business' (Gillis & Spring 2001: 23). Corporate citizenship is commonly defined as a company's management of its influences on and relationships with the rest of society' (Marsden 2000: 9). A recent study conducted by Hill and Knowlton found that 79% of Americans consider corporate citizenship when deciding to buy a particular company's product, 36% of which considered corporate citizenship to be an important factor (Verschoor, 2001: 20). This shows us that by achieving good corporate citizenship, a company's practices become transparent to the interested public and provide a basis for accountability for the future (Waddock, 2000: 324). The stakeholder theory made popular by Ed Freeman (1984) does seem to represent a major advance over the classical view (Freeman, 1984). It might seem inappropriate to refer to the stakeholder position as neoclassical. Bowie (1991: 56-66) has defined stakeholders as a group whose existence was necessary for the survival of the firm--stockholders, employees, customers, suppliers, the local community, and managers themselves.
The framework of corporate social responsibility is such that it is relatively complex and multidimensional. A three-dimensional interpretation of the social responsibility construct by Boal,...
References: Angelidis, J. and Ibrahim, N. 1993, ‘Social demand and corporate supply: A corporate social responsibility model ', Review of Business, vol 15, no. 1, pp 7-11.
Boal, K. and Peery, K. 1985, ‘The Cognitive Structure of Corporate Social Responsibility ', Journal of Management, vol 11, no. 3, pp 71-82.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). ‘Social responsibilities of the businessman '. New York: Harper & Row.
Brown, T. (2001) ‘Assessing Corporate Social Responsibility ', Harvard Management Update, vol. 6, no. 4.
Carroll, A. 1979. ‘A three-dimensional model of corporate performance '. Academy of Management Review, vol. 4, pp. 497-505.
Carroll, A. 1999, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility ', Business & Society, vol 38, no. 3, pp 268-296.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. 1995. ‘The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications '. Academy of Management Review, 20: 65-91.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. 1990. ‘What 's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy '. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 233-258.
Freeman, R. 1984. ‘Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective '. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Freeman, E. and Liedtka, J. 1991. ‘Corporate social responsibility: A critical approach ', Business Horizons, vol 34, no. 4, pp 92-99.
Friedman, M. 1970, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits ', New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970, pp 122-126.
Gelb, D. S. & Strawer, J. A. (2001) ‘Corporate social responsibility and financial disclosures: An alternative explanation for increased disclosure ', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 33, no. 1.
Hay, R. & Gray, E. 1974. ‘Social responsibilities of business managers '. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 17, pp. 135-143.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. 2001, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective ', Academy of Management Review, vol 26, no. 1, pp 117-128.
Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. 1997. ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts '. Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, pp. 853-886.
Robbins, S. P., Bergman, R., Stagg, I. and Coulter, M. (2000) ‘Management ', French 's Forest: Prentice Hall.
Verschoor, C. (2001) ‘Corporate Power Must Be Balanced With Good Citizenship ', Strategic Finance, vol. 83, no. 3.
Waddock, S., & Graves, S. 1997. ‘The corporate social performance--financial performance link '. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 18, pp. 303-319.
Weigelt, K., & Camerer, C. 1988. ‘Reputation and corporate strategy: A review of recent theory and application '. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 9,pp. 443-454.
Wright, P., & Ferris, S. 1997. ‘Agency conflict and corporate strategy: The effect of divestment on corporate value '. Strategic management Journal, vol. 18, pp. 77-83.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document