What Is included in corporate social responsibility? What are the social issues the organization must address? and What is the organizations philosophy or mode of social responsiveness

/academy of Management Review 1979, Vol. 4, No. 4. 497-505

A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of

Corporate Performance ARCHIE B. CARROLL University of Georgia

Offered here is a conceptual model that comprehensively describes es- sential aspects of corporate social performance. The three aspects of the model address major questions of concern to academics and managers alike: (1) What Is included in corporate social responsibility? (2) What are the social issues the organization must address? and (3) What is the organization's philosophy or mode of social responsiveness?

Concepts of corporate social responsibility have been evolving for decades. As early as the 1930s, for example, Wendell Wilkie "helped educate the businessman to a new sense of social responsibili- ty" [Cheit, 1964, p. 157, citing historian William Leuchtenburgj. The modern era of social responsi- bility, however, may be marked by Howard R. Bowen's 1953 publication of Social Responsibili- ties of the Businessman, considered by many to be the first definitive book on the subject. Following Bowen's book, a number of works played a role in developing the social responsibility concept [Berle & Means, 1932; Cheit, 1964; Davis & Blomstrom, 1966; Greenwood, 1964; Mason, 1960; McGuire, 1963]. By the mid-1950s, discussions of the social responsibilities of businesses had become so widespread that Peter Drucker chided business- men: "You might wonder, if you were a conscien- tious newspaper reader, when the managers of American business had any time for business" [1954].

One of the factors contributing to the ambiguity that frequently shrouded discussions about social responsibility was the lack of a consensus on what the concept really meant. In 1960, Keith Davis sug- gested that social responsibility refers to "busi- nessmen's decisions and actions taken for reasons

at least partially beyond the firm's direct economic or technical interest" [p. 70]. Eells and Walton, in 1961, argued as follows:

When people talk about corporate social responsi- bilities they are thinking in terms of the problems that arise when corporate enterprise casts its shadow on the social scene, and of the ethical principles that ought to govern the relationships between the corporation and society [pp. 457-458).

The real debate got underway in 1962 when Mil- ton Friedman argued forcefully that the doctrine of _ social responsibility is "fundamentally subversive." He asserted: "Few trends could so thoroughly un- dermine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible" [p. 133].

Joseph McGuire, in 1963, acknowledged the primacy of economic concerns, but also accommo- dated a broader view of the firm's social responsi- bilities. He posited that:

The idea of social responsibilities supposes that the corporation has not only economic and legal obli- gations, but also certain responsibilities to society which extend beyond these obligations [p. 144].

Arguing in a similar vein, Jules Backman has suggested that "social responsibility usually refers

© '979 ty the Academy ot Managemenl 0363-7425

497

to the objectives or motives that should be given weight by business in addition to [emphasis added] those dealing with economic performance (e.g., profits)"[1975, p. 2].

Though McGuire and Backman see social re- sponsibility as not only including but also moving beyond economic and legal considerations, others see it as involving only pure voluntary acts, thus conceptualizing social responsibility as something a firm considers over and above economic and legal criteria. Representative of this view is Henry Manne, who has argued "Another aspect of any workable definition of corporate social responsibil- ity is that the behavior of the firms must be volun- tary" [Manne & Wallich, 1972, p. 5, emphasis added].

Another approach to the question of what social responsibility means involves a definition simply listing the areas in which business is viewed as having a responsibility. For example. Hay, Gray, and Gates suggest that one aspect of social re- sponsibility requires the firm to "make decisions and actually commit resources of various kinds in some of the following areas: pollution probiems . . . poverty and racial discrimination problems… con- sumerism . . . and other social problem areas" [1976, pp. 15-16].

One of the first approaches to encompass the spectrum of economic and non-economic concerns in defining social responsibility was the "three con- centric circles" approach espoused by the Commit- tee for Economic Development (CED) in 1971. The inner circle "includes the clear-cut basic responsi- bilities for the efficient execution of the economic function — products, jobs, and economic growth." The intermediate circle "encompasses a respon- sibility to exercise this economic function with a sensitive awareness of changing social values and priorities: for example, with respect to environmen- tal conservation, hiring, and relations with em- ployees. . . . The outer circle "outlines newly emerging and still amorphous responsibilities that business should assume to become more broadly involved in actively improving the social environ- ment" [Committee for Economic Development, 1971, p. 15]. The outer circle would refer to busi- ness helping with major social problems in society such as poverty and urban blight. This "widening circle" approach has also been adopted by Davis

and Blomstrom [1975]. George Steiner's concept of corporate social re-

sponsibility is a continuum of responsibilities rang- ing from "traditional economic production" to "government dictated" to a "voluntary area" and lastly to "expectations beyond reality" [1975, p, 169]. It is thus similar to the Davis and Blomstrom and CED conceptualizations.

In recent years, several writers have suggested that our focus on the social "responsibility" of busi- ness indicates undue effort to pinpoint accountabil- ity or obligation and therefore is too narrow and too static to fully describe the social efforts or perfor- mance of business. For example, Robert Ackerman and Raymond Bauer criticize the expression "social responsibility," holding that "the connotation of're- sponsibility' is that of the process of assuming an obligation. It places an emphasis on motivation rather than performance." They elaborate: "Re- sponding to social demands is much more than deciding what to do. There remains the manage- ment task of doing what one has decided to do, and this task is far from trivial." They go on to argue that "social responsiveness" is a preferable orientation [1976, p. 6].

S. Prakash Sethi takes a slightly different, but related, path in getting from social responsibility to social responsiveness. He sets forth a three-state schema for classifying the adaptation of corporate behavior to social needs: (1) social obligation, (2) social responsibility, and (3) social responsiveness [1975, pp. 58-64]. Social obligation involves cor- porate behavior in response to market forces or legal constraints. Social responsibility "implies bringing corporate behavior up to a level where it is congruent with the prevailing social norms, values, and expectations." Social responsiveness, the third state in his schema, suggests that what is important is "not how corporations should respond to social pressures, but what should be their long-run role in a dynamic social system." Business, therefore, must be "anticipatory" and "preventive" [pp. 58- 64].

In sum, social responsibility has been defined or conceptualized in a number of different ways, by writers of stature in business, and in its various definitions the term has encompassed a wide range of economic, legal, and voluntary activities. Indeed, it has been suggested that the term should give way

498

to a new orientation referred to as social respon- siveness. Below is a summary listing of some of these various views as to what social responsibility means:

1. Profit making only (Friedman) 2. Going beyond profit making (Davis, Back-

man) 3. Going beyond economic and legal require-

ments (McGuire) 4. Voluntary activities (Manne) 5. Economic, legal, voluntary activities (Steiner) 6. Concentric circles, ever widening (CED,,

Davis and Blomstrom) 7. Concern for the broader social system (Eells

and Walton) 8. Responsibility in a number of social problem

areas (Hay, Gray, and Gates) 9. Giving way to social responsiveness (Acker-

man and Bauer, Sethi)

The Social Performance Model

Implicit in the various views of social responsibil- ity are a number of different issues. Some defini- tions, for example, face the issue of what range of eoonomic, legal, or voluntary matters fall under the purview of a firm's social responsibilities. Other def- initions address the social issues (e.g., discrimina- tion, product safety, and environment) for which business has a responsibility. A third group of defi- nitions, suggesting social responsiveness, is more concerned with the manner or philosophy of re- sponse (e.g., reaction versus proaction) than with the kinds of issues that ought to be addressed.

Because all three of these views are important, I suggest the following three distinct aspects of cor- porate social performance that must somehow be articulated and interrelated:

1. A basic definition of social responsibility (i.e.. Does our responsibility, go beyond economic and legal concerns?)

2. An enumeration of the issues for which a so- cial responsibility exists (i.e.. What are the social areas — environment, product safety, discrimination, etc. — in which we have a responsibility?)

3. A specification of the philosophy of response (i.e.. Do we react to the issues or proact?)

Each of these needs elaboration.

Definition of Social Responsibility

For a definition of social responsibility to fully address the entire range of obligations business has to society, it must embody the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary categories of business performance. These four basic expectations reflect a view of social responsibility that is related to some of the definitions offered earlier but that categorizes the social responsibilities of businesses in a more exhaustive manner. Figure 1 shows how the social responsibilities can be categorized into the four groups. (The proportions simply suggest the rela- tive magnitude of each responsibility.)

Discretionary Responsibilities

Ethical Responsibilities

TOTAL

SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITIES

Legal Responsibilities

Economic Responsibilities

Figure 1 Social Responsibility Categories

These four categories are not mutually exclusive, nor are they intended to portray a continuum with economic concerns on one end and social con- cerns on the other. That is, they are neither cumula- tive nor additive. Rather, they are ordered in the

499

Figure only to suggest what might be termed their fundamental role in the evolution of importance. Though all of these kinds of responsibilities have always simultaneously existed for business organi- zations, the history of business suggests an early emphasis on the economic and then legal aspects and a later concern for the ethical and discretionary aspects. Furthermore, any given responsibility or action of business could have economic, legal, ethical, or discretionary motives embodied in it. The four classes are simply to remind us that motives or actions can be categorized as primarily one or an- other of these four kinds.

Economic responsibilities The first and fore- most social responsibility of business is economic in nature. Before anything else, the business institu- tion is the basic economic unit in our society. As such it has a responsibility to produce goods and services that society wants and to sell them at a profit. All other business roles are predicated on this fundamental assumption.

Legal responsibilities Just as society has sanctioned the economic system by permitting bus- iness to assume the productive role, as a partial fulfillment of the "social contract," it has also laid down the ground rules — the laws and regulations — under which business is expected to operate. Society expects business to fulfill its economic mis- sion within the framework of legal requirements. The dotted lines in Figure 1 suggest that, although we have four kinds of responsibilities, they must be met simultaneously, as in the case of economic and legal responsibilities.

Ethical responsibilities Although the first two categories embody ethical norms, there are addi- tional behaviors and activities that are not neces- sarily codified into law but nevertheless are expected of business by society's members. Ethical responsibilities are ill defined and consequently are among the most difficult for business to deal with. In recent years, however, ethical responsibilities have clearly been stressed — though debate continues as to what is and is not ethical. Suffice it to say that society has expectations of business over and above legal requirements.

Discretionary responsibiiities Discretionary (or volitional) responsibilities are those about which society has no clear-cut message for business — even less so than in the case of ethical responsibili-

ties. They are left to individual judgment and choice. Perhaps it is inaccurate to call these expectations responsibilities because they are at business's dis- cretion; however, societal expectations do exist for businesses to assume social roles over and above those described thus far. These roles are purely voluntary, and the decision to assume them is guid- ed only by a business's desire to engage in social roles not mandated, not required by law, and not even generally expected of businesses in an ethical sense. Examples of voluntary activities might be making philanthropic contributions, conducting in- house programs for drug abusers, training the hardcore unemployed, or providing day-care cen- ters for working mothers. The essence of these activities is that if a business does not participate in them it is not considered unethical per se. These discretionary activities are analogous to Steiner's "voluntary" category and the CED's third circle (helping society).

This four-part framework provides us with cate- gories for the various responsibilities that society expects businesses to assume. Each responsibility is but one part of the total social responsibility of business, giving us a definition that more complete- ly describes what it is that society expects of busi- ness. This definition can therefore be stated:

The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary ex- pectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time.

This definition is designed to bring into the fold those who have argued against social responsibility by presuming an economic emphasis to be separ- ate and apart from a social emphasis, it requires a recognition of the possibility of movement from one category to the next, such as an ethicai expectation (business should manufacture safe products) be- coming a legal expectation (the requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Commission). Neil Churchhill has referred to this characteristic in as- serting that "social responsibility is a moving target" [1974, p. 266]. The definition does not "nail down" the degree of specific responsibility in each cate- gory, but it was not meant to. it purports only to provide a classification scheme for the kinds of social responsibilities business has.

The reader should note, too, that a given busi- ness action may simultaneously invoive several of

500

these kinds of social responsibilities. For example, if a manufacturer of toys decided it shouid make toys that are safe, it would be (at the same time) economically, legally, and ethically responsible, given today's iaws and expectations. The four-part framework can thus be used to help identify the reasons for business actions as weil as to call atten- tion to the ethical and discretionary considerations that are sometimes forgotten by managers.

The Social Issues Involved

In developing a conceptual framework for cor- porate social performance, we not only have to specify the nature (economic, legal, ethical, discre- tionary) of social responsibility but we also have to identify the social issues or topical areas to which these responsibilities are tied.

No effort will be made here to exhaustively iden- tify the social issues that business must address. The major problem is that the issues change and they differ for different industries, it is partly for this reason that the "issues" approach to examining business and society relationships gave way to managerial approaches that are more concerned with developing or specifying generalized modes of response to all sociai issues that become significant to a firm.

One need not ponder the social issues that have evolved under the rubric of social responsibility to recognize how they have changed over time. For example, product safety, occupational safety and health, and business ethics were not of major inter- est as recently as a decade ago; similarly, preoccu- pation with the environment, consumerism, and employment discrimination was not as intense. The issues, and especiaiiy the degree of organizational interest in the issues, are aiways in a state of flux. As the times change, so does emphasis on the range of social issues business must address.

Also of interest is the fact that particular social issues are of varying concern to businesses, de- pending on the industry in which they exist as well as other factors. A bank, for example, is not as pressed on environmental issues as a manufac- turer. Likewise, a manufacturer is considerably more absorbed with the issue of recycling than is an insurance company.

Many factors come into play as a manager at- tempts to get a fix on what social issues should be of

most interest to the organization. A recent survey by Sandra Holmes illustrates this point quite well. In her survey of managers of large firms, she asked what factors are prominent in selecting areas of social involvement by their firms [1976, p. 87]. The top five factors were:

1. Matching a social need to corporate need or ability to help.

2. Seriousness of social need 3. interest of top executives 4. Public reiations value of social action 5. Government pressure

That these disparate factors should show up in a response to a question of this kind suggests clearly that business executives do not have a consensus on what social issues should be addressed.

Thus, we are left with a recognition that social issues must be identified as an important aspect of corporate social performance, but there is by no means agreement as to what these issues should be.

Philosophy of Responsiveness

To complete our conceptual model it is necessary that a third component be identified and discussed. The third aspect of the modei addresses the phil- osophy, mode, or strategy behind business (man- agerial) response to social responsibility and social issues. The term generally used to describe this aspect is "social responsiveness."

Social responsiveness can range on a continuum from no response (do nothing) to a proactive re- sponse (do much). The assumption is made here that business does have a social responsibility and that the prime focus is not on management accept- ing a moral obligation but on the degree and kind of manageriai action. In this connection, William Frederick has articulated the responsiveness view, which he terms CSRg:

Corporate social responsiveness refers to the ca- pacity of a corporation to respond to social pres- sures. The literal act of responding, or of achieving a generally responsive posture, to society is the focus. . . . One searches the organization for me- chanisms, procedures, arrangements, and beha- vioral patterns that, taken collectively, would mark the organization as more or less capable of re- sponding to social pressures [1978, p. 6].

501

lan Wilson

Terry McAdam

Davis & Blomstrom

DO * NOTHING

Reaction

Fight all the way

Withdrawal

Defense

Do only what Is required

Public Relations Approach

Accommodation

Be Progressive

Legal Approach Bargaining

Figure 2 Social Responsiveness Categories

Proaction

Lead the Industry

Problem Solving

DO * MUCH

Several writers have provided conceptual schemes that describe the responsiveness continu- um well, lan Wilson, for example, asserts that there are four possible business strategies — reaction, defense, accommodation, and proaction [1974], Terry McAdam has, likewise, described four social responsibility philosophies that mesh well with Wil- son's strategies and, indeed, describe the mana- gerial approach that would characterize the range of responsiveness. His philosophies are (1) "Fight all the way," (2) "Do only what is required," (3) "Be progressive," and (4) "Lead the industry" [1973]. Davis and Blomstrom, too, describe alternative re- sponses to societal pressures as follows: (a) with- drawal, (b) public relations approach, (c) legal approach, (d) bargaining, and (e) problem solving [1975]. These correspond, essentially, with the above schemas. Figure 2 plots these responses on a continuum:

Corporate social responsiveness, which has been discussed by some as an alternate to social responsibility is, rather, the action phase of man- agement responding in the social sphere. In a sense, being responsive enables organizations to act on their social responsibilities without getting 3ogged down in the quagmire of definitional prob- ems that can so easily occur if organizations try to 3et a precise fix on what their true responsibilities are before acting.

The responsiveness continuum presented here epresents an aspect of management's social per- ormance that is distinctly different from the concern

for social responsibility, CSR^ (corporate social re- sponsibility), as Frederick [1978] terms it — our first aspect of the conceptual model — has ethical or moral threads running through it and, hence, is problematical. In contrast, CSRg (corporate social responsiveness) — our third aspect — has no moral or ethical connotations but is concerned only with the managerial processes of response. These processes would include planning and social fore- casting [Newgren, 1977], organizing for social re- sponse [McAdam, 1973], controlling social activi- ties [Carroll & Beiler, 1975], social decision making, and corporate social policy [Bowman & Haire, 1975; Carroll, 1977; Fitch, 1976; Post & Mellis, 1978; Preston & Post, 1975; Steiner, 1972; Sturdivant & Ginter, 1977], Figure 3 puts the three aspects to- gether into a conceptual social performance model.

The social issues identified in Figure 3 are illus- trative only. Each organization should carefully as- sess which social issues it must address as it plans for corporate social performance.

Uses of the Model This corporate social performance conceptual

model is intended to be useful for both academics and managers. For academics, the model is pri- marily an aid to perceiving the distinction among definitions of social responsibility that have ap- peared in the literature. What heretofore have been regarded as separate definitions of social responsi- bility are treated here as three separate issues per- taining to corporate social performance.

502

I

PHILOSOPHY OF

SOCIAL RESPONSIVENESS

Discretionary Responsibilities

Ettiical Responsibitrties

SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY

CATEGORIES

Legat Responsibitities

Economic Responsibilities

Proaction Accommo- ^^^^ dation _ ^ ^ ^

. Defense

Consum- erism

Environ- ment

piscrifTi- ination

Product Safety

Occupa- tionai Safety

Stiare- hotdars

SOCIAL ISSUES .JNVOLVED

Figure 3 The Corporate Social Performance Model

One aspect pertains to all that is included in our definition of social responsibility — the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary components. The second aspect concerns the range of social issues (e,g,, consumerism, environment, and discrimina- tion) management must address. Finally, there is a social responsiveness continuum. Although some writers have suggested that this is the preferable focus when one considers social responsibility, the model suggests that responsiveness is but one ad- ditional aspect to be addressed if corporate social performance is to be acceptable. The three aspects of the model thus force us to think through the dominant questions that must be faced in analyzing social performance. The major use to the aca- demic, therefore, is in helping to systematize the important issues that must be taught and under- stood in an effort to clarify the social responsibility concept. The model is not the ultimate conceptuali- zation; it is, rather, a modest but necessary step

toward understanding the major facets of social performance.

The conceptual model can assist managers in understanding that social responsibility is not sepa- rate and distinct from economic performance but rather is just one part of the total social responsibili- ties of business. The model integrates economic concerns into a social performance framework. In addition, it places ethical and discretionary expec- tations into a rational economic and legal framework.

The model can help the manager systematically think through major social issues being faced. Though it does not provide the answer to how far the organization should go, it does provide a con- ceptualization that could lead to a better-managed social performance program. Moreover, it could be used as a planning tool and as a diagnostic prob- lem-solving tool. The model can assist the manager by identifying categories within which the organiza-

503

tion can be situated. An illustration will perhaps be helpful for an or-

ganization attempting to categorize what it has done according to the cubic space in Figure 3. Recently, Anheuser-Busch test-marketed a new adult beverage called "Chelsea." Because the beverage contained more alcohol than the average soft drink, consumer groups protested by calling the beverage "kiddie beer" and claiming that the com- pany was being socially irresponsible by making such a drink available to youth, Anheuser-Busch's first reaction was defensive — attempting to claim that it was not dangerous and would not lead youngsters to stronger drink. The company's later response was to withdraw the beverage from the marketplace and reformulate it so that it would be viewed as safe. The company concluded this was the socially responsible action to take, given the criticism.

According to the social performance model in Figure 3, the company found itself in the consumer- ism segment of the model. The social responsibility category of the issue was ethical (the product being introduced was strictly legal because it conformed to the maximum alcoholic content standard). As it became clear that so much protest might be turning an ethical issue into an economic one (as threats of product boycotts surfaced), the company moved along the responsiveness dimension in the model from reaction and defense to accommodation.

This example shows how a business's response can be positioned in the social performance model. The average business firm faces many such con- troversial issues and might use the conceptual

model to analyze its stance on these issues and perhaps help determine its motivations, actions, and response strategies. Managers would have a systematic framework for thinking through not only the social issues faced but also the managerial response patterns contemplated. The model could serve as a guide in formulating criteria to assist the organization in developing its posture on various social issues. The net result could be more syste- matic attention being given to the whole realm of corporate social performance.

Summary

Corporate social performance requires that (1) a firm's social responsibilities be assessed, (2) the social issues it must address be identified, and (3) a response philosophy be chosen. The model pre- sented attempts to articulate these key aspects in a conceptual framework that will be useful to aca- demics and managers alike. The conceptual model is intended to heip clarify and integrate various defi- nitional strands that have appeared in the literature. Also, it presents the notions of ethical and discre- tionary responsibilities in a context that is perhaps more palatable to those who think economic con- siderations have disappeared in discussions of so- cial responsibility. The model can be used to help managers conceptualize the key issues in social performance, to systematize thinking about social issues, and to improve plann

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.