Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Social Responsibility

Theories: Mapping the Territory

Elisabet Garriga,

Dome`nec Mele´

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.

KEY WORDS: corporate social responsibility, corporate

responsiveness, corporate citizenship, stakeholder manage

ment, corporate social performance, issues management,

sustainable development, the common good

Introduction

Since the second half of the 20th century a long

debate on corporate social responsibility (CSR) has

been taking place. In 1953, Bowen (1953) wrote the

seminal book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman.

Since then there has been a shift in terminology from

the social responsibility of business to CSR. Additionally,

this field has grown significantly and today

contains a great proliferation of theories, approaches

and terminologies. Society and business, social issues

management, public policy and business, stakeholder

management, corporate accountability are just some

of the terms used to describe the phenomena related

to corporate responsibility in society. Recently, renewed

interest for corporate social responsibilities

and new alternative concepts have been proposed,

including corporate citizenship and corporate sustainability.

Some scholars have compared these new

concepts with the classic notion of CSR (see van

Marrewijk, 2003 for corporate sustainability; and

Matten et al., 2003 and Wood and Lodgson, 2002

for corporate citizenship).

Furthermore, some theories combine different

approaches and use the same terminology with different

meanings. This problem is an old one. It was

30 years ago that Votaw wrote: ‘‘corporate social

responsibility means something, but not always the

Elisabet Garriga is a PhD student in Management at IESE

Business School, University of Navarra, Spain. She holds a

degree in Philosophy and another in Economics from the

University of Barcelona, Spain. She has taught Business

Ethics at the University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, for the

International Education of Students (IES), a consortium

comprised of more than 120 leading US colleges and universities.

Her current research focuses on the concept and

implementation of Corporate Social Responsibilities. She also

has interest in organizational learning, entrepreneurship and

innovation.

Dome`nec Mele´ is Professor and Director of the Department of

Business Ethics at IESE Business School, University of

Navarra, Spain and chairs the bi-annual ‘‘International

Symposium on Ethics, Business and Society’’ held by IESE.

He has a Doctorate in Industrial Engineering from the

Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Spain (1974) and

another in Theology from the University of Navarra (1983).

He has been working in the business ethics field since 1986

and has been a member of EBEN from its beginnings. He is

author of three books on economic and business ethics (in

Spanish) and has edited eight books (in Spanish), which

include different topics on business ethics. In addition, he has

written 20 study cases (IESE Publishing) and 60 articles and

chapters in this field.

Journal of Business Ethics 53: 51–71, 2004.

2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

same thing to everybody. To some it conveys the

idea of legal responsibility or liability; to others, it

means socially responsible behavior in the ethical

sense; to still others, the meaning transmitted is that

of ‘responsible for’ in a causal mode; many simply

equate it with a charitable contribution; some take it

to mean socially conscious; many of those who embrace

it most fervently see it as a mere synonym for

legitimacy in the context of belonging or being

proper or valid; a few see a sort of fiduciary duty

imposing higher standards of behavior on businessmen

than on citizens at large’’ (Votaw, 1972, p. 25).

Nowadays the panorama is not much better. Carroll,

one of the most prestigious scholars in this discipline,

characterized the situation as ‘‘an eclectic field with

loose boundaries, multiple memberships, and differing

training/perspectives; broadly rather than focused,

multidisciplinary; wide breadth; brings in a

wider range of literature; and interdisciplinary’’

(Carroll, 1994, p. 14). Actually, as Carroll added

(1994, p. 6), the map of the overall field is quite poor.

However, some attempts have been made to address

this deficiency. Frederick (1987, 1998) outlined

a classification based on a conceptual transition

from the ethical–philosophical concept of CSR

(what he calls CSR1), to the action-oriented managerial

concept of social responsiveness (CSR2). He

then included a normative element based on ethics

and values (CSR3) and finally he introduced the

cosmos as the basic normative reference for social

issues in management and considered the role of

science and religion in these issues (CSR4). In a

more systematic way, Heald (1988) and Carroll

(1999) have offered a historical sequence of the main

developments in how the responsibilities of business

in society have been understood.

Other classifications have been suggested based on

matters related to CSR, such as Issues Management

(Wartick and Rude, 1986; Wood, 1991a) or the

concept of Corporate Citizenship (Altman, 1998). An

alternative approach is presented by Brummer (1991)

who proposes a classification in four groups of theories

based on six criteria (motive, relation to profits,

group affected by decisions, type of act, type of effect,

expressed or ideal interest). These classifications, in

spite of their valuable contribution, are quite limited

in scope and, what is more, the nature of the relationship

between business and society is rarely situated

at the center of their discussion. This vision could be

questioned as CSR seems to be a consequence of how

this relationship is understood (Jones, 1983; McMahon,

1986; Preston, 1975; Wood, 1991b).

In order to contribute to a clarification of the field

of business and society, our aim here is to map the

territory in which most relevant CSR theories and

related approaches are situated. We will do so by

considering each theory from the perspective of how

the interaction phenomena between business and

society are focused.

As the starting point for a proper classification, we

assume as hypothesis that the most relevant CSR

theories and related approaches are focused on one

of the following aspects of social reality: economics,

politics, social integration and ethics. The inspiration

for this hypothesis is rooted in four aspects that,

according to Parsons (1961), can be observed in any

social system: adaptation to the environment (related

to resources and economics), goal attainment (related

to politics), social integration and pattern

maintenance or latency (related to culture and values).

1 This hypothesis permits us to classify these

theories in four groups:

1. A first group in which it is assumed that the

corporation is an instrument for wealth creation

and that this is its sole social responsibility.

Only the economic aspect of the

interactions between business and society is

considered. So any supposed social activity is

accepted if, and only if, it is consistent with

wealth creation. This group of theories could

be call instrumental theories because they

understand CSR as a mere means to the end of

profits.

2. A second group in which the social power of

corporation is emphasized, specifically in its

relationship with society and its

...