Archie B. Carroll

The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders

F or the better part of 30 years now, corporate executives have struggled with the issue of the firms responsibility to its society. Early on it was argued by some that the corporations sole responsibility was to provide a maximum financial return to shareholders. It became quickly apparent to everyone, however, that this pursuit of financial gain had to take place within the laws of the land. Though social activist groups and others throughout the 1960s advocated a broader notion of corporate responsibility, it was not until the significant social legislation of the early 1970s that this message became indelibly clear as a result of the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

Corporate Social Responsibility Evolution of a Definitional Construct

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 Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice

In this review, the primary subject is the ‘business case’ for corporate social responsibility (CSR). The business case refers to the underlying arguments or rationales supporting or documenting why the business community should accept and advance the CSR ‘cause’. The business case is concerned with the primary question: What do the business community and organizations get out of CSR? That is, how do they benefit tangibly from engaging in CSR policies, activities and practices? The business case refers to the bottom-line financial and other reasons for businesses pursuing CSR strategies and policies. In developing this business case, the paper first provides some historical background and perspective. In addition, it provides a brief discussion of the evolving understandings of CSR and some of the long-established, traditional arguments that have been made both for and against the idea of business assuming any responsibility to society beyond profit-seeking and maximizing its own financial well-being. Finally, the paper addresses the business case in more detail. The goal is to describe and summarize what the business case means and to review some of the concepts, research and practice that have come to characterize this developing idea.

The Four Faces of Corporate Citizenship

Some observers call it corporate social responsibility (CSR). Others refer to it as corporate ethics. More recently, businesses’ social performance has been framed as “corporate citizenship.” But, what does corporate citizenship really mean? What is business expected to be or to do to be considered a good corporate citizen? Is corporate citizenship compatible with or hostile to corporate growth and profits? A significant boost to corporate citizenship initiatives was given in 1996 when President Clinton called to Washington a group of leading business people to discuss the notion of corporate citizenship and social responsibility. At this conference, President Clinton exhorted the business leaders to “do well” by their employees as they make money for their shareholders. He and then–Labor Secretary Robert Reich announced the newly created Ron Brown Corporate Citizenship Award, named for the late commerce secretary who died in 1996 along with a group of business executives on a trade mission to Bosnia. The award was to honor American companies each year deemed to best exemplify efforts to support its workers. President Clinton’s five criteria for the Ron Brown Award for “good corporate citizenship” boiled down to companies exhibiting the following practices: “family-friendly” policies, such as allowing family leave; good health and pension benefits; a safe workplace; training and advancement opportunities; and policies that avoid layoffs. In 1998, the 1997 winners were announced: IBM Corporation, for its diversity programs, and Levi Strauss & Co., for its antiracism initiative “Project Change.” One could not argue with these criteria nor these winners; however, one cannot help but note that the criteria all involve the relationship between companies and their employees, with no mention being made of shareholders, consumers, the community in which the business is located, or other important stakeholders. Surely corporate citizenship extends beyond relationships between companies and their employees and includes the business responding to and interacting with these other vital stakeholders. Decades of studying businesses’ corporate social performance, their activities that extend beyond profit-making, and their contributions to the community lead one to conclude that corporate citizenship is real—it is expected of business by the public, and it is manifested by many excellent companies. Further, corporate citizenship addresses the relationship between companies and all their important stakeholders, not just employees. The full gamut of corporate citizenship includes its four faces. Each “face,” aspect, or responsibility reveals an important facet that contributes to the whole. Just as private citizens are expected to fulfill these responsibilities, companies are as well. Corporate citizenship has an economic face, a legal face, an ethical face, and a philanthropic face. Stated differently, good corporate citizens are expected to:

Philanthropy as Strategy When Corporate Charity "Begins at Home"

Scholars and practitioners alike indicate a movement in corporate philanthropy toward “strategic” giving, for example, giving that improves the firms strategic position (ultimately the “bottom line”) while it benefits the recipient of the philanthropic act. Although the existence of this trend is widely accepted, it is represented in the literature most often by anecdotal evidence. This article presents the findings of a survey of corporate giving managers of U.S. firms that have had an established giving program of at least 5 years, with annual giving totaling at least

Ethical Challenges for Business in the New Millennium: Corporate Social Responsibility and Models of Management Morality

200,000 each year. The data show that corporate giving managers believe their firms are becoming increasingly strategic in their philanthropic activities. The findings also indicate that institutional-, firm-, and individual-level influences combine to precipitate strategic philanthropy. These findings lend support to the belief that the nature of corporate philanthropy is evolving to fit a more competitive marketplace.

A Retrospective Examination of CSR Orientations: Have They Changed?

As we transition to the 21st century, it is useful to think about some of the most important challenges business and other organizations will face as the new millennium begins. What will constitute “business as usual†in the business ethics arena as we start and move into the new century? My overall thought is that we will pulsate into the future on our current trajectory and that the new century will not cause cataclysmic changes, at least not immediately. Rather, the problems and challenges we face now we will face then. Undoubtedly, new issues will arise but they will more likely be extensions of the present than discontinuities with the past.

A commentary and an overview of key questions on Corporate Social Performance Measurement

AbstractThis study has been designed to investigate whether Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) orientations have shifted in their priority in response to societys changing expectations. For this sample of U.S.-based multinational chemical subsidiaries, it appears that the top priority continues to be economic responsibilities, followed closely by legal responsibilities. A socially accountable corporation ... must be a thoughtful institution, able to rise above economic interest to anticipate the impact of its actions on all individuals and groups, from shareholders to employees to customers, to fellow-breathers of the air and fellow-sharers of the land. A successful business organization must possess a moral sense as well as an economic sense (Thornton Bradshaw, President of Atlantic Richfield Co. inBusiness and Society: Strategies for the 1980s, 1980, p. xiv).

Moral Reasoning Skills: Are Entrepreneurs Different?

This article has two purposes. First, the author will provide a commentary on Donna Wood’s article on theory, research, passion, and integrity in business and society. This is in response to an invitation to serve as a raconteur onWood’s article. In fulfilling this role, the author will provide summary comments and then remark on each major section of her article. She provides a helpful and engaging overview of the business and society field that provides a backdrop for a consideration of Corporate Social Performance (CSP) theory and measurement. Second, the author will present what he considers to be a few key questions or issues that need to be addressed as we seek to advance CSP measurement.

In search of the moral manager

Drawing on existing theory in the fields of business ethics, entrepreneurship, and psychology, this research provides an initial empirical exploration of whether entrepreneurs use cognitive reasoning processes which reflect a higher level of moral development than the level of moral development that has been empirically observed either in middle-level managers or in the general adult population. The Defining Issues Test was used to measure the level of moral reasoning skill of the entrepreneurs in this study. Although the study was limited by a small sample size and the inherent difficulty of making accurate comparisons across other empirical studies, the results of this study suggest that entrepreneurs may exhibit moral reasoning skills at a slightly higher level than middle-level managers or the general adult population.