CHAPTER 1: History and Evolution of CSR (International, Generic)

1.1 Objectives
Aims:
In this chapter we aim to help you:
- Locate the modern idea of CSR with a history of its evolution
- Identify the directions the idea has taken as it has evolved
- Explain the difficulties the idea has encountered
Learning Outcomes:
After you have completed this chapter you should be able to:
- Define the meaning and scope of CSR
- Describe the process of evolution of the idea
- Understand and explain the concept
- Identify the issues which may arise with CSR
-
1.2 Introduction:
Historically, the concept of CSR has been viewed as corporate
philanthropy or charity. Wealthy entrepreneurs recognised the need to
engage with society and often contributed to setting up schools,
hospitals, and welfare programmes. This is a view of corporations
called the “social institution” view, of which Peter Drucker was among
the most vehement and significant proponents. In his seminal text
“The Practice of Management” (1954), Drucker stated, “Society is not
just the environment of the enterprise. Even the most private of
private enterprises is an organ of society and serves a social function.”
Drucker elaborated on the role of the corporation further in
“Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices” (1973), saying, “The
fact is that in modern society there is no other leadership group but
managers. If the managers of our major institutions, and especially of
business, do not take responsibility for the common good, no one else
can or will.”
 Historical Evolution and Overview of CSR:

Period Name of Description Literature

concept
1950s Social The obligations of businessmen Bowen (1953)
responsibility of to pursue policies, to make
businessmen decisions or to follow lines of
action which are desirable in
terms of the objectives and values
of society
Some socially responsible Davis (1960)
business decisions can be
justified by the long-run economic
gain of the firm, thus paying back
for its socially responsible
behaviour.
Private contribution to society’s Frederick (1960)
economic and human resources
and a willingness on the part of
business to see that those
resources were utilized for broad
social ends
1960s– Stakeholder Instead of striving only for larger Johnson (1971)
1970s approach returns to its shareholders, a
responsible enterprise takes into
account the interests of
employees, suppliers, dealers,
local communities and the nation
as a whole.
Three The concept consists of corporate Carroll (1979)
dimensional responsibilities (i.e., economic,
model legal, ethical and philanthropic),
social issues of business (e.g.,
labour standards, human rights,
environment protection and anti-
corruption) and corporate actions
(e.g., reactive, defensive,
accommodative and proactive).
1980s-1990s Three- Integration of the principles of Wartick and Cochran (1985)
dimensional corporate responsibility, the
model of policies of social issue
principles, management and the process of
policies and action into an evolving system.
processes
Institutional Four types of corporate Wood (1991)
framework and responsibilities (i.e., economic,
extended legal, ethical and philanthropic)
corporate were linked to three institutional
actions levels (i.e., legal, organizational
and individual), while corporate
actions are extended to
assessment, stockholder
management and implementation
management.
2000s Three-domains Three domains of corporate Schwartz and Carroll (2003)
approach responsibilities: economic, legal
and ethical.
(Source:http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/6%20-
%20Chapter%20II_Developments%20in%20the%20concept%20of%20CSR.
pdfTable II. 1. Development of CSR concepts pg.: 13 &14)

There is a long history associated with the evolution of the concept and
definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The Cranfield University’s
School of Management presents a timeline of the evolution of CSR
here(http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/p14369/Research/Research-
Centres/Doughty-Centre-Home/Further-Resources/The-CR-timeline).

Footprints of the concept could be seen even in the early twentieth century.
In the 1919 case of Dodge v Ford Motor Company, the Michigan Supreme
Court issued a landmark judgement defining the powers of directors of
business corporations to be employed for the purpose of increasing the
profit of its stockholders, a step toward broadening corporate responsibility.
Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means examined this concept in their book “The
Modern Corporation and Private Property” (1932), arguing that the interests
of society must play a role in managerial decision making.

Intext Question 1A: Why do you think interests of the society must
play a role in managerial decision making?

The 1950s marked the modern era of CSR. In 1953 “Social Responsibilities
of the Businessman” was published by Harold Bowen, who defined these
social responsibilities as “the obligations of businessmen to pursue those
policies, make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are
desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society”.
Chester Barnard, in “Elementary Conditions of Business Models” (1958:7),
was among the first to identify the significant role that external
stakeholders played in the working of the corporation. He states, “The
responsibilities of corporations [include]: (1) those which may be called
internal, relating to … stockholders, creditors, directors, officers, and
employees; and (2) those relating to the interests of competitors,
communities, government, and society in general”. Theodore Levitt stated
the “only two responsibilities” of business to be “to obey the elementary
cannons of everyday face-to-face civility (honesty, good faith, and so on)”
and to seek economic profit. Definitions expanded during the 1960s and
proliferated during the 1970s. Scholars also criticised the concept, with
Milton Friedman stating, “Few trends could so thoroughly undermine 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”.

However, the overall trend was in favour of expanding the traditional

definition of corporate obligations.

Joseph McGuire stated that “The idea of social responsibilities supposes that
the corporation has not only economic and legal obligations but also certain
responsibilities to society which extend beyond these obligations”. Keith
Davis and Robert Blomstrom said, “Social responsibility … refers to a
person’s obligation to consider the effects of his decisions and actions on
the whole social system. Businessmen apply social responsibility when they
consider needs and interests of others who may be affected by business
actions. In so doing, they look beyond their firm’s narrow economic and
technical interests”.

Clarence Walton identified that the emerging concept of CSR and recognized
the “intimacy of the relationships between corporations and society”, and
that these relationships had to be an important factor in managerial
decision-making.
The 1970s marked the surge of interest in a “managerial approach” to CSR.
This approach involved the application of traditional management functions
to deal with CSR issues. Thus corporations would forecast and organize
resources for CSR, assess social performance, and institutionalize corporate
social policy and strategy.

Simultaneously, an increasing emphasis was laid during the 1970s on

corporate social responsiveness, social obligation, and corporate social
performance, as compared to corporate social responsibility. This distinction
was elaborated upon by S. Prakash Sethi in a classic article in 1975. He
introduced the concept of corporate social responsiveness, defining social
obligation as the actions of corporations that are “in response to market
forces or legal constraints”, and concerned purely with economic and legal
issues.

Social responsibility was expressed as a level beyond obligation. Sethi

stated that it “implies bringing corporate behaviour up to a level where it is
congruent with the prevailing social norms, values, and expectations of
performance”. He also distinguished between them by defining social
obligation as proscriptive, and social responsibility as prescriptive.
Social responsiveness is described as the third stage, beyond social
responsibility. Sethi defines this as the adaptation of corporate actions and
policies to societal conflicts and needs, and calls it an anticipatory and
preventive stage.
Intext Question 1B: Describe one social conflict/need that you can
identify in your area of operations and the actions and policies you
would adopt to address that conflict/need.

Lee Preston and James Post attempted to focus attention on a sense of

public responsibility, and away from corporate responsibility. They were
influenced by Dow Votaw’s 1937 definition of CSR, and in “Private
Management and Public Policy: The Principle of Public Responsibility”,
stated, “In the face of the large number of different, and not always
consistent, usages, we restrict our own use of the term social responsibility
to refer only to a vague and highly generalized sense of social concern that
appears to underlie 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 relationship to the managerial unit’s internal activities or to its
fundamental linkage with its host environment”.

NOTE: Though it lends an important perspective, the term public

responsibility has not superseded the term social responsibility in most
literature, and its lack of scope has been questioned.

In the 1980s, there were fewer new definitions, more empirical research,
and alternative themes began to mature. These alternative themes included
corporate social performance (CSP) models, stakeholder theory, and
business ethics theory.

Steven Wartick and Philip Cochran proposed an “evolution of the corporate

social performance model”. This extended the three-dimensional integration
of responsibility, responsiveness, and social issue management that had
been previously proposed by Archie B. Carroll in 1979.

These three aspects were recast into a structure of principles, processes,

and policies. They stated that Carroll’s CSR definition embraced the ethical
component of social responsibility and should be seen as “principles”, social
responsiveness should be seen as “processes”, and social issues
management should be seen as “policies”.

Peter Drucker (1984:62) stated that “the proper ‘social responsibility’ of

business is to tame the dragon that is to turn a social problem into
economic opportunity and economic benefit, into productive capacity, into
human competence, into well-paid jobs, and into wealth.”

Thomas Jones (1980:59) presented an alternative perspective to CSR. He

defined it as “the notion that corporations have an obligation to constituent
groups in society other than stockholders and beyond that prescribed by
law and union contract. “The two facets most critical to this definition are,
first, the obligation is required to be voluntarily adopted as behaviour
affected by coercive forces is not deemed to be voluntary and, second, the
obligation that extends beyond shareholders to include other societal groups
such as customers, employees, suppliers, and neighbouring communities.

Jones emphasizes that CSR should be seen as a process, not as a series of

outcomes.

Frank Tuzzolino and Barry Armandi developed a mechanism to assess CSR,

modelled after Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Their proposal was to look at a
need-hierarchy framework as an analytical tool to facilitate the
operationalization of CSR. The idea was that organizations, like individuals,
had criteria that needed to be fulfilled, or met, as in the Maslow hierarchy.

(Sou
rce:
http:
//bu
sines
scas
estu
dies.
co.uk/virgin-media/motivating-and-engaging-employees-for-better-
business/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs.html#axzz32hwzxsnn)

These needs paralleled Maslow’s structure of physiological needs, safety

needs, affiliation, esteem, and self-actualization. They claimed (1981:24)
the hierarchy was a “conceptual tool whereby socially responsible
organizational performance could be reasonably assessed”.

Two more important alternative perspectives that emerged during the 1980s
were business ethics and stakeholder theory. Stakeholder theory was
proposed by R. Edward Freeman in his classic 1984 book. It had an
important impact in the fields of business and society, corporate social
responsibility, and, eventually, business ethics. The latter was the other
alternative theme to emerge from a decade which was a period of widely
reported ethical scandals that focussed public attention on the adverse
effects of corporate decision-making. For example, the 1984 tragedy at the
Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, where a gas leak killed thousands; the
infant-formula controversy that spanned the 1970s and half of the 1980s;
the global conflict over corporate activities in South Africa that appeared to
support Apartheid; and insider trading scandals on Wall Street.

While few landmark contributions were made to the CSR movement in the
1990s, themes such as business ethics, stakeholder theory, sustainability,
and corporate citizenship emerged and became predominant in discourse.

In the 21st century we see that the emphasis has shifted from theoretical
contributions to empirical research on the effects and spread of CSR
practices. One of the significant contributions from this era has been that of
Bryan Husted (2000), who proposed a contingency theory of corporate social
performance (CSP). He stated that CSP was a function of the fit between the
nature of the social issue and its corresponding strategies and structures.
This fit then leads to an integration of elements such as corporate social
responsiveness, issues management, and stakeholder management.

Intext Question 1C: What is the relevance of Corporate Social

Performance?

1.3 Role:
The idea of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is not newin our society. It
was born when corporations came into existence and societies
accommodated them. The ‘soul’ of corporate social responsibility is what the
French philosopher Rousseau referred toas ‘the social contract’ between
business and society. He conceptualised the relationship between business
and society as being a ‘symbiosis’. The Greek word ‘symbiosis’ means the
co-living and co-existence of two parties in a mutually advantageous
relationship. Thus, the social contract relates to men (social members) as
being able to act freely in a civil society that is united by a general will or
‘volonte generale’: ‘The social contract that brings society into being is a
pledge, and the society remains in being as a pledged good’.

The corporation evolved from its origins in Roman law through a series of
our major transformations. Before this, however, it is important to note that,
the concept of the corporation as a separate legal person from its owners or
members had to be developed. This was made possible through the work of
the civil law commentators in the fourteenth century. The membership
corporation – a corporation with several members who chose others to
succeed them – developed a legal personality by the end of the Middle Ages
and was well established in both civil and common law jurisdictions. This
conferred unlimited life on such corporations and meant that the
membership corporation had the capacity to own property, sue, and be
sued, and even bear criminal responsibility.

The next inflection point was the shift from non-profit membership
corporations to for-profit business corporations, which took place in England
and the United States in the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th
century. The third transformation was marked by the shift from closely-held
corporations to corporations whose shares are widely held and publicly
traded. With this came the rise of limited liability and freedom to
incorporate, which took place by the end of the 19th century and the
beginning of the 20th.Finally, the last major transformation was the rise of
the multinationals where corporations graduated from doing business in one
country to multinational enterprises whose operations span the globe. This
began after World War II and continues till date. Each of these four
transformations (as well as a smaller,more temporary change which
occurred in the United States in the 1980s with the advent of hostile
takeovers) was accompanied by changes in the legal conception of the
corporation.
It is worth noting that throughout these significant changes, the
samethreetheoriesofthecorporationcanbedetected.Thesetheoriesincludetheag
gregatetheory,whichviewsthecorporationas an aggregate of its members or
shareholders; the artificial entity theory, which views corporation as a
creature of the State and the real entity theory, which views the corporation
as neither the sum of its owners nor an extension of the state but as a
distinct entity controlled by its managers.

During the 1970s many social issues were categorised as public policy
matters and legislation was passed to address health and safety at work,
environmental protection and consumer protection rights. This public policy
approach provided legitimacy for socially responsible actions undertaken by
managements, as it became fully apparent that governments, acting on
behalf of citizens, had legitimate rights to provide guidelines for managers
and nudge corporate behaviour to correspond with societal expectations. The
public policy approach clearly indicated that social responsibility of business
goes beyond delivering value to shareholders by meeting or exceeding
economic objectives. It encouraged business to follow directives of the
society that it is a part of, as expressed in and through the public policy
process. The public policy process and marketplace were both to be drawn
upon, in tandem, for directions for managerial actions.

Intext Question 1D: Describe how public policy approach provided

legitimacy for socially responsible actions.
Definition of CSR:

The modern definition of CSR has two main dimensions – one, the
representation of the interests of the corporation’s stakeholders at the
company board and in the decision-making processes, and two, since
corporate law protects the interests of the firm’s shareholders, a corporate
socially responsible or ‘corporate citizenship’ stance would involve the
formulation of decisions that go beyond legal requirements and exceed the
law, ‘compliance plus’.

Edwin Epstein (1987) defined CSR as relating “primarily to achieving

outcomes from organizational decisions concerning specific issues or
problems which (by some normative standards) have beneficial rather than
adverse effects upon pertinent corporate stakeholders. The normative
correctness of the products of corporate action have been the main focus of
corporate social responsibility.”

Archie B. Carroll in“A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate

Social Performance” (1979) put forward a comprehensive definition of CSR,
incorporating it in a model of corporate social performance (CSP). He stated
that for managers and corporations to involve themselves in CSP, they
required – one, a basic definition of CSR that identified the various kinds of
CSR businesses engaged in; two, an understanding of the issues for which a
social responsibility existed; and three, a specification of the philosophy (or
strategy) of responsiveness to the issues. Carroll said (1979:500), “The
social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical,
and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given
point in time”.
The inclusion of an economic responsibility has been debated, and provides a
unique perspective to the obligations of corporations. The economic
component of a business is generally assumed to be a self-serving act while
the legal, ethical, discretionary, and philanthropic components are assumed
to be for the benefit of others. Carroll attempts to eliminate this distinction
by stating that by maintaining its economic viability, the corporation in fact
serves the purposes of others as well, perpetuating the economy and the
business system. In 1991 Carroll depicted this definition as a “pyramid of
CSR”, with the economic responsibility forming the foundation of the
pyramid.

Ca
rro
ll’s
CS
R
Pyr
am
id:
A
thr
ee
-
di
me
nsional conceptual model of corporate social performance
Richard Eells and Clarence Walton (1974) examined the broad spectrum of
CSR, stating, “CSR represents a concern with the needs and goals of society
which goes beyond the merely economic. Insofar as the business system as
it exists today can only survive in an efficiently functioning free society, the
corporate social responsibility movement represents a broad concern with
business’s role in supporting and improving that social order”.

The European Commission defines corporate social responsibility as “the

responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society”. To fully meet their
social responsibility, enterprises “should have in place a process to integrate
social, environmental, ethical human rights and consumer concerns into
their business operations and core strategy in close collaboration with their
stakeholders”.

The current definition of CSR - that suggestsand extends the engagement of

a firm with stakeholdersrather than shareholders alone - is drawn from the
stakeholder model of a firm, which wasdeveloped in the United States in the
mid-1980s. An epistemological study reveals that the stakeholder model of
the firm and the current ‘business case ‘for CSR are different. This is mainly
because the stakeholder model of the firm is rooted in
the(deontological/ethical) assumption that the firm ought to
engagestakeholders in the decision-making of the firm as they are likely to
be affected by the firm activities whereas, the ‘business case ‘for CSR is
rooted on the (utilitarian) notion that shareholders will increase their
financial interests by engaging in dialogue with other stakeholders of the
firm.
In a nutshell, the conventional form corporate social responsibility is
identified with profitability plus compliance plus philanthropy. The current
meaning of corporate responsibility is associated with the ‘recognition that
day to day operating practices affect stakeholders and that is in those
impacts where responsibility lies, not merely in efforts to do good’ (Andriof
etal, 2002).

1.4 Relevance:

CSR needs to be studied in the context within which it is being practised as

by definition it is concerned about responsibilities of companies in relation to
various actors in society. The wide role of CSR, coupled with the power and
technological capacity of private companies, provides an added incentive for
the private sector to be increasingly involved in development efforts in the
“third world”. Over the past decade or so, governments, companies and
NGOs in many middle-and-low-income countries have driven a process of
modification of the developed-country-driven CSR agenda through a process
of direct engagement. Governments across developing economies have
sought to engage with businesses in meeting several social challenges; as a
result there have been a surfeit of CSR movements and initiatives across
countries such as China, India, South Africa, the Philippines and Brazil,
among others.

CSR policies are also attracting the attention of NGOs that have emerged to
scrutinise CSR reports and compare them with real corporate behaviour.
These policies and reports are used as leverage to encourage, influence and
often expose companies violating their own codes of conduct. However, this
work can be challenging, mainly because it is not in the interest of
companies to provide complete transparency in the way they function. This
makes accurate and detailed monitoring and follow-up of CSR claims, both,
time and resource consuming.

In such circumstances, state and publicly funded developmental

organisations play an important role. Official development organizations
have taken many steps to ensure CSR in developing nations. The UK’s
Department for International Development (DFID) states, “By following
socially responsible practices, the growth generated by the private sector will
be more inclusive, equitable and poverty reducing”. Antonio Vivos of the
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) pushes the envelope even further
when he writes that “CSR, by its very nature, is development done by the
private sector, and it perfectly complements the development efforts of
governments and multilateral development institutions”. The World Bank
actively promotes CSR through its Corporate Social Responsibility Practice
and its training arm the World Bank Institute, while the United Nations has
also contributed the CSR movement through the creation of theUnited
Nations Global Compactin 2000. Programmes like the United Nations
Development Programme’s “Growing Inclusive Markets” programme, the
corporate sector’s “Base of the Pyramid” business developments and
stakeholders such as the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (2005) are working towards a “Inclusive Markets” movement;
the approach has been to try and persuade companies to innovate new
products, services and business models within which poor people are
customers, entrepreneurs, suppliers and partners rather than only cheap
labour (Kandachar et al, 2008; United Nation Development Programme,
2008; Prahalad, 2006).
(Source: World Resources Institute)

This is a new approach from the CSR perspective as well: companies are
encouraged to look at what has been termed as “CSR Innovation” instead of
merely finetuning their existing business towards a more socially responsible
direction(Halme et al, 2009a), i.e. to take a social problem (such as lack of
water, food, shelter, sanitation or financing objectives) as a source of
innovating new business models (such as Cemex’s Patrimonio Hoy housing
concept for the poor, Grameen or Wizzit micro - finance Banks or Danone’s
and Grameen’s yoghurt for children of Bangladesh) (Richardson et al, 2008;
Prasso, 2007; Prahalad, 2006). It is being observed that it is not just
companies but also international non-governmental organizations that are
increasingly adopting and applying these ideas in their own activities,
particularly as comes to enhancing entrepreneurship concepts of the poor
rather than providing direct aid. Taken together, this proposes a
fundamentally different line ofaction by which companies should bear their
responsibilities with regard to the developing countries.

Intext Question 1E: How can CSR encourage/enhance

entrepreneurship?

Michael Bryane (2003) states that the role of CSR in development within
literature has formulated three schools:
The neoliberal school, focuses on self-regulation by industry in accordance to
the risks and rewards of CSR activities but fails to address the resource
misallocations and unintended consequences by CSR, the state-led school,
focuses on international and national regulation and cooperation but fails to
address the underlying politics behind government encouraging CSR and the
“Third Way” school, that looks at the roles of not-for-profit organisations,
but fails to address the self-interests of participating individuals in CSR.

Bryane goes on to say that “The CSR discourse appears to signal a new form
of co-operation between government, business, and civil society in the
promotion of social objectives. Yet, left out of the discourse are all the
difficulties and complexities which development theory has been debating for
a century. The neo-liberal school stressed the adequacy of the incentives
versus insurance model – yet fails to address important resource
misallocations. The state-led school emphasizes the balance between
cooperation versus control exercised by the state – yet ignores important
contestation of political power by international organizations, national
governments, and business interests. The “third sector” school notes the
new potential for public engagement in policy making – but ignores the
highly politicised and conflictive nature of that engagement.”

1.5 Conclusion:
CSR is part of a larger transformation in the relations between government,
business, and civil society. Perhaps the most important idea regarding
modern conceptions of CSR is that socially responsible activities can and
should be used to enhance the bottom-line. The proposition is that economic
decisions should be screened for their social and environmental impact
because they do have a cost. Economic, social and environmental returns
need not be quarantined in isolated units because companies that
successfully pursue a strategy of seeking profits while solving social needs
and mindful of environmental consequences may well earn better
reputations with their employees customers, government, media and other
stakeholders. This in turn, can lead to higher profits for companies’
shareholders.

RESOURCES:

Prescribed Reading:
The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, edited by Andrew
Crane

A History of Corporate Social Responsibility: Concepts and Practices, Archie

Carroll
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-
rcbg/CSRI/publications/report_12_CGI%20Role%20of%20Business%20in%
20Society%20Report%20FINAL%2010-03-06.pdf

http://econoca.unica.it/public/downloaddocenti/Carroll%20CSR%20Evolutio
n%20of%20a%20def%20construct.pdf
Recommended Reading:
Chester Barnard, The Functions of the Executive
J. M. Clark, Social Control of Business

Theodore Kreps, Measurement of the Social Performance of Business

Howard R. Bowen, Social Responsibilities of the Businessman

Joseph W. McGuire, Business and Society

Morrell Heald, The Social Responsibilities of Business: Company and

Community

Harold Johnson, Business in Contemporary Society: Framework and Issues

Henry G. Manne and Henry C. Wallich, The Modern Corporation and

Social Responsibility

Lee Preston and James Post, Private Management and Public Policy: The
Principle of Public Responsibility

Corporate Social Responsibility and the Welfare State: The Historical

andContemporary Role of CSR in the Mixed Economy of Welfare, Jeanette
Brejning

http://www.london.edu/facultyandresearch/research/docs/00-704.pdf
http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/P2-SocialValue.pdf

References:
Schwartz, Mark S., Corporate Social Responsibility: An Ethical Approach

Barnard, ChesterI.1938. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass.:

HarvardUniversity Press

Drucker, Peter F., Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, 1973, p.

325.
Drucker, P. F. (1984). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility.
California Management Review, 26, 53-63.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, Vol.

26, p. 938-942.

Buchholz, R., Principles of Environmental Management-The Greening of

business, Prentice Hall, USA, 1993

Bichta, Constantina, Corporate Social Responsibility – A Role in Government

Policy and Regulation, 2003

Sethi, S. Prakash, Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: An

Analytical Framework, 1975.

DFID, Socially Responsible Business Team strategy: April 2001—March 2004

(London: Department for International Development), p. 2.

Vivos, A., ‘The role of multilateral development institutions in fostering

corporate social responsibility’, Development 47: 3, 2004, p. 4

Preston,L.E.,&Post,J.E.(1975).Privatemanagementandpublicpolicy:Theprincip
leof public responsibility. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wartick,S.L.,& Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social

performancemodel.Academy of Management Review,10, 758-769.

Eells, R. &Walton,C.(1974).Conceptualfoundationsof business

(3rded.).BurrRidge,IL:Irwin
Jones, T. M. (1980, Spring).Corporate social responsibility revisited,
redefined.California Management Review, 59-67.

Tuzzolino, F., & Armandi, B. R. (1981).A need-hierarchy framework for

assessing corporate social responsibility.Academy of Management Review, 6,
21-28

Epstein, E. M. (1987). The corporate social policy process: Beyond business

ethics, corporate social responsibility, and corporate social responsiveness.
California Management Review, 29, 99-114.

Bryane, M., “Corporate Social Responsibility in International Development:

An Overview and Critique”, in Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, vol 10, no 3, pg. 115-128

Jenkins, Rhys, “Globalization, Corporate Social Responsibility and Poverty”

Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B. and Sutherland Rahman, S. (Eds)

(2002), UnfoldingStakeholder Thinking: Theory, Responsibility and
Engagement, Greenleaf Publishing,Sheffield.

Kandachar, P, Halme, M (eds.). 2008. Sustainability Challenges and

Solutions at the Base of the Pyramid. Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield.

UNDP – United Nation Development Programme.Human Development Report

2007/2008. 2008. http://hdr.undp.org/
Prahalad, CK. 2006. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid.Eradicating
Poverty through Profits. Wharton School Publishing: Wharton.

Halme, M, Laurila, J. 2009a. Philanthropy, Integration or

Innovation?Exploring the Financial and Societal Outcomes of Different Types
of Corporate Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 84: 325-339.

Richardson, B, Callegari, N. 2008. Wizzit: Mobile Banking for the Poor in

South Africa. In Sustainability Challenges and Solutions at the Base of the
Pyramid: Business, Technology and the Poor, (eds.) Kandachar, P, Halme,
M. Greenleaf Publishing: Aizlewood Mills; 70-79.

Prasso, S. Saving the World with a Cup of Yogurt. 2007.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/02/05/839
9198/?postversion=2007012913

Hopkins, Michael, “Corporate Social Responsibility & International

Development: Is Business the Solution?” 2007.

Dobers, P., Halme, M. (2009) "Corporate Social Responsibility and

Developing Countries" in Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 16(5): 237-249

Avi-Yonah, Reuven S. “The Cyclical Transformations of the corporate Form:

A Historical Perspective of Corporate Social Responsibility”, Del. J. Corp. L.
30, no. 3 (2005:767-818)

https://www.academia.edu/860777/A_history_of_corporate_social_responsi
bility_concepts_and_practices
http://download.clib.psu.ac.th/datawebclib/e_resource/trial_database/WileyI
nterScienceCD/pdf/CSR/CSR_2.pdf

Practice Questions:

1. When did CSR begin gaining resonance and why?

(Read:http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/p14369/Research/Researc
h-Centres/Doughty-Centre-Home/Further-Resources/The-CR-timeline)
2. Share some critical perspectives on CSR in developing countries?
(Read:http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/
International%20Affairs/Blanket%20File%20Import/inta_465.pdf)
3. How has CSR been defined historically?
(Read:http://fse.tibiscus.ro/anale/Lucrari2010/146.%20Gherhes%20V
asile.pdf)
4. Describe CSR as a management concept.
(Read:http://www.fairfaxcountypartnerships.org/resources/articles_CS
R_/Business%20Case%20for%20Corporate%20Social%20Responsibilit
y-%20IJMR.pdf)
5. Explain the ethical challenges of multinational corporations (MNCs) in
the global environment.
(Read:http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic281297.files/Week12/
MonshipouriEtAl2003.pdf)

Intext answer 1A: Business plays an important role in society and

that role is a legitimate aspect of business leadership. It is not in
conflict with growth or profitability, in fact, it is an integral part of
successful management practice and sustainable business building.

Intext answer 1B: Individual response

Intext Answer 1C: CSP allows a company to find a connection with
the nature of a particular social issue and its corresponding
strategies and structures leading to the integration of essential
elements like corporate social responsiveness, issues management
and stakeholder management

Intext Answer 1D: The public policy approach provided legitimacy as

government acting on behalf of its citizens provided guidelines for
managers and shaped corporate behaviour to correspond with
societal expectations. The public policy approach contented that
business should perform well in the marketplace, meet its economic
objectives and also follow the directives of society at large.

Intext Answer 1E: Companies could take a social problem, such as

lack of water, food, shelter, sanitation etc. as a source of innovating
new business.