Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory [Book Review]
Journal of Business Ethics 53 (1-2):51-71 (2004)
Abstract
The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) field presents not only a landscape of theories but also a proliferation of approaches, which are controversial, complex and unclear. This article tries to clarify the situation, mapping the territory by classifying the main CSR theories and related approaches in four groups: (1) instrumental theories, in which the corporation is seen as only an instrument for wealth creation, and its social activities are only a means to achieve economic results; (2) political theories, which concern themselves with the power of corporations in society and a responsible use of this power in the political arena; (3) integrative theories, in which the corporation is focused on the satisfaction of social demands; and (4) ethical theories, based on ethical responsibilities of corporations to society. In practice, each CSR theory presents four dimensions related to profits, political performance, social demands and ethical values. The findings suggest the necessity to develop a new theory on the business and society relationship, which should integrate these four dimensions.Author's Profile
DOI
10.1023/b:busi.0000039399.90587.34
My notes
Similar books and articles
Corporate Social Responsibility: Theory and Evidence.Paul C. Godfrey, Nile A. Hatch & Jared M. Hansen - 2005 - Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 16:112-117.
The relation between policies concerning corporate social responsibility (csr) and philosophical moral theories – an empirical investigation.Claus Strue Frederiksen - 2010 - Journal of Business Ethics 93 (3):357 - 371.
Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three Country Comparative Study of the Evolution of a Corporate Discourse Over Time.Claes Ohlsson, Stefan Tengblad, Frank G. de Bakker, Frank den Hond & Marie-France Turcotte - 2005 - Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 16:160-165.
Equal Financial Returns of Corporate Social Responsibility and Irresponsibility: The Paradox of Potential CSR Adoption Not Being Reduced.Peter Demacarty - 2005 - Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 16:99-104.
GM and corporate responsibility.Richard T. George - 1986 - Journal of Business Ethics 5 (3):177 - 179.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Different Stages of Economic Development: Singapore, Turkey, and Ethiopia.Diana C. Robertson - 2009 - Journal of Business Ethics 88 (S4):617 - 633.
Social Responsibility, Social Capital, and Corporate Competitive Advantage in Transitional China.Junwei Shi, Haiyan Fu & Lijun Hu - 2007 - International Corporate Responsibility Series 3:377-394.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
1,210 (#5,497)
6 months
22 (#52,093)
2009-01-28
Downloads
1,210 (#5,497)
6 months
22 (#52,093)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Fresh Perspective into Theory and Practice.Dima Jamali - 2008 - Journal of Business Ethics 82 (1):213-231.
Corporate social responsibility: review and roadmap of theoretical perspectives.Jędrzej George Frynas & Camila Yamahaki - 2016 - Business Ethics: A European Review 25 (3):258-285.
A Paradox Perspective on Corporate Sustainability: Descriptive, Instrumental, and Normative Aspects.Tobias Hahn, Frank Figge, Jonatan Pinkse & Lutz Preuss - 2018 - Journal of Business Ethics 148 (2):235-248.
Research on Corporate Philanthropy: A Review and Assessment.Arthur Gautier & Anne-Claire Pache - 2015 - Journal of Business Ethics 126 (3):343-369.
An Institution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Multi-National Corporations (MNCs): Form and Implications. [REVIEW]Krista Bondy, Jeremy Moon & Dirk Matten - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 111 (2):281-299.
References found in this work
The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions.R. Edward Freeman - 1994 - Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (4):409-421.
Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function.Michael C. Jensen - 2002 - Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2):235-256.
Corporate Roles, Personal Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach to Business Ethics.Robert C. Solomon - 1992 - Business Ethics Quarterly 2 (3):317-339.
Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three-Domain Approach.Mark S. Schwartz & Archie B. Carroll - 2003 - Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (4):503-530.