Skip to main content
Log in

Criteria for Evaluating the Legitimacy of Corporate Social Responsibility

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to provide a general discussion about the legitimacy of corporate social responsibility. Given that social responsibility projects entail costs, it is not always obvious under what precise conditions managers will have a responsibility to engage in activities primarily designed to promote societal goals.

In this paper we discuss four distinct criteria for evaluating the legitimacy of corporate projects for institutionalizing social responsibility:

(1) local knowledge

(2) level of responsibility

(3) shared consensus, and

(4) relationship to financial performance.

We conclude our discussion by noting that in those cases where the firm possesses knowledge about a specific problem and its solution, is directly responsible for causing harm, where a shared consensus among all relevant stakeholders exists, and financial performance will be enhanced, social responsibility projects are ideal. Obviously, no program will meet all of the criteria. In fact, our model specifically suggests that there is often a trade-off between the first three criteria and the last. For example, in those situations where the corporation directly imposes harm on third parties, and where a high degree of consensus exists among all stakeholders, there is little need to link the social responsibility program to financial performance. By contrast, as the corporation seeks proactive solutions to problems which are only incidental to the corporation, and where little consensus exists, the predicted relationship to financial performance becomes more crucial. By formally examining the trade-offs among these four criteria we more fully understand the complex relationship between social responsibility and financial impacts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Council on Economic Priorities and M. Alperson, A. Tepper Marlin, J. Schorsch and R. Will: 1991, The Better World Investment Guide (Prentice Hall Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T.: 1982, Corporations and Morality (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, D. L.: 1979, 'An Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility', Stanford Law Review 32(1), 1–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. Edward: 1994, 'The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions', Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 409–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, Kenneth E.: 1991, 'Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis', Business Ethics Quarterly 1(1), 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, Michael C. and William H. Meckling: 1994, 'The Nature of Man', Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 7(2), 4–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J.: 1994, Competitive Advantage Through People: Unleashing the Power of the Work Force (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J.: 1994, Business and Society (Harper Collins College Publishers, New York).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pava, M.L., Krausz, J. Criteria for Evaluating the Legitimacy of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 16, 337–347 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017920217290

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017920217290

Keywords

Navigation