Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Business Ethics 89 (4):613 - 627 (2009)
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become indispensable in modern business discourse; yet identifying and defining what CSR means is open to contest. Although such contestation is not uncommon with concepts found in the social sciences, for CSR it presents some difficulty for theoretical and empirical analysis, especially with regards to verifying that diverse application of the concept is consistent or concomitant. On the other hand, it seems unfeasible that the diversity of issues addressed under the CSR umbrella would yield to a singular universal definition. Gallie, an eminent philosophical scholar, proposed the essentially contested concepts (ECC) theory in 1956 to address concepts that by their very nature engender perpetual disputes. He pointed out that there are certain concepts which by their very nature are inevitably contested and prescribed seven criteria for evaluating such concepts. This article examines these criteria to discover if CSR is an essentially contested concept and in that case, to construe if such a change in perception will resolve the definitional crisis. The analysis suggests that CSR is an ECC and this explains the potential for several conceptions of CSR, however, it does not totally obviate the need for a definition of its core or common reference point, if only to ensure that the contestants are dealing with an identical subject matter.
|Keywords||Corporate social responsibility essentially contested concepts business society definition|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Junwei Shi, Haiyan Fu & Lijun Hu (2007). Social Responsibility, Social Capital, and Corporate Competitive Advantage in Transitional China. International Corporate Responsibility Series 3:377-394.
Luuk Knippenberg & Edwin B. P. de Jong (2010). Moralising the Market by Moralising the Firm. Journal of Business Ethics 96 (1):17-31.
Vladimir Petkoski (2007). From International Corporate Responsibility to Local CSR. International Corporate Responsibility Series 3:283-295.
Duygu Turker (2009). Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 85 (4):411 - 427.
Lisa Whitehouse (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility: Views From the Frontline. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 63 (3):279 - 296.
Thomas Maak (2008). Undivided Corporate Responsibility: Towards a Theory of Corporate Integrity. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 82 (2):353 - 368.
Cameron Sabadoz (2011). Between Profit-Seeking and Prosociality: Corporate Social Responsibility as Derridean Supplement. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 104 (1):77-91.
Andrew Mason (1990). On Explaining Political Disagreement: The Notion of an Essentially Contested Concept. Inquiry 33 (1):81 – 98.
Lei Wang & Heikki Juslin (2009). The Impact of Chinese Culture on Corporate Social Responsibility: The Harmony Approach. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 88 (3):433 - 451.
Samantha Miles (2012). Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused? [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 108 (3):285-298.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads72 ( #15,520 of 1,018,138 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,594 of 1,018,138 )
How can I increase my downloads?