Content uploaded by Archie B Carroll
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Archie B Carroll on Oct 03, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Corporate Social Responsibility
Evolution of a Definitional Construct
ARCHIE B. CARROLL
University of Georgia
There is an impressive history associated with the evolution of the concept and
definitionofcorporate social responsibility (CSR). Inthis article, the author traces
the evolution of the CSR construct beginning in the 1950s, which marks the mod-
ern era of CSR. Definitions expanded during the 1960s and proliferated during the
1970s. In the 1980s, there were fewer new definitions, more empirical research,
and alternative themes began to mature. These alternative themes included corpo-
rate social performance (CSP), stakeholder theory, and business ethics theory. In
the 1990s, CSR continues to serve as a core construct but yields to or is trans-
formed into alternative thematic frameworks.
Theconcept of corporatesocial responsibility (CSR) hasa long andvaried
history. It is possible to trace evidences of the business community’s
concern for society for centuries. Formal writing on social responsi-
bility,however,islargelyaproduct of the20th century,especially the past
50 years. Furthermore, although it is possible to see footprints of CSR
thought throughout the world (mostly in developed countries), formal
writingshavebeen most evidentinthe United States, wherea sizable body
of literature has accumulated. With this in mind, my review of CSR’s defi-
nitional evolution will focus on this body of literature. At the same time,
however, it must be acknowledged that related notions may have devel-
opedboth in theory andpracticein other countriesandat different times.
A significant challenge is to decide how far back into the literature to
delve to begin discussing the concept of CSR. A good case could be made
for about 50 years because so much has occurredsince that time that has
shapedour theory,research, and practice. Using this as ageneral guideline
for this article, I note that references to a concern for social responsibility
268
BUSINESS & SOCIETY, Vol. 38 No. 3, September 1999 268-295
© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
appearedearlier than this, andespecially during the1930s and 1940s. Ref-
erences from this period worth noting include Chester Barnard’s (1938)
The Functions of the Executive, J. M. Clark’s (1939) Social Control of
Business, and Theodore Kreps’ (1940) Measurement of the Social Perfor-
mance of Business. From a more practical vantage point, it should be
noted that as far back as 1946 business executives (the literature called
them “businessmen” in those days) were polled by Fortune magazine ask-
ing them about their social responsibilities (Fortune, 1946, cited in
Bowen, 1953, p. 44).
For purposes of this definitional review, however, it makes sense to
center our attention on more recent concepts of CSR. Therefore, I start
with the literature of the 1950s and 1960s and then move on toward the
1970s and more recently, when the topic became widely discussed among
academics and business practitioners. In this discussion, I organize my
review of literature on a historical basis and treat the concept on the basis
of decade-by-decade categories. The goal is to trace the evolution of CSR
as a concept, or definitional construct, and come to appreciate what it has
meant in the past and still means today. Such a quest is essential to provide
a solid foundation for further research on the topic. Space does not permit
anexhaustivereview,somygoal is to identifythe major contributors to the
evolutionofthe CSR definition,rather than to review all thathas been said
by anyone on the subject.
THE MODERN ERA OF SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY BEGINS: THE 1950S
In the early writings on CSR, it was referred to more often as social
responsibility (SR) than as CSR. Perhaps this was because the age of the
modern corporation’s prominence and dominance in the business sector
had not yet occurred or been noted. The publication by Howard R. Bowen
(1953)of his landmark book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman is
argued to mark the beginnings of the modern period of literature on this
subject. As the title of Bowen’s book suggests, there apparently were no
businesswomenduringthis period, orat least they werenot acknowledged
in formal writings.
Bowen’s (1953) work proceeded from the belief that the several hun-
dred largest businesses were vital centers of power and decision making
and that the actions of these firms touched the lives of citizens at many
points. Among the many questions raised by Bowen, one is of special note
Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 269
here. He queried, “What responsibilities to society may businessmen rea-
sonably be expected to assume?” (p. xi).
Bowen (1953) set forth an initial definition of the social responsibili-
ties of businessmen: “It refers to the obligations of businessmen to pursue
those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action
which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society”
(p.6). Bowen quoted Fortunemagazine’ssurvey(1946, as cited inBowen,
1953, p. 44), wherein the magazine’s editors thought that CSR, or the
“social consciousness,” of managers meant that businessmen were
responsible for the consequences of their actions in a sphere somewhat
wider than that covered by their profit-and-loss statements (cited in
Bowen, 1953, p. 44). It is fascinating to note that 93.5% of the business-
men responding agreed with the statement.
Because Bowen’s (1953) book was specifically concerned with the doc-
trine of social responsibility, it is easy to see how it marks the modern, seri-
ous discussion of the topic. Bowen argued that social responsibility is no
panacea, but that it contains an important truth that must guide business in
the future. Because of his early and seminal work, I would submit that How-
ardBowenshould be called the“FatherofCorporate Social Responsibility.”
Bowen’s (1953) book and definition represented the most notable lit-
erature from the 1950s. For further evidence of the extent to which busi-
nesspeoplewere adopting andpracticing CSR duringthis time andearlier,
I cite Morrell Heald’s (1970) The Social Responsibilities of Business:
Company and Community, 1900-1960.AlthoughHeald did not succinctly
state definitions of social responsibility, he provided an interesting and
provocative discussion of the theory and practice of CSR during the first
half of the twentieth century.
It is clear from Heald’s (1970) discussions that CSR is defined consis-
tently with the Bowen (1953) definition. Other important literature from
the 1950s includes Selekman’s (1959) Moral Philosophy for Manage-
ment; Heald’s (1957) Management’s Responsibility to Society: The Growth
of an Idea; and Eells’ (1956) Corporate Giving in a Free Society.
CSR LITERATURE EXPANDS: THE 1960S
If there was scant evidence of CSR definitions in the literature in the
1950s and before, the decade of the 1960s marked a significant growth in
attempts to formalize or, more accurately, state what CSR means. One of
thefirstand most prominent writersin that periodtodefine CSR was Keith
Davis, who later wrote extensively about the topic in his business and
270 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999
societytextbook, later revisions,andarticles. Davis setforth his definition
of social responsibility in an article by arguing that it refers to “business-
men’s decisions and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond the
firm’s direct economic or technical interest” (Davis, 1960, p. 70).
Davis (1960) argued that social responsibility is a nebulous idea but
should be seen in a managerial context. Furthermore, he asserted that
some socially responsible business decisions can be justified by a long,
complicated process of reasoning as having a good chance of bringing
long-run economic gain to the firm, thus paying it back for its socially
responsible outlook (p. 70). This is rather interesting inasmuch as this
view became commonly accepted in the late 1970s and 1980s. Davis
became well known for his views on the relation between social responsi-
bility and business power. He set forth his now-famous “Iron Law of
Responsibility,” which held that “social responsibilities of businessmen
need to be commensurate with their social power” (p. 71). He further took
the position that if social responsibility and power were to be relatively
equal,“then the avoidanceofsocial responsibility leadsto gradual erosion
of social power” (p. 73) on the part of businesses. Davis’s contributions to
early definitions of CSR were so significant that I would consider him to
be the runner-up to Bowen for the Father of CSR designation.
William C. Frederick was also an influential contributor to the early
definitions of social responsibility as he wrote,
[Social responsibilities] mean that businessmen should oversee the opera-
tion of an economic system that fulfills the expectations of the public. And
this means in turn that the economy’s means of production should be em-
ployed in such a way that production and distribution should enhance total
socio-economic welfare.
Social responsibility in the final analysis implies a public posture to-
ward society’s economic and human resources and a willingness to see that
those resources are used for broad social ends and not simply for the nar-
rowly circumscribed interests of private persons and firms. (Frederick,
1960, p. 60)
Anothermajor contributor to thedefinition of social responsibilitydur-
ing the 1960s was Joseph W. McGuire. In his book Business and Society
(1963), he stated, “The idea of social responsibilities supposes that the
corporation has not only economic and legal obligations but also certain
responsibilitiesto society which extendbeyondtheseobligations”(p. 144).
McGuire’s (1963) definition is somewhat more precise than previous
ones in that he defined it as extending beyond economic and legal obliga-
tions. Although he did not clarify what, exactly, these obligations were in
Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 271
his definition, he later elaborated by saying that the corporation must take
an interest in politics, in the welfare of the community, in education, in the
“happiness” of its employees, and, in fact, in the whole social world about
it. Therefore, business must act “justly,” as a proper citizen should (p. 144).
This latter statement hints at the notions of business ethics and corporate
citizenship.
In the first edition of their Business and its Environment textbook,
KeithDavisandRobert Blomstrom (1966) definedsocialresponsibility:
Social responsibility, therefore, refers to a person’s obligation to consider
the effects of his decisions and actions on the whole social system. Busi-
nessmenapplysocial responsibility when they consider the needs and inter-
estofothers who may be affected by business actions. In so doing,theylook
beyond their firm’s narrow economic and technical interests. (p. 12)
It is interesting to note that the phrase “businessmen” was still being used
even in the mid-1960s.
Keith Davis revisited the concept of CSR in 1967, when he sought to
understand the social responsibility puzzle. In an article addressing the
question of what businessmen owed society, he added to his earlier defini-
tion. He asserted, “The substance of social responsibility arises from con-
cern for the ethical consequences of one’s acts as they might affect the
interests of others” (Davis, 1967, p. 46). He suggests how social responsi-
bility gets one beyond the limited application of person-to-person con-
tacts: “Social responsibility moves one large step further by emphasizing
institutional actions and their effect on the whole social system. Social
responsibility, therefore, broadens a person’s view to the total social sys-
tem” (p. 46).
In a book titled Corporate Social Responsibilities, Clarence C. Walton
(1967), a foremost thinker on this subject, addressed many facets of CSR
in a book series concerned with the role of the business firm and the busi-
nessperson in modern society. In this significant book, he presented a
number of different varieties, or models, of social responsibility, includ-
ing his fundamental definition of social responsibility:
In short, the new concept of social responsibility recognizes the intimacy of
the relationships between the corporation and society and realizes that such
relationships must be kept in mind by top managers as the corporation and
the related groups pursue their respective goals. (Walton, 1967, p. 18)
Walton elaborated to emphasize that the essential ingredient of the corpo-
ration’ssocialresponsibilitiesincludea degree of voluntarism,asopposed
272 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999
to coercion, an indirect linkage of certain other voluntary organizations to
the corporation, and the acceptance that costs are involved for which it may
notbe possible to gaugeanydirectmeasurable economic returns (p.18).
DEFINITIONS OF CSR
PROLIFERATE: THE 1970S
The 1970s were ushered in with an interesting book written by Morrell
Heald. The book was titled The Social Responsibilities of Business: Com-
pany and Community, 1900-1960 (Heald, 1970). Although Heald did not
provide a succinct definition of the social responsibility construct, it is
clear that his understanding of the term was in the same vein as the defini-
tions presented during the 1960s and earlier. In the preface to his book, he
asserted that he was concerned with the idea of social responsibility “as
businessmen themselves have defined and experienced it” (p. xi). He
added that the “meaning of the concept of social responsibility for busi-
nessmenmust finally be soughtinthe actual policieswith which they were
associated” (p. xi). He then described, in a historical fashion,
community-oriented programs, policies, and views of business execu-
tives. His descriptions suggest that business people during that period
were significantly preoccupied with corporate philanthropy and commu-
nity relations.
In Harold Johnson’s (1971) Business in Contemporary Society:
Framework and Issues, the author presented a variety of definitions or
views of CSR and then proceeded to critique and analyze them. Johnson
first presented what he termed “conventional wisdom,” which he defined
as the following: “A socially responsible firm is one whose managerial
staff balances a multiplicity of interests. Instead of striving only for larger
profitsforits stockholders, aresponsibleenterprise also takesintoaccount
employees, suppliers, dealers, local communities, and the nation” (p. 50).
It is worth noting that Johnson is hinting at the possibility of a stakeholder
approach as he references a “multiplicity of interests” and actually names
several of these specific interests (groups).
Johnson (1971) then said,
In this approach, social responsibility in business is the pursuit of socioeco-
nomic goals through the elaboration of social norms in prescribed business
roles; or, to put it more simply, business takes place within a socio-cultural
systemthatoutlines through norms and business roles particular ways of re-
sponding to particular situations and sets out in some detail the prescribed
ways of conducting business affairs. (p. 51)
Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 273
Johnson (1971) presented a second view of CSR: “Social responsibility
states that businesses carry out social programs to add profits to their
organization” (p. 54). In this view, social responsibility is perceived as
long-run profit maximization.
Johnson (1971) presented a third view of social responsibility, which
he calls “utility maximization.” In this view, he asserted, “The third
approach of social responsibility assumes that the prime motivation of the
business firm is utility maximization; the enterprise seeks multiple goals
rather than only maximum profits” (p. 59). He then postulated the follow-
ing definition:
A socially responsible entrepreneur or manager is one who has a utility
function of the second type, such that he is interested not only in his own
well-being but also in that of the other members of the enterprise and that of
his fellow citizens. (p. 68)
Finally, Johnson (1971) explained a fourth view, which he called the
“lexicographic view of social responsibility.” In this definition,
The goals of the enterprise, like those of the consumer, are ranked in order
ofimportance and that targets are assessed for eachgoal.These targetlevels
are shaped by a variety of factors, but the most important are the firm’s past
experience with these goals and the past performance of similar business
enterprises; individuals and organizations generally want to do at least as
well as others in similar circumstances. (p. 73)
Johnson said that “lexicographic utility theory suggests that strongly
profit-motivated firms may engage in socially responsible behavior. Once
they attain their profit targets, they act as if social responsibility were an
important goal— even though it isn’t” (p. 75). Johnson concluded about
the four definitions that although they may appear contradictory at times,
theyareessentially complementary ways of viewingthesame reality (p. 77).
A landmark contribution to the concept of CSR came from the Com-
mittee for Economic Development (CED) in its 1971 publication Social
Responsibilities of Business Corporations. The CED got into this topic by
observingthat “business functionsby public consent and itsbasic purpose
is to serve constructively the needs of society—to the satisfaction of soci-
ety” (p. 11). The CED noted that the social contract between business and
society was changing in substantial and important ways:
Business is being asked to assume broader responsibilities to society than
ever before and to serve a wider range of human values. Business enter-
prises, in effect, are being asked to contribute more to the quality of Ameri-
274 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999
can life than just supplying quantities of goods and services. Inasmuch as
businessexiststo serve society,itsfuture will depend on thequality of man-
agement’s response to the changing expectations of the public. (p. 16)
In response to a public opinion survey conducted by Opinion Research
Corporation in 1970 in which two thirds of the respondents believed busi-
ness had a moral obligation to help other major institutions to achieve
social progress, even at the expense of profitability, the CED articulated a
three concentric circles definition of social responsibility:
Theinner circle includestheclear-cutbasicresponsibilities for the efficient
executionoftheeconomicfunction—products,jobsandeconomic growth.
Theintermediate circle encompassesresponsibilityto exercise this eco-
nomic function with a sensitive awareness of changing social values and
priorities: for example, with respect to environmental conservation; hiring
andrelations with employees; and more rigorous expectations of customers
for information, fair treatment, and protection from injury.
The outer circle outlines newly emerging and still amorphous responsi-
bilitiesthatbusinessshould assume to become more broadly involvedin ac-
tively improving the social environment. (For example, poverty and urban
blight). (p. 15)
What is particularly noteworthy about the CED’s construction of CSR
is that the CED is composed of business people and educators and thus
reflects an important practitioner view of the changing social contract
between business and society and businesses’ newly emerging social
responsibilities. It is useful to note that the CED may have been respond-
ing to the times in that the late 1960s and early 1970s was a period during
which social movements with respect to the environment, worker safety,
consumers, and employees were poised to transition from special interest
status to government regulation.
Another significant writer on CSR in the 1970s was George Steiner. In
thefirst edition ofhis textbook Business and Society (1971),Steiner wrote
extensively on the subject. Steiner tended to defer to Davis’s and Freder-
ick’s definitions of CSR, but he did state his views on the subject:
Business is and must remain fundamentally an economic institution,
but...itdoes have responsibilities to help society achieve its basic goals
and does, therefore, have social responsibilities. The larger a company be-
comes, the greater are these responsibilities, but all companies can assume
some share of them at no cost and often at a short-run as well as a long-run
profit.
The assumption of social responsibilities is more of an attitude, of the
way a manager approaches his decision-making task, than a great shift in
Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 275
the economics of decision making. It is a philosophy that looks at the social
interest and the enlightened self-interest of business over the long run as
compared with the old, narrow, unrestrained short-run self-interest. (Steiner,
1971, p. 164)
Although Steiner (1971) did not dwell on definitions, he extended the
meaning and circumstances under which CSR might be interpreted and
applied. For example, he discussed specific spheres in which CSR might
be applied, and he presented models for determining the social responsi-
bilities of business (p. 157). He also presented criteria for determining the
social responsibilities of business (pp. 159-163).
A major debate over the meaning of CSR took place in 1972. This
debate, sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, involved eco-
nomics professors Henry G. Manne and Henry C. Wallich. The debate
was summarized in their volume The Modern Corporation and Social
Responsibility (Manne & Wallich, 1972). In the debates, Manne set forth
hisdefinitionof CSR by arguingthatanyworking definition requires three
elements:
To qualify as socially responsible corporate action, a business expenditure
or activity must be one for which the marginal returns to the corporation are
less than the returns available from some alternative expenditure, must be
purely voluntary, and must be an actual corporate expenditure rather than a
conduit for individual largesse. (pp. 4-6)
Manne added that even with such a definition in mind, “in practice it is
often extremely difficult if not impossible to distinguish a purely business
expenditureonlyallegedto have been made forthe public’sgoodfrom one
actually made with real charitable intent” (p. 8). With this latter quote, he
emphasized a point that more contemporary writers have noted, that busi-
ness expenditures may have multiple rather than single motives and,
therefore, this is not a fruitful criterion for judging social responsibility.
His element of volunteerism has been carried forward into many modern
definitions of CSR, but this, too, is difficult to judge. It is impossible to
distinguish between that which is “purely voluntary” and that which is in
response to social norms.
Professor Wallich (Manne & Wallich, 1972) defined CSR in broad
terms:
I take responsibility to mean a condition in which the corporation is at least
in some measure a free agent. To the extent that any of the foregoing social
objectives are imposed on the corporation by law, the corporation exercises
no responsibility when it implements them. (p. 40)
276 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999
He wrote that the exercise of CSR involves three basic elements. “Three
basic activities seem to be involved in the exercise of corporate responsi-
bility: (1) the setting of objectives, (2) the decision whether to pursue
givenobjectives,and(3)thefinancingof these objectives” (p. 41).Wallich
identified circumstances in which CSR might be defensible, but he
favored stockholder instructions to the corporation...tomakecorpora-
tions properly responsible to stockholder interest (pp. 56-62).
In 1973, Keith Davis again entered the discussion in his landmark arti-
cle surveying the case for and against business assumption of social
responsibilities (Davis, 1973). In the introduction to the article, he quoted
two well-known economists and their diverse views on the subject. First,
he quoted Milton Friedman, whose famous objection is familiar to most.
Friedman (1962) contended that “few trends could so thoroughly under-
mine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corpo-
rate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money
for their stockholders as possible” (p. 133). However, Davis (1973) coun-
tered this view with a quote by Paul Samuelson, another distinguished
economist, who argued that “a large corporation these days not only may
engage in social responsibility, it had damn well better try to do so”
(Samuelson, 1971, p. 24). Beyond these observations, Davis (1973)
defined CSR:
For purposes of this discussion it [CSR] refers to the firm’s consideration
of, and response to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical, and le-
gal requirements of the firm. (p. 312)
It is the firm’s obligation to evaluate in its decision-making process the
effectsofitsdecisionson the external social system in a manner thatwillac-
complish social benefits along with the traditional economic gains which
the firm seeks. (p. 313)
Itmeans that social responsibility begins where the lawends.Afirmisnot
being socially responsible if it merely complies with the minimum require-
ments of the law, because this is what any good citizen would do. (p. 313)
Davis (1973) then presented and discussed the arguments to date both for
and against business being socially responsible (pp. 313-321). It is appar-
ent that Davis employed a restricted definition of CSR, because in his lat-
ter statement he seemed to be excluding legal obedience, as a part of cor-
porate citizenship, from social responsibility.
Two other writers on CSR during this period were Henry Eilbert and
I. Robert Parket (1973), who discussed the “current status of corporate
social responsibility.” Eilbert and Parket were less interested in providing
a rigorous definition of CSR than gathering data from the business
Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 277
communityon the extentto which CSR has movedfrom the levelofverbal
discussions to its implementation in practice. For purposes of their
research, the authors defined CSR:
Perhaps the best way to understand social responsibility is to think of it as
‘good neighborliness.’The concept involves two phases. On one hand, it
means not doing things that spoil the neighborhood. On the other, it may be
expressedasthe voluntaryassumption of the obligation to help solveneigh-
borhood problems.
Those who find neighborliness an awkward or coy concept may substi-
tute the idea that social responsibility means the commitment of a business
orBusiness, in general, to anactiverolein the solution of broad socialprob-
lems, such as racial discrimination, pollution, transportation, or urban de-
cay. (Eilbert & Parket, 1973, p. 7)
Their research reported survey results of the extent to which CSR had
affected organizational structure and budget, the type of CSR activities in
which firms engaged, the activities believed to be most important, and
other organizational issues. These are mentioned here because they repre-
sent one of the early attempts to associate CSR with organizational vari-
ables and to suggest that CSR is composed of a variety of different
activities.
Although Richard Eells and Clarence Walton addressed the CSR con-
cept in the 1961 first edition of their volume Conceptual Foundations of
Business, they elaborated on the concept at length in their third edition
(Eells & Walton, 1974). Their favorite topics were business history, the
concept of the corporation, ownership, and governance. However, they
dedicated a chapter to “recent trends” in corporate social responsibilities.
LikeSteiner (1971), they didnot focus ondefinitionsper se butrathertook
a broader perspective on what CSR means and how it evolved. They
observed,
In its broadest sense, corporate social responsibility represents a concern
with the needs and goals of society which goes beyond the merely eco-
nomic. Insofar as the business system as it exists today can only survive in
an effectively functioning free society, the corporate social responsibility
movement represents a broad concern with business’s role in supporting
and improving that social order. (Eells & Walton, 1974, p. 247)
Eells and Walton (1974) provided an extensive discussion of the CSR
movement and the various ways in which academics and practitioners
were coming to regard the topic at that time.
278 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999
In a 1975 book that summarized presentations from the Key Issues
LectureSeries at NewYorkUniversity,editor Jules Backman,an econom-
ics professor, contributed to the definitional evolution of CSR. Backman
(1975) placed social responsibility in context by arguing that, like social
accounting, social indicators, and the social audit, these terms all cover
different facets of social performance (see subsequent discussion). After
noting that these terms are general rather than precise at this time, he
defined social responsibility: “Social responsibility usually refers to the
objectives or motives that should be given weight by business in addition
tothose dealing witheconomic performance (e.g., profits)”(p. 2). Backman
then identified some examples of CSR:
Employment of minority groups, reduction in pollution, greater participa-
tion in programs to improve the community, improved medical care, im-
proved industrial health and safety—these and other programs designed to
improve the quality of life are covered by the broad umbrella of social re-
sponsibility. (pp. 2-3)
In the 1970s, we find mention increasingly being made of corporate
social performance (CSP) as well as CSR (Carroll, 1977). One major
writer to make this distinction was S. Prakash Sethi. In a classic article,
Sethi (1975) discussed “dimensions of corporate social performance,”
andin the process distinguished betweencorporate behavior that might be
called “social obligation,” “social responsibility,” and “social responsive-
ness.” In Sethi’s schema, social obligation is corporate behavior “in
response to market forces or legal constraints” (p. 70). The criteria here
are economic and legal only. Social responsibility, by contrast, goes
beyond social obligation. He stated, “Thus, social responsibility implies
bringing corporate behavior up to a level where it is congruent with the
prevailingsocialnorms,values,andexpectationsof performance” (p.62).
Sethi (1975) stated that whereas social obligation is proscriptive in
nature, social responsibility is prescriptive. The third stage in Sethi’s
model is social responsiveness. He regarded this as the adaptation of cor-
porate behavior to social needs. This stage is anticipatory and preventive
(see also Ackerman, 1973; Ackerman & Bauer, 1976).
In a major book titled Private Management and Public Policy: The
Principle of Public Responsibility, Lee Preston and James Post (1975)
sought to draw attention away from the concept of CSR and toward a
notion of public responsibility. Their recitation of Votaw’s commentary
on social responsibility is worth repeating. Votaw (1973) articulated the
concern that many writers in this era had with CSR. He stated,
Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 279
The term [social responsibility] is a brilliant one; it means something, but
not always the same thing, to everybody. To some it conveys the idea of le-
gal responsibility or liability; to others, it means socially responsible be-
havior in an 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
contextof “belonging” or being properor valid; a few see it asa sort of fidu-
ciary duty imposing higher standards of behavior on businessmen than on
citizens at large. (p. 11)
Following Votaw’s thinking, Preston and Post (1975) discussed social
responsibility:
In the face of the large number of different, and not always consistent, us-
ages,werestrictour ownuseof the term social responsibility to refer only to
a vague and highly generalized sense of social concern that appears to un-
derlie a wide variety of ad hoc managerial policies and practices. Most of
these attitudes and activities are well-intentioned and even beneficent; few
are patently harmful. They lack, however, any coherent relation to the
managerial unit’s internal activities or to its fundamental linkage with its
host environment. (p. 9)
Preston and Post then stated that they preferred the term “public
responsibility,” which is intended to define the functions of organizational
management within the specific context of public life (pp. 9-10). They
stated that in the principle of public responsibility, “the scope of manage-
rial responsibility is not unlimited, as the popular conception of ‘social
responsibility’ might suggest, but specifically defined in terms of primary
and secondary involvement areas” (p. 95). They said that they prefer the
word “public” rather than “social,” “to stress the importance of the public
policy process, rather than individual opinion and conscience, as the
source of goals and appraisal criteria” (p. 102). Though providing an
important perspective, the term public responsibility has not supplanted
the term social responsibility in the literature, and it has seldom been sug-
gested as having an “unlimited” scope.
Two examples of early research on CSR were published in the mid-
1970s. First, Bowman and Haire (1975) conducted a study striving to un-
derstand CSR and to ascertain the extent to which companies were engag-
ing in CSR. Although they never really defined CSR in the sense exam-
ined in this article, the researchers chose to operationalize CSR by mea-
suring the proportion of lines of prose devoted to social responsibility in
the annual reports of the companies they studied. Although not providing
a formal definition of CSR, they illustrated the kinds of topics that rep-
280 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999
resentedCSR as opposed tothose that were strictly“business”(p. 50). The
topics they used were usually subheads to sections in the annual report.
Some of these subheads were corporate responsibility, social responsibil-
ity, social action, public service, corporate citizenship, public responsibil-
ity,andsocialresponsiveness.Areviewoftheir topical approachindicates
that they had a good idea of what CSR generally meant, given the kinds of
definitions we saw developing in the 1970s.
A second research study in the mid-1970s was conducted by Sandra
Holmes (1976), in which she sought to gather “executive perceptions of
corporate social responsibility.” Like Bowman and Haire (1975), Holmes
had no clear definition of CSR. Rather, she chose to present executives
with a set of statements about CSR, seeking to find out how many of them
agreed or disagreed with the statements. Like the Bowman and Haire
“topics,” Holmes’s statements addressed the issues that were generally
feltto be what CSRwasall about duringthattime period. Forexample,she
sought executive opinions on businesses’ responsibilities for making a
profit, abiding by regulations, helping to solve social problems, and the
short-run and long-run impacts on profits of such activities (p. 36).
Holmes further added to the body of knowledge about CSR by identifying
the “outcomes” that executives expected from their firms’social involve-
ment (p. 38) and the “factors” executives used in selecting areas of social
involvement.
In 1976, H. Gordon Fitch defined CSR in terms of solving social prob-
lems. He stated, “Corporate social responsibility is defined as the serious
attempt to solve social problems caused wholly or in part by the corpora-
tion” (Fitch, 1976, p. 38).
Fitch’s problem-solving perspective on CSR was that firms, to be
socially responsible, must identify and define a social problem and then,
from an array of social problems, decide which ones to attack first.
Included in this process is making a distinction between social and non-
social problems and then identifying methods for attacking social
problems.
Abbott and Monsen (1979) sought to reveal more about CSR’s mean-
ingin a researchstudy involvinga content analysisof the annualreports of
Fortune 500 companies. Their article presented a corporate “social
involvement disclosure” (SID) scale that purported to reveal a measure-
mentof firms’CSR.Abbottand Monsen accepted astheirmeasure of CSR
self-reported disclosures about social involvement topics that had been
derived from a content analysis of annual reports of Fortune 500 compa-
nies. The codification of the data was performed by the then“Big 8”
accounting firm of Ernst and Ernst. Ernst and Ernst had developed an
Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 281
annual unpublished summary reporting whether the annual reports of
these firms indicated activities for specific social involvement categories.
Itis unclear howtheaccounting firm developed the list ofwhat constituted
“social responsibility disclosures,” but the list of issue areas covered six
main categories: environment, equal opportunity, personnel, community
involvement, products, and other. The SID scale then simply counted and
totaled how many times the 28 issues (categorized under the six areas
described) were mentioned. The Abbott and Monsen study was not
designedto clearly defineCSR but ratherto use a set ofexisting data toget
some ideas about measuring CSR. In the study, they proceeded to note
changes over time, the direction and scope of social involvement, and the
effect this involvement appeared to have on profitability. Their approach,
like others during that era, were topical or issues-oriented.
In 1979, Thomas Zenisek expressed concern that CSR conceptualiza-
tionsto date hadbeen found to lack either empirical or theoreticalsupport.
He then proceeded to offer a definition based on the notion of a “fit”
between the two components of a “business ethic” and societal expecta-
tions of the private economic sector (p. 359). After reviewing Eells’
(1956)continuum of social responsibility andWalton’s(1967) continuum
ofsocial responsibility,bothof which conceptualized CSRasa continuum
ranging from minimum responsibility to maximum responsibility,
Zenisek concluded that these conceptualizations lacked any basis for
empirical investigation, a central concern of his. Zenisek proceeded to
develop a more elaborate model of a continuum of CSR that traced CSR
over four time periods (phases), culminating in the fourth time period,
which he called “Societal,” dated from 1960 to the time of his article
(p. 365). He then described various features of these four time periods.
Zenisek concluded his article with a social responsibility model that
sought to emphasize the degree of congruence or fit between a “business
ethic” (which had both ideological and operational aspects) and “societal
demands/expectations” (p. 366). Zenisek argued that his new model, or
way of viewing the critical components of CSR, would facilitate measure-
ment and research in the future. Although Zenisek did not offer a defini-
tionof CSR per se,his contributions were insightful;however,theydid not
lead to measurement attempts based on his model.
In 1979, I proposed a four-part definition of CSR that was embedded in
a conceptual model of CSP (Carroll, 1979). My basic argument was that
for managers or firms to engage in CSP they needed to have (a) a basic
definition of CSR, (b) an understanding/enumeration of the issues for
which a social responsibility existed (or, in modern terms, stakeholders to
whomthe firm had aresponsibility,relationship,ordependency), and (c) a
282 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999
specification of the philosophy of responsiveness to the issues (p. 499). I
will restrict my discussion here to the basic CSR definition.
At the time of my proposal, I noted that previous definitions had
alluded to businesses’ responsibility to make a profit, obey the law, and
“go beyond” these activities. Also, I observed that to be complete, the
definition had to embrace a full range of responsibilities of business to
society. In addition, some clarification was needed regarding that compo-
nent of CSR that extended beyond making a profit and obeying the law.
Therefore, I offered the following definition: “The social responsibility of
business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary
expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time”
(Carroll, 1979, p. 500).
A brief elaboration of this definition is useful. First and foremost, I
argued that business has a responsibility that is economic in nature or
kind:
Before anything else, the business institution 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. (Carroll, 1979, p. 500)
The economic component of the definition suggests that society expects
business to produce goods and services and sell them at a profit. This is
how the capitalistic economic system is designed and functions.
Just as society expects business to make a profit (as an incentive and
reward) for its efficiency and effectiveness, society expects business to
obey the law. The law represents the basic “rules of the game” by which
businessis expected to function. Society expectsbusinessto fulfill itseco-
nomicmission within the framework of legalrequirements set forth by the
society’s legal system. Thus, the legal responsibility is the second part of
the definition (Carroll, 1979, p. 500).
The next two responsibilities represented my attempt to specify the
kind or nature of the responsibilities that extend beyond obedience to the
law. The ethical responsibility represents the kinds of behaviors and ethi-
cal norms that society expects business to follow. These extend to behav-
iors and practices that are beyond what is required by the law. Although
they seem to be always expanding, they nevertheless exist as expectations
“over and beyond legal requirements” (Carroll, 1979, p. 500). In later
writings (Carroll, 1981, 1991), I elaborated on the ethical responsibility
component, which I saw as growing in importance. Finally, there are dis-
cretionary responsibilities. These represent voluntary roles that business
Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 283
assumesbut for which society does not provideas clear-cut an expectation
as it does in the ethical responsibility. These are left to individual manag-
ers’ and corporations’judgment and choice; however, the expectation that
business perform these still exists. This expectation is driven by social
norms. The specific activities are guided by businesses’desire to engage
in social roles not mandated or required by law and not expected of busi-
nesses in an ethical sense, but which are increasingly strategic. Examples
of these voluntary activities, during the time in which it was written,
included making philanthropic contributions, conducting in-house pro-
grams for drug abusers, training the hard-core unemployed, or providing
day-care centers for working mothers (Carroll, 1979, p. 500). These discre-
tionary activities are analogous to the CED’s third circle (helping society).
Although my 1979 definition includes an economic responsibility,
many today still think of the economic component as what the business
firm does for itself, and the legal, ethical, and discretionary (or philan-
thropic) components as what business does for others. Although this dis-
tinction is attractive, I would argue that economic viability is something
businessdoesfor society as well,althoughwe seldom lookatit in this way.
THE 1980S: FEWER DEFINITIONS, MORE
RESEARCH, AND ALTERNATIVE THEMES
Thefocus on developingneworrefined definitions of CSRgavewayto
research on CSR and a splintering of writings into alternative concepts
and themes such as corporate social responsiveness, CSP, public policy,
business ethics, and stakeholder theory/management, just to mention a
few, in the 1980s. The interest in CSR did not die out; rather, the core con-
cernsof CSR began to be“recast”into alternativeconcepts, theories, mod-
els or themes. In the ever-present quest to discover “truth,” this should not
be too surprising.
In1980, Thomas M.Jones entered the CSRdiscussion with aninterest-
ing perspective. First, he defined CSR:
Corporate social responsibility is the notion that corporations have an obli-
gation to constituent groups in society other than stockholders and beyond
that prescribed by law and union contract. Two facets of this definition are
critical. First, the obligation must be voluntarily adopted; behavior influ-
enced by the coercive forces of law or union contract is not voluntary. Sec-
ond, the obligation is a broad one, extending beyond the traditional duty to
shareholdersto other societal groups such as customers, employees,suppli-
ers, and neighboring communities. (Jones, 1980, pp. 59-60)
284 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999
Jones (1980) then summarized the CSR debate by listing the various
arguments that have been presented both for and against it (p. 61). He also
said that, whereas Preston and Post’s (1975) emphasis on “public respon-
sibility” may sharpen some of the vagueness in the CSR concept, it still
doesnot address orsolveall the issuesrelated to CSR. One of Jones’major
contributionsinthe article washis emphasis on CSRas a process.Arguing
that it is very difficult to reach consensus as to what constitutes socially
responsible behavior, he posited that CSR ought to be seen not as a set of
outcomes but as a process (p. 65). Perceiving CSR as a process is what
Jones referred to as a revised or redefined concept. In a discussion of imple-
menting CSR, he then illustrated how a firm could engage in a process of
CSR decision making that should constitute CSR behavior (p. 66). Jones’s
contribution was an important one; however, it would not end the debate
regarding the content and extent of CSR expected of business.
Frank Tuzzolino and Barry Armandi (1981) sought to develop a better
mechanism for assessing CSR by proposing a need-hierarchy framework
patterned after Maslow’s (1954) need hierarchy. The authors accepted my
1979 definition as “appropriate” for their purposes (p. 21), and then pro-
ceeded to say that it would be helpful to have an analytical framework to
facilitate the operationalization of CSR. Their organizational need hierar-
chydid not redefine CSR; however,itsought to suggestthatorganizations,
like individuals, had criteria that needed to be fulfilled or met, just as peo-
ple do, as depicted in the Maslow hierarchy. The authors illustrated how
organizations have physiological, safety, affiliative, esteem, and self-
actualization needs that parallel those of humans as depicted by Maslow.
The authors presented the hierarchy as a “conceptual tool whereby
socially responsible organizational performance could be reasonably
assessed” (p. 24).
In 1982, Dalton and Cosier presented a model depicting a 2 ×2 matrix,
with “illegal” and “legal” on one axis and “irresponsible” and “responsi-
ble” on the other axis. They then posited that there were “four faces” of
social responsibility depicted by the four cells. Not surprisingly, they con-
cluded that the “legal-responsible” cell was the appropriate CSR strategy
for firms to follow (p. 27). It may be inferred from this that they think a
firm is socially responsible if it is operating “legally” and “responsibly,”
although this may be difficult to define.
Rich Strand (1983) presented a systems paradigm of organizational
adaptations to the social environment that sought to illustrate how such
related concepts as social responsibility, social responsiveness, and social
responses connected to an organization-environment model. Although he
offered no new or unique definition of CSR, his model is notable because
Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 285
it represented another in a continuing stream of efforts to associate such
concepts as CSR to other similar notions and to the organization-
environment interface (p. 92).
In1983, I further elaboratedonmy 1979 four-partdefinitionofCSR:
In my view, CSR involves the conduct of a business so that it is economi-
cally profitable, law abiding, ethical and socially supportive. To be socially
responsible...then means that profitability and obedience to the law are
foremostconditionsto discussing the firm’sethicsandthe extent to which it
supportsthesociety in which it exists with contributions of money,timeand
talent. Thus, CSR is composed of four parts: economic, legal, ethical and
voluntary or philanthropic. (Carroll, 1983, p. 604)
Itshould be notedthat in thisstatement I reorientedthe discretionary com-
ponentas involvingvoluntarismand/or philanthropy,because this seemed
to be the arena from which the best examples of discretionary activities
came.
Although Peter Drucker (1954) had written earlier on CSR, it is inter-
esting that in 1984 he took it on himself to propose a “new meaning” of
CSR. Drucker apparently had only been reading definitions of CSR that
excluded the importance of business making a profit as he presented as
“new” the idea that profitability and responsibility were compatible
notions. This point had been made explicit in a number of earlier defini-
tions and was implicit in several others as well. Perhaps what was new in
the Drucker perspective was not simply the compatibility of profitability
and responsibility but the idea that business ought to “convert” its social
responsibilities into business opportunities. Drucker made this point
clear: “But the proper ‘social responsibility’ of business is to tame the
dragon,that is to turna social problem intoeconomic opportunity andeco-
nomic benefit, into productive capacity, into human competence, into
well-paid jobs, and into wealth” (Drucker, 1984, p. 62).
An excellent example of the growing interest in operationalizing CSR
and seeing if it had any relation to financial performance was the research
ofPhilip Cochran andRobert Wood(1984). As a backdrop to their empiri-
cal study, it must be observed that scholars were becoming interested in
the question of whether socially responsible firms were also profitable
firms. If it could be demonstrated that they were, this would be an added
argument in support of the CSR movement. Cochran and Wood surveyed
the various ways in with social performance and financial performance
had been operationalized in the past, and decided to use a reputation index
astheir measure ofCSR.The reputation indextheyused was the Moskowitz
index, developed by Milton Moskowitz, an observer of the CSR scene and
286 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999
a writer. Moskowitz, in the early 1970s, had developed a reputational
index in which he categorized firms as “outstanding,” “honorable men-
tion,” or “worst.” Cochran and Wood (1984) admitted the weaknesses of
this CSR measure and called for new mea- sures (p. 55).
Anotherempirical studying seekingto understand therelation between
CSR and profitability was published by Aupperle, Carroll, and Hatfield
(1985). What was unique about this particular research study was that it
was one of the first to use a definitional construct of CSR from the theo-
reticalliterature as itsmeasure of CSR.Aupperle et al.operationalized my
four-part definition of CSR and sought the opinions of a sample of execu-
tives. The study confirmed the priorities of the four components in this
sequence: economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (p. 457). In a later
part of the study, we partitioned the four definitional components to sepa-
rate the “economic,” which we labeled “concern for economic perfor-
mance” (on the part of the firm) from “legal, ethical and discretionary,”
which we labeled “concern for society” (on the part of the firm). In
essence, then, we acknowledged that not everyone sees the economic
responsibility as a part of social responsibility but rather considers it
something business firms do for themselves (p. 458). We further stated
that “the social orientation of an organization can be appropriately
assessedthrough the importance itplaces on the threenon-economic com-
ponents compared to the economic” (p. 458).
One excellent example of the quest in the 1980s to “go beyond” CSR
was the growing acceptance of the notion of CSP as a more comprehen-
sive theory under which CSR might be classified or subsumed. We saw
earlier references to CSP in the 1970s (e.g., Carroll, 1977, 1979; Preston,
1978; Sethi, 1975), but the idea of a CSP “model” continued to draw inter-
est. Therefore, Steven Wartick and Philip Cochran (1985) presented their
“evolution of the corporate social performance model,” which extended
the three-dimensional integration of responsibility, responsiveness, and
social issues (Carroll, 1979) that I had previously introduced (Wartick &
Cochran, 1985, p. 758). One of the major contributions of these two
authorswas to recastmy three aspects—-corporatesocial responsibilities,
corporate social responsiveness and social issues—into a framework of
principles, processes, and policies. They argued that my CSR definition
embraced the ethical component of social responsibility and should be
thought of as principles, social responsiveness should be thought of as
processes, and social issues management should be thought of as policies
(p. 767).
In 1987, Edwin M. Epstein provided a definition of CSR in his quest to
relate social responsibility, responsiveness, and business ethics. He
Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 287
pointed out that these three concepts dealt with closely related, even over-
lapping, themes and concerns (Epstein, 1987, p. 104). He defined CSR as
the following:
Corporate social responsibility relates primarily to achieving outcomes
from organizational decisions concerning specific issues or problems
which (by some normative standard) have beneficial rather than adverse ef-
fects on pertinent corporate stakeholders. The normative correctness of the
products of corporate action have been the main focus of corporate social
responsibility. (p. 104)
In addition to defining CSR, Epstein (1987) defined corporate social
responsiveness and business ethics and then brought them together into
what he called the “corporate social policy process.” He added, “The nub
of the corporate social policy process is the institutionalization within busi-
ness organizations of the following three elements ...business ethics, cor-
porate social responsibility and corporate social responsiveness” (p. 106).
THE 1990S: CSR FURTHER YIELDS
TO ALTERNATIVE THEMES
As a general statement, it should be observed that very few unique con-
tributions to the definition of CSR occurred in the 1990s. More than any-
thing else, the CSR concept served as the base point, building block, or
point-of-departure for other related concepts and themes, many of which
embraced CSR-thinking and were quite compatible with it. CSP, stake-
holder theory, business ethics theory, and corporate citizenship were the
major themes that took center stage in the1990s. I will not explore these
themes in depth, because they are outside the realm of the present scope of
focusingon CSR definitions and itsderivatives,andeachofthese thematic
frameworks has its own extensive literature.
During the 1990s, one of the earliest and major contributions to the
treatment of CSR came in 1991 when Donna J. Wood revisited the CSP
model. Although Wood discussed and credited the many contributors to
the increasingly popular notion of CSP, the model she presented primarily
builds on my three-dimensional CSR model (Carroll, 1979) and the War-
tick and Cochran (1985) model.
The three dimensions of my CSP model became principles, processes,
and policies under the Wartick and Cochran (1985) formulation. Wood
(1991)reformulated these into threeprinciples. First, she statedthe princi-
ple of CSR that took my four domains (economic, legal, ethical, and
288 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999
discretionary) and identified how they related to the CSR principles of
social legitimacy (institutional level), public responsibility (organiza-
tional level), and managerial discretion (individual level). Second, she
identified the processes of corporate social responsiveness, which went
beyond my articulation of responsiveness categories (reactive, defensive,
accommodative, proactive) that Wartick and Cochran (1985) had formu-
lated as policies, and she highlighted such processes as environmental
assessment, stakeholder management, and issues management (p. 694).
Third, she took Wartick and Cochran’s (1985) policies, which were their
elaboration of my “social issues” category, and reorganized them under a
new topic of concern—outcomes of corporate behavior. In summary,
Wood’s (1991) model was much more comprehensive than the earlier ver-
sions of Carroll (1979) and Wartick and Cochran (1985) and introduced
matters that were consistent with the earlier models but that the earlier
models had not explicitly addressed. Like the two earlier models, Wood’s
(1991) placed CSR into a broader context than just a stand-alone defini-
tion. An important emphasis in her model was on outcomes or perfor-
mance. Although outcomes or performance were implicit in the earlier
models, Wood made this point more explicit, and this was a meaningful
contribution.
In 1991, I revisited my four-part CSR definition (Carroll, 1991). By
this time, I was referring to the discretionary component as philanthropic
and suggesting that it embraced “corporate citizenship.” I stated,
For CSR to be accepted by the conscientious business person, it should be
framedin such a way that theentire range of business responsibilities is em-
braced. It is suggested here that four kinds of social responsibilities consti-
tute total CSR: economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. Furthermore,
these four categories or components of CSR might be depicted as a pyra-
mid. To be sure, all of these kinds of responsibilities have always existed to
some extent, but it has only been in recent years that ethical and philan-
thropic functions have taken a significant place. (p. 40)
The pyramid of CSR depicted the economic category as the base (the
foundation upon which all others rest), and then built upward through
legal, ethical, and philanthropic categories (Carroll, 1991, p. 42). I made it
clear that business should not fulfill these in sequential fashion but that
each is to be fulfilled at all times. It also should be observed that the pyra-
mid was more of a graphical depiction of CSR than an attempt to add new
meaning to the four-part definition. Stated in more pragmatic and mana-
gerial terms, I summarized, “The CSR firm should strive to make a profit,
obey the law, be ethical, and be a good corporate citizen” (p. 43).
Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 289
In this same article, I provided a segue from CSR to stakeholder the-
ory/management by observing, “There is a natural fit between the idea of
corporate social responsibility and an organization’s stakeholders” (p. 43).
Arguingthat the term“social” in CSR has beenseen by someas vague and
lacking in specificity as to whom the corporation is responsible, I sug-
gested that the stakeholder concept, popularized by R. Edward Freeman
(1984), personalizes social or societal responsibilities by delineating the
specific groups or persons business should consider in its CSR orientation
andactivities.Thus, the stakeholdernomenclatureputs “names andfaces”
onthe societal membersor groups whoare most importantto business and
to whom it must be responsive (p. 43).
To place CSR into a useful contextin the 1990s,it is appropriateto con-
sider a survey conducted in a quest to determine what topics management
researchers thought were important in the 1990s. In 1994, I surveyed 50
academic leaders in the social issues in management field and found some
very interesting data. Of particular interest to us here is the content analy-
sis of responses to the question “What topics do you see as most important
for research in the social issues in management field in the balance of the
1990s?” Table 1 lists the topics along with the percentage of frequency
that these topics were mentioned by the experts as “most important in the
1990s” (Carroll, 1994, p. 14).
SeveralobservationsaboutTable1arein order.First, it shouldbe noted
that CSR, specifically, was categorized into the “corporate social perfor-
mance” topic. Therefore, it ranks high in the list but has been somewhat
superseded by the other three topical themes. However, these other three
topics certainly embrace CSR issues, as it is virtually impossible in a con-
tent analysis to accurately and completely separate CSR out into its own
category. Of course, this was true of most of the other categories as well.
The findings of this study are useful, however, for they help us to “posi-
tion”CSR definitional literature in thetotalscheme of thingsinthe 1990s.
The three themes, or theories, related to CSR that have captured the
most attention in the 1990s have been CSP (see Swanson, 1995), business
ethics, and stakeholder theory. As we approach the millennium, there has
been renewed interest in the concept of corporate citizenship. Whether
this turns out to be a distinct area of study or simply another way of articu-
lating or framing some of these other concerns remains to be seen. Corpo-
rate citizenship may be broadly or narrowly conceived. Depending on
which way it is defined, the notion seems to overlap more or less with the
previously mentioned themes or theories. Each of these themes or topics
has its own extensive literature, however, and it is beyond the scope of this
article to provide a summary of each of these areas of research.
290 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999
SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
The concept of CSR has had a long and diverse history in the literature.
Although references to CSR occurred a number of times prior to the
1950s, that decade ushered in what might be called the “modern era” with
respect to CSR definitions. Howard Bowen’s (1953) book Social Respon-
sibilities of the Businessman, stands out during this period. It was pro-
posed that Bowen deserves the appellation of the Father of Corporate
Social Responsibility. In the 1960s, the literature on CSR developed con-
siderably.Mostofthis definitional literature waspromulgated by academ-
ics, and the names that seemed to dominate that period included Davis,
Frederick, McGuire, and Walton.
Definitionsof CSR beganto proliferate in the 1970s. Thedefinitions of
CSR became more specific; also during this time, alternative emphases,
such as corporate social responsiveness and CSP, became commonplace.
The most notable contributions to the definitional construct during the
1970s included the works of Johnson, the CED, Davis, Steiner, Eells and
Walton, Sethi, Preston and Post, and Carroll.
In the 1980s, we witnessed fewer original definitions of CSR, more
attempts to measure and conduct research on CSR, and alternative the-
matic frameworks. In terms of definitional contributions, the
Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 291
Table 1
Academic Leaders’Ranking of Important Research Areas in the Social Issues in Manage-
ment Field
Topic/Issue Percentage Frequency Mentioned
Business Ethics 21.5
International social issues 16.1
Business and society/social issues 10.7
Corporate social performance (CPS) 10.7
Business and government/public policy 9.8
Environmental issues 8.9
Theory/research methods development 6.2
Issues within corporations 6.2
Strategic issues 3.6
Corporate governance 2.7
Stakeholders 1.8
Other 1.8
Note. Responses of 50 academic leaders to the question “What topics do you see as most im-
portant for research in the social issues in management field in the balance of the 1990s?”
(Carroll, 1994, p. 14).
contributions of Jones, Drucker, Wartick and Cochran, and Epstein stood
out. Finally, in the 1990s, the CSR concept transitioned significantly to
alternativethemessuch as stakeholder theory,businessethicstheory,CSP,
and corporate citizenship. During that period, it should be noted that writ-
ers did not reject the CSR concept, but there were no new definitions
addedto the body of literature.Wood(1991)expanded and setforth a CSP
model that captured CSR concerns. During that time, there was a con-
tinuation of a trend begun earlier to operationalize the CSR concept and to
articulate other concepts that were consistent with CSR theory but that
took alternative emphases or themes as their centerpiece. In virtually all
cases, these new directions and themes were consistent with and built on
the CSR definitions and constructs discussed in this article. Furthermore,
the language of CSR remains in active use today.
As we close out the 1990s and look ahead to the new millennium, it is
expected that attention will be given increasingly to measurement initia-
tives as well as theoretical developments. For these concepts to develop
further,empiricalresearchis doubtless neededso that practicemay be rec-
onciled with theory. The CSR concept will remain as an essential part of
business language and practice, because it is a vital underpinning to many
of the other theories and is continually consistent with what the public
expects of the business community today. As theory is developed and
research is conducted, scholars may revise and adapt existing definitions
of CSR or new definitions may come into the literature; however, at the
present time, it is hard to imagine that these new concepts could develop
apart and distinct from the groundwork that has been established over the
past half century. More than likely, we will see new realms in which to
think about businesses responsibilities to our stakeholder society, particu-
larly at the global level, and in new and emerging technologies, fields, and
commercial applications. In this context, it appears that the CSR concept
has a bright future because at its core, it addresses and captures the most
important concerns of the public regarding business and society
relationships.
REFERENCES
Abbott, W. F., & Monsen, R. J. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibil-
ity: Self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement.
Academy of Management Journal,22, 501-515.
Ackerman, R. W. (1973). How companies respond to social demands. Harvard Business
Review,51(4), 88-98.
292 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999
Ackerman, R. W., & Bauer, R. A. (1976). Corporate social responsiveness. Reston, VA:
Reston.
Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical investigation of the
relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Man-
agement Journal,28, 446-463.
Backman, J. (Ed.). (1975). Social responsibility and accountability. New York: New York
University Press.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bowen,H.R.(1953).Social responsibilities of the businessman.NewYork: Harper &Row.
Bowman,E.H.,&Haire,M.(1975). A strategicposture towardcorporatesocialresponsibil-
ity. California Management Review,18, 49-58.
Carroll, A. B. (Ed.). (1977). Managing corporate social responsibility. Boston: Little,
Brown.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social perfor-
mance. Academy of Management Review,4, 497-505.
Carroll, A. B. (1981). Business and society: managing corporate social performance. Bos-
ton: Little, Brown.
Carroll, A. B. (1983, July 15). Corporate social responsibility: Will industry respond to cut-
backs in social program funding? Vital Speeches of the Day,49, 604-608.
Carroll, A. B. (1991, July/August). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward
the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons,34, 39-48.
Carroll, A. B. (1994). Social issues in management research: Experts’ views, analysis and
commentary. Business & Society,33, 5-29.
Clark, J. M. (1939). Social control of business. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial perfor-
mance. Academy of Management Journal,27, 42-56.
Committee for Economic Development. (1971). Social responsibilities of business corpora-
tions. New York: Author.
Dalton, D. R., & Cosier, R. A. (1982, May/June). The four faces of social responsibility.
Business Horizons, 19-27.
Davis, K. (1960, Spring). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California
Management Review,2, 70-76.
Davis, K. (1967, Winter). Understanding the social responsibility puzzle: What does the
businessman owe to society? Business Horizons,10, 45-50.
Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities.
Academy of Management Journal,16, 312-322.
Davis, K., & Blomstrom, R. L. (1966). Business and its environment. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management. New York: Harper & Row.
Drucker, P. F. (1984). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Man-
agement Review,26, 53-63.
Eells, R. (1956). Corporate giving in a free society. New York.
Eells, R., & Walton, C. (1974). Conceptual foundations of business (3rd ed.). Burr Ridge, IL:
Irwin.
Eilbert, H., & Parket, I. R. (1973, August). The current status of corporate social responsibil-
ity. Business Horizons,16, 5-14.
Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 293
Epstein, E. M. (1987). The corporate social policy process: Beyond business ethics, corpo-
rate social responsibility, and corporate social responsiveness. California Management
Review,29, 99-114.
Fitch, H. G. (1976). Achieving corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management
Review,1, 38-46.
Frederick, W.C. (1960). The growing concern over business responsibility. California Man-
agement Review,2, 54-61.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heald, M. (1957). Management’s responsibility to society: The growth of an idea.
Heald, M. (1970). The social responsibilities of business: Company and community,
1900-1960. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University Press.
Holmes, S. L. (1976, June). Executive perceptions of corporate social responsibility. Busi-
ness Horizons,19, 34-40.
Johnson, H. L. (1971). Business in contemporary society: Framework and issues. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Jones, T. M. (1980, Spring). Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California
Management Review, 59-67.
Kreps, T. J. (1940). Measurement of the social performance of business. In An investigation
of concentration of economic power for the temporary national economic committee
(Monograph No. 7). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Manne, H. G., & Wallich, H. C. (1972). The modern corporation and social responsibility.
Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
McGuire, J. W. (1963). Business and society. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Preston, L. E. (Ed.). (1978). Research in corporate social performance and policy (Vol. 1).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Preston, L. E., & Post, J. E. (1975). Private management and public policy: The principle of
public responsibility. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Samuelson, P. A. (1971, Spring). Love that corporation. Mountain Bell Magazine.
Selekman, B. (1959). A moral philosophy for business. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sethi, S. P. (1975, Spring). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytic frame-
work. California Management Review,17, 58-64.
Steiner, G. A. (1971). Business and society. New York: Random House.
Strand, R. (1983). A systems paradigm of organizational adaptations to the social environ-
ment. Academy of Management Review,8, 90-96.
Swanson, D. L. (1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social
performance model. Academy of Management Review,20, 43-64.
Tuzzolino, F., & Armandi, B. R. (1981). A need-hierarchy framework for assessing corpo-
rate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review,6, 21-28.
Votaw, D. (1973). Genius becomes rare. In D. Votaw & S. P. Sethi (Eds.) The corporate
dilemma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Walton, C. C. (1967). Corporate social responsibilities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance
model. Academy of Management Review,10, 758-769.
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management
Review,16, 691-718.
Zenisek, T. J. (1979). Corporate social responsibility: A conceptualization based on organ-
izational literature. Academy of Management Review,4, 359-368.
294 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September 1999
Archie B. Carroll is professor of management, head of the Department of Manage-
ment, and holder of the Robert W. Scherer Chair of Management and Corporate
Public Affairs in the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia. He has
been on the faculty at UGA since 1972. Dr. Carroll is the author of 14 books and
more than 80 articles. His most recentbook is Business &Society:Ethics& Stake-
holder Management (4th ed., 2000, coauthored with Ann K. Buchholtz). In 1993,
he was awarded the Terry College’s Distinguished Research Award for his 20
years of research and writings on business ethics, corporate social performance,
and strategic planning. He served as President of the Society for Business Ethics
during 1998-1999. He was a founding board member of the International Associa-
tion for Business and Society (IABS).
Carroll / CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 295
