Csr, Evolution of Defitional Construct
Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999
Corporate Social Responsibility
Evolution of a Definitional Construct
ARCHIE B. CARROLL
University of Georgia
There is an impressive history associated with the evolution of the concept and definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR). In this article, the author traces the evolution of the CSR construct beginning in the 1950s, which marks the modern era of CSR. Definitions expanded during the 1960s and proliferated during the 1970s. In the 1980s, there were fewer new definitions, more empirical research, and alternative themes began to mature. These alternative themes included corporate social performance (CSP), stakeholder theory, and business ethics theory. In the 1990s, CSR continues to serve as a core construct but yields to or is transformed into alternative thematic frameworks.
The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has a long and varied history. It is possible to trace evidences of the business community’s concern for society for centuries. Formal writing on social responsibility, however, is largely a product of the 20th century, especially the past 50 years. Furthermore, although it is possible to see footprints of CSR thought throughout the world (mostly in developed countries), formal writings have been most evident in the United States, where a sizable body of literature has accumulated. With this in mind, my review of CSR’s definitional evolution will focus on this body of literature. At the same time, however, it must be acknowledged that related notions may have developed both in theory and practice in other countries and at different times. A significant challenge is to decide how far back into the literature to delve to begin discussing the concept of CSR. A good case could be made for about 50 years because so much has occurred since that time that has shaped our theory, research, and practice. Using this as a general guideline for
Corporate Social Responsibility
Evolution of a Definitional Construct
ARCHIE B. CARROLL
University of Georgia
There is an impressive history associated with the evolution of the concept and definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR). In this article, the author traces the evolution of the CSR construct beginning in the 1950s, which marks the modern era of CSR. Definitions expanded during the 1960s and proliferated during the 1970s. In the 1980s, there were fewer new definitions, more empirical research, and alternative themes began to mature. These alternative themes included corporate social performance (CSP), stakeholder theory, and business ethics theory. In the 1990s, CSR continues to serve as a core construct but yields to or is transformed into alternative thematic frameworks.
The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has a long and varied history. It is possible to trace evidences of the business community’s concern for society for centuries. Formal writing on social responsibility, however, is largely a product of the 20th century, especially the past 50 years. Furthermore, although it is possible to see footprints of CSR thought throughout the world (mostly in developed countries), formal writings have been most evident in the United States, where a sizable body of literature has accumulated. With this in mind, my review of CSR’s definitional evolution will focus on this body of literature. At the same time, however, it must be acknowledged that related notions may have developed both in theory and practice in other countries and at different times. A significant challenge is to decide how far back into the literature to delve to begin discussing the concept of CSR. A good case could be made for about 50 years because so much has occurred since that time that has shaped our theory, research, and practice. Using this as a general guideline for
References: BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999 Johnson (1971) presented a second view of CSR: “Social responsibility states that businesses carry out social programs to add profits to their organization” (p