Corporate Social Responsibility versus Corporate Social Irresponsibility

Abstract

IntroductionCorporate social responsibility (CSR) has been a very popular topic in the last decades. There are a large number of definitions of this concept in the literature and, consequently there is also too little consensus regarding the best one. We consider that CSR best describes the many ways in which companies choose to manage their business and conduct their efforts to create a positive and desirable impact on society in general (Salanta and Popa, 2013). In this paper we investigate both the positive efforts regarding corporate social responsibility and also the less desirable effects implied by the corporate social irresponsibility that may exist if managers do not pay enough attention to the consequences of their day-to-day decisions. In the first part of the paper we present the most commonly used definitions of CSR and also some important contributions in the history and development of the concept. Then, corporate social responsibility is compared to corporate social irresponsibility. The article builds upon several trends in the history of these concepts. Further on, we particularize both concepts with examples from the business world. Consequently, we compare and contrast some practical examples with the purpose of devising some suggestions to enhance the positive behavior of managers. Our work is useful both to managers and academia as it can be further developed and empirically tested.Corporate social responsibility: definitions and brief historyThere are studies that underline the fact that people have a more positive image of a firm that supports a cause, for instance 83% of U.S. respondents feel this way in a study made by Ellen et al., (2000). The same team states that 86% of their U.K. respondents would be more likely to purchase from a company associated with a cause (idem). This is one facet of what today is called the social responsibility of businesses. Even if there have been many papers on this topic, there is no agreed definition of corporate social responsibility (Armstrong and Green, 2013, p. 1926). In a sophisticated analysis of CSR definitions Matten and Moon (2008) conclude that the lack of common definition for this concept is explained by the fact that: (1) CSR is an umbrella term for a high number of related concepts, and (2) CSR naturally evolved over time as value in business changes. We consider that CSR is still worth investigating as it is a complex concept that has been theorized in a number of fields such as economics, management, business ethics, political theory, sociology and even legal philosophy (Richter, 2011).Some of the pioneers of this field, according to Cochran (2007), were Columbia professor Adolf A. Berle and Harvard professor Merrick Dodd who debated the nature of CSR in the Harvard Law Review in the early 1930s. Whereas Berle contended that managers were responsible only for the firms shareholders, Dodd argued that managers had a wider range of responsibilities (Cochran, 2007, p. 449). Other authors argue that Howard Bowen (1953) is the father of the CSR movement, and Archie B. Carrol (1979) might be considered his son because, more than any other academic, he made CSR his life's work (Murphy and Schlegelmilch, 2013).Corporate social responsibility has had more than 60 years to evolve from an ambiguous concept to a powerful management tool that managers use to gain certain advantages. Surprisingly, this term is a generous one that encompasses various overlapping areas, such as corporate citizenship, stakeholder theory, business ethics, and corporate sustainability (Freeman and Hasnaoui, 2011). Others assign even more terms to delimitate the clusterconcept of CSR, such as corporate environmental and social responsibility, corporate social performance, philanthropy, sustainable development and the triple bottom line (Windsor, 2013, p. 1939). Friedman (1970), on the other hand, considers CSR as the extension of the firm's efforts to maximize shareholders' wealth while conforming to the basic rules of society. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 31 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.