Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theorising Corporate Social Responsibility as an Essentially Contested Concept: Is a Definition Necessary?

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

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

  • Abrams, F. W.: (1951), ‹Management’s responsibilities in a complex world’, Harvard Business Review 29(3), 29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alversson, M. and H. Wilmott: (1992), ‹Critical Theory and Management Studies: An introduction’, in M. Alversson and H. Wilmott (eds.), Critical Management Studies (London, Sage), pp. 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amaeshi, K. M. and B. Adi: (2007), ‹Reconstructing the corporate social responsibility construct in Utlish’, Business Ethics. European Review (Chichester, England) 16, 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriof, J. and M. McIntosh: (2001) Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship (Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, S. B.: (2003), ‹The practice of Stakeholder Colonialism: National interest and colonial discourses in the management of indigenous stakeholders’, in A. Prasad (ed.), Postcolonial theory and Organizational analysis (Palgrave, New York), pp. 255–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, S. B.: (2007) Corporate social responsibility : the good, the bad and the ugly (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendell, J.: (2004) Barricades and Boardrooms: A contemporary history of the Corporate Accountability Movement (UNRISD, Geneva).

    Google Scholar 

  • Berle, A. A., Jr.: (1931), ‹Corporate Powers as powers in trust’, Harvard Law Review 44 , 1049–1079. doi:10.2307/1331341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, H. R.: (1953) Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (Harper & Row, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T.: (2007), ‹The normative grounding of corporate social responsibility: a human rights approach’, in D. J. McBarnet., A. Voiculescu and T. Campbell (Eds.), The new corporate accountability : corporate social responsibility and the law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: (1979), ‹A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance’, Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505. doi:10.2307/257850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: (1998), ‹The four faces of corporate citizenship’, Business and Society Review, 100, 1–7. doi:10.1111/0045-3609.00008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: (1999), ‹Corporate social responsibility - evolution of a definitional construct’, Business & Society, 38, 268–295. doi:10.1177/000765039903800303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: (2008), ‹A History of Corporate Social Responsibility: Concepts and Practices’, in A. Crane, et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (Oxford University Press, New York), pp. 19–46.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, D., Hidalgo, F. D. and Maciuceanu, A.O: (2006),’Essentially contested concepts: Debates and applications’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 11, 211–246. doi:10.1080/13569310600923782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, W. E.: (1974) The Terms of Political Discourse (Heath, Lexington).

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A. et al. (eds.): 2008, The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (Oxford University Press, New York).

  • Dahlsrud, A.: (2008), ‹How CSR is Defined’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K.: (1960), ‹Can Business afford to ignore Corporate Social Responsibility?’, California Management Review, 2, 70–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K.: (1967), ‹Understanding the Social Responsibility Puzzle’, Business Horizons, 10(4), 45–51. doi:10.1016/0007-6813(67)90007-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K.: (1973), ‹The case for and against the assumption of social responsibilities’, Academy of Management Review, 16, 312–322. doi:10.2307/255331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd, E. M.: (1932), ‹For Whom are Corporate Managers Trustees?’, Harvard Law Review, 45, 1145–1163. doi:10.2307/1331697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson.T.: (1983), ‹Constructing a social contract for business,’ in T. Donaldson and P. Werhane (eds.), Ethical Issues in Business (Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ), pp. 153–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. and Dunfee, T. W: (1994), ‹Towards a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory’, Academy of Management Review, 19, 252–284. doi:10.2307/258705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. and Dunfee, T. W: (1999) Ties that Bind: A Social Contracts approach to Business (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. E.: (1995), ‹The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implications’, Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. doi:10.2307/258887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donham, W. B.: (1927),’ The social significance of business’, Harvard Business Review, 5(4), 406–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donham, W. B.: (1929), ‹Business Ethics - A general survey’, Harvard Business Review, 7(4), 385–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, W. M. and Freeman, R. E: (1988), ‹A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian Capitalism’, in T. Beauchamp and N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical Theory and Business (Prentice- Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ), pp. 75–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, W. C.: (2006) Corporation, be good!: the story of corporate social responsibility (Dog Ear Publishing, Indianapolis, IN).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeden, M.: (1996) Ideologies and Political Theory (Claredon Press, Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E.: (1984) Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach (Pitman, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E.: (2002), ‹A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation’, in L. P. Hartman (ed.), Perspectives in Business (McGraw-Hill, Boston), pp. 171–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. and Evans, W.M: (1990), ‹Corporate Governance: A stakeholder interpretation’, The Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4), 337–359. doi:10.1016/0090-5720(90)90022-Y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M.: 1970, ‹The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Increase Its Profits’, New York Times Magazine, September 13th, pp. 32, 33, 122, 126.

  • Frynas, J. G.: (2005), ‹The false developmental promise of corporate social responsibility: evidence of multinational oil companies’, International Affairs, 81, 581–598. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2005.00470.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. K.: (1978) The New Industrial State (3rd ed.) (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallie, W. B.: 1956, ‹Essentially Contested Concepts’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56, 167–198 reprinted in M. Black (ed.): 1962, The Importance of Language (Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ), pp. 121–146 (pages cited in the paper refer to the reprint edition).

  • Garrett, T. M.: (1966) Business Ethics (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E. M. and Mele, D. (2004), ‹Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory’, Journal of Business Ethics, 53 , 51–71. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039399.90587.34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gellner, E.: (1967), ‹The concept of a story’, Ratio, 9(1), 49–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. N. (1977), ‹On the Contestability of social and political concepts’, Political Theory, 5, 331–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemingway, C. A.: (2002) An exploratory analysis of corporate social responsibility : definitions, motives and values (University of Hull Business School, Hull).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D and Dunfee T W: (2007), ‹The Kasky-Nike threat to corporate social reporting: Implementing a standard of optimal truthful disclosure as a solution’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(1), 5–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoff, D.: (2006), ‹South African Cellular Wars in Nigeria’, International Journal of Emerging Markets 1(1), 84–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, M.: (2003) The planetary bargain: corporate social responsibility matters (Earthscan, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C.: (2002), ‹Value Maximisation, Stakeholder Theory and the Corporate Objective Function’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256. doi:10.2307/3857812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., Van Tulder, R. and Welters, C: (1999), ‹International codes of conduct and corporate social responsibility: Can transnational corporations regulate themselves?’, Transnational Corporations, 8(1), 143–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantos, G. P.: (2001),’The Boundaries of Strategic CSR’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, 595–630. doi:10.1108/07363760110410281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leipziger, D.: (2003) The Corporate Responsibility Code book (Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, T.: (1958), ‹The Dangers of Social Responsibility’, Harvard Business Review, 36 , 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukes, S.: (1974) Power: A Radical View (London, Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukes, S.: 2005, Power: A Radical View (2nd ed.) (Palgrave Macmillan).

  • Margolis, J. D. and Walsh, J. P: (2003), ‹Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268–305. doi:10.2307/3556659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D. and Crane, A. (2005), ‹Corporate Citizenship: Toward an extended conceptualisation’, Academy of Management Review, 30, 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., Crane, A. and Chapple, W: (2003), ‹Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of corporate citizenship’, Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 109–120. doi:10.1023/A:1024128730308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D. and Moon, J: (2004) “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR : a conceptual framework for understanding CSR in Europe (International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, Nottingham).

    Google Scholar 

  • McBarnet, D. et al. (eds): 2007, The New Corporate Accountability: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)

  • Mcintosh, M.: (2002) Living corporate citizenship (FT/Prentice Hall).

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, A.: (1973),’ The Essential Contestability of Some Social Concepts’, Ethics, 84(1), 1–9. doi:10.1086/291897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcmahon, T. F. (1986),’ Models of the relationship of firm to society’, Journal of Business Ethics, 5, 181–191. doi:10.1007/BF00383624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcwilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001), ‹Corporate Social Responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective’, Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127. doi:10.2307/259398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams A, Siegel d. and P Wright. (2006),’ Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic implications’, Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00580.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogden, S and Watson, R. (1999),’ Corporate Performance and Stakeholder Management: Balancing Shareholder and customer interests in the UK privatised water industry’, Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 526–538. doi:10.2307/256974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omiyi, B. (Managing Director, Shell Petroleum Development Corporation Nigeria): 2007, Corporate Social Responsibility and the Oil and Gas Industry. Paper Presented at the UN Global Compact Nigerian Network International Conference on CSR 6–7 March 2007. www.nesgroup.org. Assessed April 2007.

  • Palazzo, G. S. and Scherer, A. G: (2006),’ Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A communicative Framework’, Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 71–88. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9044-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G. S. and Scherer, A. G: (2007),’ Towards a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and Society Seen from a Habermasian Perspective’, Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G. S. and Scherer, A. G: (2008),’ Globalisation and Corporate Social Responsibility’, in A. Crane.et al. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (Oxford University Press, New York), pp. 413–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A.: (1997),’ Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 51–66. doi:10.2307/3857232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E and Kramer, M.R: (2002),’ The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy’, Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E., Preston, L. E. and Sachs, S: (2002) Redefining the corporation: stakeholder management and organisational wealth (Stanford University Press, Stanford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad C. K and Hammond A: (2002),’ Serving the World’s poor profitably’, Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 48–58 .

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, L. E and Post, J. E: (1975) Private Management and Public Policy (N.J. Prentice- Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs).

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, L. E and Post, J. E: (1981), ‹Private Management and Public Policy’, California Management Review, 23(3), 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J : (1972) A Theory of Justice (Claredon Press, Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamir, R.: (2005), ‹Corporate social responsibility: a case of hegemony and counter-Hegemony’, in D. S. Santos (ed.), Law and Globalisation from below- Towards a cosmopolitan legality (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), pp. 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, L. J.: (2007),’ Corporate social responsibility and small business in a European policy context’, Business and Society Review, 112(4), 533–552. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8594.2007.00308.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector B.: (2006),’The Harvard Business Review goes to War’, Management and Organizational History 1(3), 273–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, B. (2008),’ Business Responsibilities in a Divided World: The Cold War Roots of the Corporate Social Responsibility Movement’, Enterprise and Society, 9(2), 314–336. doi:10.1093/es/khn023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanfield, J. R and Carroll, M. C: (2002), ‹Governance and the Legitimacy of Corporate Power: A path of convergence for heterodox economics?’, Journal of Economic Issues 38(2), 363–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanton, C.: (1985),’ On the ‹essential contestedness’ of political concepts’, Ethics, 95(4), 811–827. doi:10.1086/292685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tullberg, J.: (2004),’ Illusions of Corporate Power: Revisiting the relative powers of corporations and governments’, Journal of Business Ethics, 52(4), 325–323. doi:10.1007/s10551-004-1530-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Marrewijk, M.: (2003),’ Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion’, Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 95–105. doi:10.1023/A:1023331212247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Votaw, D.: (1972),’ Genius Becomes Rare: A Comment on the Doctrine of Social Responsibility Pt 1’, California Management Review, 15(2), 25–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S.: (2001),’ The multiple bottom lines of corporate citizenship: social investing, reputation and responsibility audits’, Business and Society Review, 105, 323–345. doi:10.1111/0045-3609.00085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J.: (2002),’ Is the rule of Law an Essentially Contested Concept (In Florida)?’, Law and Philosophy, 21 , 137–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watrick, S. L. and Cochran, P. L: (1985),’ The evolution of the corporate social performance model’, Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758–769. doi:10.2307/258044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werther, W. B. and Chandler, D: (2006) Strategic corporate social responsibility: stakeholders in a global environment (London, Sage).

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehouse, L. A : (2003),’ Corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship and the global compact: A new approach to regulating corporate social power’, Global. Social Policy, 3, 299–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehouse, L.A.: (2005), ‹CSR as regulation: The Argument from democracy, in O’brien, J. (Ed.), Governing the Corporation (Wiley & Sons Ltd., England), pp. 141–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windsor, D.: (2006),’ Corporate Social Responsibility – three key approaches’, Journal of Management Studies, 43, 93–114. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00584.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M.: 2001, Sleepwalking with the Enemy 16th May (Financial Times)

  • Wood, D. J.: (1991),’ Corporate Social Performance Revisited’, Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718. doi:10.2307/258977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J and Logsdon, J. M: (2001), ‹Theorising business citizenship’, in J. Anriof and M. Mcintosh (eds.), Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship (Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK), pp. 83–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerk, J. A.: (2006) Multinationals and corporate social responsibility: limitations and opportunities in international law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, U.K.

    Adaeze Okoye

Authors
  1. Adaeze Okoye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adaeze Okoye.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Okoye, A. Theorising Corporate Social Responsibility as an Essentially Contested Concept: Is a Definition Necessary?. J Bus Ethics 89, 613–627 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-0021-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-0021-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation