Integrating and Unifying Competing and Complementary Frameworks: The Search For A Common Core in Th...

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/249704697
Integrating and Unifying Competing and

Complementary Frameworks: The Search for a
Common Core in th....
Article in Business & Society · September 2007

DOI: 10.1177/0007650306297942
CITATIONS READS
239 1,965
2 authors:
M.s. Schwartz Archie B Carroll

York University University of Georgia
48 PUBLICATIONS 3,627 CITATIONS 112 PUBLICATIONS 29,162 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Socially responsible investing View project
Wiley Encyclopedia of Management View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Archie B Carroll on 30 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Business & Society
http://bas.sagepub.com
Integrating and Unifying Competing and Complementary

Frameworks: The Search for a Common Core in the Business and
Society Field
Mark S. Schwartz and Archie B. Carroll
Business Society 2008; 47; 148 originally published online Sep 18, 2007;
DOI: 10.1177/0007650306297942
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://bas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/47/2/148
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Association for Business and Society
Additional services and information for Business & Society can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://bas.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://bas.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://bas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/47/2/148
Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

Business & Society
Volume 47 Number 2
June 2008 148-186
© 2008 Sage Publications
Integrating and 10.1177/0007650306297942
http://bas.sagepub.com
Unifying Competing hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
and Complementary
Frameworks
The Search for a Common Core in
the Business and Society Field
Mark S. Schwartz
York University
Archie B. Carroll
University of Georgia
In the field of business and society, several complementary frameworks appear

to be in competition for preeminence. Although debatable, the primary con-
tenders appear to include (a) corporate social responsibility, (b) business ethics,
(c) stakeholder management, (d) sustainability, and (e) corporate citizenship.
Despite the prevalence of the five frameworks, difficulties remain in under-
standing what each construct really means, or should mean, and how each
might relate to the others. To address the confusion, the authors propose three
core concepts—value, balance, and accountability—that might be used to
better integrate the five frameworks and potentially provide the basis for fur-
ther discussion and theoretical development of the business and society field.
Keywords: corporate social responsibility; business ethics; stakeholder

management; sustainability; corporate citizenship
I n the field of business and society, several complementary constructs or

frameworks appear to be in competition for preeminence. Although debat-
able, the primary contenders appear to include (a) corporate social responsi-
bility (CSR), (b) business ethics (BE), (c) stakeholder management (SM), (d)
sustainability (SUS), and (e) corporate citizenship (CC). Although only a
short time ago many questioned whether these concepts possessed adequate
Authors’ Note: The authors would like to thank Heidi Rahn, for her able research assistance,
as well as Tom Donaldson and several other anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions
towards the preparation of this paper.
148
Schwartz, Carroll / Integrating and Unifying Frameworks 149
theoretical or practical legitimacy, this situation appears to have changed con-

siderably. Whether in the academic or business communities, each of these
concepts has gained in prominence to the point where they are now ubiqui-
tous in nature.
Despite the prevalence of the five frameworks, difficulties remain in under-
standing what each construct really means, or should mean, and how each
might relate to the others. The result has been some measure of confusion in
the business and society field, which threatens to hinder the field’s theoretical
development.
Evidence of confusion among the constructs is readily apparent. For
example, each of the concepts has been suggested to incorporate one or more
of the others. The following are just a few examples of the apparent confusion.
De George (1987) states that “corporate social responsibility is part of busi-
ness ethics” (p. 204). Others suggest that CSR incorporates BE: “The concept
of business ethics falls within the category of ethical responsiveness in the
Carroll model [of CSR]” (Joyner & Payne, 2002, p. 304). SM is thought by
some to be incorporated by BE: “Stakeholder is an important and commonly
used framework for business ethics” (Gibson, 2000, p. 245). De Bakker,
Groenewegen, and Den Hond (2005), referring to Mohan (2003), suggest that
BE, SM, SUS, and CC are concepts that simply “[build] on notions of the
social responsibilities of business” (p. 288). CC, on the other hand, has been
proposed as incorporating CSR, SM, SUS, and BE. The Journal of Corporate
Citizenship states that “topics related to corporate citizenship can include . . .
corporate responsibility, stakeholder relationships . . . sustainability . . . and
ethics” (“About the Journal,” 2003, p. 109).
In other cases, the constructs are simply used interchangeably by the
academic and business communities. Joyner and Payne (2002) equate CSR
with BE:
The term corporate social responsibility is used more in the management liter-
ature than in the business ethics literature. . . . The researchers feel [however]
that these concepts, as with the terms moral and ethical, are similar enough to
be interchangeable [italics added] for the purposes of this paper. (p. 300)
Marrewijk and Werre (2003) equate SUS with CSR: “Corporate sustainability,
and also CSR, refers to a company’s activities—voluntary by definition”
(p. 107). Willard (2002) equates SUS with CSR and CC. He states,
“Sustainable development, a.k.a. [italics added] corporate social responsibil-
ity, good corporate citizenship . . .” (p. 6). Several companies appear to
equate CC with CSR in their corporate Web sites. For example, FedEx (2007)
states, “Social Responsibility: FedEx . . . [is] dedicated to effective corporate

150 Business & Society
citizenship.” PricewaterhouseCoopers appears to equate sustainability with

BE, CSR, and SM: “Global Sustainability Services . . . We assist our clients
in the areas of business ethics . . . corporate social responsibility . . . stake-
holder engagement” (PwC International, 2007).
Several have commented on the confusion over the meanings and rela-
tionships between the various constructs. For example, Sharma (2004), as
part of a review of a book on CC authored by McIntosh, Thomas, Leipziger,
and Coleman (2003), expresses his concern for the authors’ apparent con-
fusion regarding the meanings of CC, CSR, and SUS. He states:
The initial promise [in the book] of distinguishing between corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and corporate citizenship (CC) is not met. CSR is pre-
sented as a subset of CC and then again corporate social responsibilities are
listed to include corporate citizenship initiatives. . . . The concept of corporate
citizenship is discussed and defined in different ways in different sections of
the book, compounding this confusion [italics added]. There is similar confu-
sion [italics added] in the use of the terms “sustainable,” “sustainable develop-
ment,” “social” and “environmental.” (p. 117)
Wheeler, Colbert, and Freeman (2003) agree that confusion exists among
the constructs of CSR, SUS, and SM:
Both agency theorists and stakeholder theorists of the firm are now having to
address three interwoven concepts: (i) corporate social responsibility (CSR);
(ii) sustainable development; and (iii) a stakeholder approach to strategic
management. . . . It is safe to assume that even proponents and sympathetic
practitioners risk becoming confused [italics added]. (p. 2)
Marrewijk (2003) sums up the confusion:
An intensive debate has been taking place among academics, consultants,

and corporate executives resulting in many definitions of a more humane,
more ethical and a more transparent way of doing business. They have cre-
ated, supported or criticized related concepts such as sustainable develop-
ment, corporate citizenship . . . Triple Bottom Line, business ethics, and
corporate social responsibility. . . . [The] wide array of concepts, definitions
and . . . lots of critique . . . has put business executives in an awkward situa-
tion, especially those who are beginning to take up their responsibility
towards society and its stakeholders, leaving them with more questions than
answers. (pp. 95-96)
To help address the confusion, several researchers have attempted to ana-

lyze and assess each construct individually or with respect to other constructs.

For example, Carroll (1999) reviews the evolution of CSR and suggests that
it may be transforming into other alternative themes, such as SM, BE, and
CC. De George (1987) lays out the field of BE and how it relates to CSR,
whereas E. M. Epstein (1987) relates social responsibility to BE. Goodpaster
(1991) attempts to integrate the field of BE with stakeholder analysis.
Marrewijk (2003) compares the concepts and definitions of SUS and CSR,
whereas Logsdon and Wood (2002) compare CSR, CC, and business citizen-
ship across several dimensions. Wilson (2003) outlines how corporate SUS is
built on the foundations of sustainable development, CSR, stakeholder
theory, and accountability. Wheeler et al. (2003) attempt to reconcile the con-
cepts of CSR, SUS, and SM. Steurer, Langer, Konrad, and Martinuzzi (2005)
discuss the relationship between SUS and CSR by viewing them as “closely
connected . . . concepts, yet on different levels of specification with different
conceptual nuances” (p. 275). Windsor’s (2001) discussion of the future of
CSR refers to the alternatives of SM and CC; whereas Garriga and Melé
(2004) make reference to ethical theories, SM, SUS, and CC in their mapping
of the CSR field. Matten, Crane, and Chapple (2003) discuss the develop-
ment of CC in relation to CSR as well as SM and BE. Many theorists discuss
the frameworks in terms of how they have “evolved into” (Carroll &
Buchholtz, 2006, p. 29); been “reconceptualized” as (Matten et al., 2003,
p. 113); or “supplanted,” “replaced,” or “reinforced” (e.g., Windsor, 2001,
p. 227) one or more of the other frameworks.
Yet despite these initial attempts, a comprehensive comparative analysis
reflecting on each of these frameworks and how they might be related to
each other has not been conducted. As Carroll notes (1994):
In spite of the SIM [social issues in management] field’s growth over the past
two decades, there have appeared in print few comprehensive attempts to
analyze the field and to map what research is being conducted, on what top-
ics, and what research is expected to be forthcoming in the future. (p. 6)
This article attempts to address the apparent confusion that currently

permeates the use of these five constructs and proposes a new approach to
better integrate them together. A new approach may be important if confu-
sion and misunderstanding is to be avoided in the use of each of the con-
structs in both academia and business into the future. For example, with
respect to CSR, according to Gobbels (2002), the lack of an “all-embracing
definition of CSR and subsequent diversity and overlap in terminology, def-
initions and conceptual models hampers academic debate and ongoing
research” (as cited in Marrewijk, 2003, p. 96).

We propose that by focusing on the core elements underlying each of the

five dominant business and society frameworks, general agreement can poten-
tially be reached among scholars on the proper role of the firm in society. If
consensus were to be achieved, this could become the cornerstone on which
the various research agendas can be tied together into a coherent whole. As
noted by Swanson (1995):
A consolidated classification of research can be an important step toward

theory development, especially for a field as eclectic as business and society.
Such a framework can show interrelationships among diverse topics and pro-
vide a unifying theme and an agenda for future research. (p. 46)
Our search for a common core in the business and society field begins in
Part 1 of the article, wherein we describe previous attempts to search for a
paradigm in the business and society field and why these attempts have
fallen short. Part 2 consists of a brief summary of the five primary con-
structs in the business and society field: CSR, BE, SM, SUS, and CC. Part
3 proposes three core concepts—value, balance, and accountability—that
might be used to better integrate the five frameworks, helping to unify the
field of business and society. The article concludes with future research
directions as well as limitations of the proposed integrating model.
The Search for a Paradigm in the

Business and Society Field
Before discussing the primary frameworks dominating the business and

society field, it must be acknowledged that several alternative labels have
been used for the field of business and society itself, including (a) business
and society (e.g., McGuire, 1963; Steiner, 1971), (b) business and its envi-
ronment (e.g., Buchholz, 1995; Davis & Blomstrom, 1975), (c) business and
public policy (e.g., Buchholz, 1995; Lesser, 2000; Preston & Post, 1975), (d)
social issues in management (e.g., Carroll, 1994), and (e) business, govern-
ment, and society (e.g., Steiner & Steiner, 2003). According to Frederick
(1997), business and society means “(1) . . . the relationship that business
firms have with society’s institutions and nature’s ecosystems; and (2) . . . the
field of management study that describes, analyzes, and evaluates these
complex societal and ecological linkages” (p. 48). According to Buchholz
and Rosenthal (1997), although business and society is “the most popular
name for the field . . . a name which is still extensively used,” they believe
that a more appropriate title for the field would be “business in society” in

order to reflect “the relational nature of business to the society for which it is
a part” (p. 181). Despite the fact that the field of business and society could
be (and has been) identified as something else, for the purposes of this arti-
cle, business and society will be utilized as the initial frame of reference.
With respect to the field of business and society, it is clear that the search
for a “paradigm” that unifies and dominates the field has not been successful.
This should not be considered a surprise, given the broad nature of the field,
the infancy and diversity of scholars working in the field, and the demanding
criteria necessary to establish a paradigm.
For example, Jones (1983), on the basis of previous work by Kuhn (1970),
indicates the rigorous criteria necessary for something to be considered a par-
adigm: “(1) a unifying or integrating theme; (2) substantial orthodoxy in the
basic parameters of research—theory, methods, and values; and (3) predictive
or explanatory capability” (Jones, 1983, p. 559). Jones continues:
Clearly, the field of business and society, as currently constituted, fulfils none
of these criteria. The few authors who address the issue of a unifying theme
for the field, including Preston (1975), Cheit (1978), and Post (1982), agree
that the field still lacks such an integrating mechanism. Rather than substan-
tial orthodoxy in theory, methods, and values, one finds (1) theory borrowed
from diverse disciplines such as economics, political science, sociology, orga-
nization theory, and law; (2) a stunning variety of methodological approaches
to research questions; and (3) a significant diversity of values. Given this, it is
no surprise that no model exists that has any macro-level predictive or
explanatory capability. Thus, given the large discrepancies between the char-
acteristics of the field and Kuhn’s criteria, it is safe to conclude that business
and society currently lacks a paradigm and that the search for a full-fledged
paradigm will be a long one (Jones, 1983, pp. 559-560).
Although Jones’s observations were made more than two decades ago, the
lack of a full-fledged paradigm for the business and society field continues to
exist (Windsor, 2001). Because of its recent emergence as an academic field,
however, the goal of identifying a business and society paradigm, although
important, may not be an achievable objective at this point in time. The fact
that numerous complementary and competing constructs have arisen within
the field, does, however, create a need to clarify matters. Thus, similar to
Jones (1983), we attempt to propose only an integrating framework for the
business and society field, as opposed to a paradigm. Although we offer the
term integrating as the means by which to tie together the five constructs,
other ways of thinking about integrating include unification, convergence,
interrelationships, or consolidation. Although we refer to the five concepts as

constructs or frameworks, they have also been referred to as paradigms

(Elkington, 1999, p. 20; Waddock, 2002, p. 17; Wilson, 2003, p. 1), master
theories (Rowley, 1997, p. 889), movements (Coelho, McClure, & Spry, 2003,
p. 21), fields (Garriga & Melé, 2004, p. 61), research traditions (Trevino &
Weaver, 1999, p. 224), doctrines (Coelho et al., 2003, p. 21), thematic frame-
works (Carroll, 1999, p. 288), approaches (Goodpaster, 1991, p. 53), and
disciplines (Joyner & Payne, 2002, p. 304; Post, 2003, p. 26).
Several criteria could be used to establish the primary frameworks in the
business and society field. For the purposes of this article, given the impor-
tance of possessing theoretical support as well as having practical applica-
tion, we consider prevalence and consistent use by both the academic and
business communities as establishing a given framework as being consid-
ered dominant. For example, in terms of academia, one finds numerous ref-
erences to CSR, BE, SM, SUS, and more recently CC in the business and
society academic literature (e.g., journal articles, books), within the titles of
academic courses, as part of program concentrations, in the titles of school
chairs, and in the titles of academic conferences or centers. With respect to
the business community, one finds the frameworks in the titles of manage-
ment positions, as the focus of practitioner-based conferences, in newslet-
ters, in speeches by business leaders, and in firms’ documentation (e.g.,
Web sites, reports, etc.). As suggested by Carroll (1999):
In the 1990s . . . 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. CSR, stakeholder
theory, business ethics theory, and corporate citizenship were the major
themes that took center stage in the 1990s. . . . Each of these thematic frame-
works has its own extensive literature. (p. 288)
Despite possibly less overall visibility in the academic sphere of the busi-
ness and society field, one might now add sustainability to Carroll’s list of
frameworks.
In addition to the five frameworks, other constructs could also be con-
sidered strong contenders in the business and society field. For example,
one might suggest that the stockholder-shareholder theory or model (also
referred to as “the Friedman paradigm”) should be considered a distinct
construct and at least equal in importance to the others. This construct,
based primarily on Friedman (1970), has been in popular use in both acad-
emia and the business world and garners significant theoretical support
from contract theory, agency theory, fiduciary duty, property rights, ethical

egoism, and even utilitarianism. In fact, many would suggest that it was only
in reaction to the stockholder model (i.e., as the dominant paradigm of the
firm and its purpose in society) that other various business and society frame-
works were developed (e.g., to broaden the understanding of the corporation
to see it as a multipurpose social institution with multiple responsibilities to
society). For the purposes of this article, however, the stockholder model will
be considered as representing merely one view or position within the con-
struct of CSR (i.e., the narrow version), although others might argue that the
stockholder model should be considered a distinct and typically competing
dominant construct in the business and society field.
Other important proposed constructs for the business and society field
include the “social control of business” model, defined “as the means by
which society directs business activity to useful ends” (Jones, 1983, p. 560);
the “corporate social policy process” model, which incorporates several of
the other frameworks, including BE, CSR, and SM (e.g., E. M. Epstein,
1987); and the “corporate social performance” (CSP) model (e.g., Carroll,
1979; Frederick, 1986; Preston & Post, 1975; Sethi, 1975; Swanson, 1995;
Wartick & Cochran, 1985; Wood, 1991). Wood’s (1991) CSP model, build-
ing on CSP models partially formulated by others, includes the principles of
CSR, the processes of corporate social responsiveness (including stakeholder
management), and the outcomes of corporate behavior. At one point Wood’s
CSP model was considered by experts in the SIM field as the most likely to
have the greatest impact on SIM research in the 1990s (Carroll, 1994, p. 15)
and one that ought to be considered “the paradigm of the field” (Carroll,
1994, p. 24). Although CSP is typically considered to incorporate CSR (e.g.,
Windsor, 2001), for the purposes of the article, CSP is considered as falling
within the CSR construct.
Although each of these frameworks (i.e., social control of business, cor-
porate social policy process, and CSP) has received significant discussion
in the business and society literature, they do not appear to have penetrated
beyond the academic community and thus arguably do not possess the same
degree of practical legitimacy as the other five frameworks. Even Jones
(1995) appears to concede that his “social control of business” framework
does not appear to have gained wide acceptance (p. 405).
Primary Frameworks in the Business

and Society Field
Each of the five business and society frameworks has evolved over time.
The following will provide a brief overview of the main characteristics of

each, including origins, proposed definitions, primary contributors, and

normative dimensions. As part of the comparative analysis, the strengths as
well as the potential deficiencies of each framework relative to the others
will also be discussed.
CSR
Of the five constructs, CSR perhaps has been in use the longest as an
explicit framework to better understand the relationship between business and
society. “Corporate social responsibility is one of the earliest and key concep-
tions in the academic study of business and society relations” (Windsor, 2001,
p. 225). CSR’s original focus on reducing negative social impacts has
appeared to shift over time to the more general notion of “doing good” for
society. Carroll (1999), in his review of the evolution of CSR, identifies its ori-
gins as taking place in the 1930s and 1940s. He suggests, however, that it was
really Bowen’s (1953) seminal work that set the stage for future development.
Bowen’s contributions were so substantial that Carroll suggests he be called
the “Father of Corporate Social Responsibility” (Carroll, 1999, p. 270). Other
important theoretical contributors to CSR include Davis (1960, 1973),
Frederick (1960), McGuire (1963), Davis and Blomstrom (1975), Walton
(1967), the Committee for Economic Development (1971), Steiner (1971),
Sethi (1975), Preston and Post (1975), Carroll (1979, 1991), Jones (1980),
Drucker (1984), Wartick and Cochran (1985), E. M. Epstein (1987), Wood
(1991), and Swanson (1995).
The quest for a common definition of CSR has remained elusive:
“‘Corporate social responsibility’ is inherently vague and ambiguous, both in
theory and in practice” (Coelho et al., 2003, p. 15). The definitions of CSR
appear to fall under two general schools of thought: those who argue that
business is obligated only to make profits within the boundaries of minimal
legal and ethical compliance (e.g., Friedman, 1970; Levitt, 1958), and those
who have suggested a broader range of obligations towards society (e.g.,
Andrews, 1973; Carroll, 1981; Davis & Blomstrom, 1975; E. M. Epstein,
1987; McGuire, 1963). Under the first school of thought, both laissez-faire
capitalism and agency theory (Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Ross, 1973) appear
to support Friedman’s (1970) classic definition of CSR, that the only “social
responsibility of business . . . is to increase its profits within the rules of the
game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without decep-
tion or fraud” (p. 126). Functionalism theory (e.g., Preston & Post, 1975) can
be relied on to support Levitt’s (1958) similar definition of CSR, that busi-
ness should obey only basic “civility” while seeking “material gain.”

The second school of thought on CSR suggests broader responsibilities for

business. For example, McGuire (1963) states, “The idea of social responsi-
bilities supposes that the corporation has not only economic and legal obliga-
tions, but also certain responsibilities to society which extend beyond these
obligations” (p. 144). Carroll (1979) sets out the entire range of responsibili-
ties in terms of types or categories: “The social responsibility of business
encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary [later termed phil-
anthropic] expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in
time” (p. 500). The broader group of CSR definitions is based on a series of
different theoretical justifications, including moral personhood or moral
agency theory (French, 1979; Goodpaster & Mathews, 1982), social contract
theory (Anshen, 1970; Donaldson, 1982), social power theory (Davis, 1975),
interpenetration theory (Preston & Post, 1975), stakeholder theory (Buono &
Nichols, 1990; Carroll, 1991; Freeman, 1984), property-based theory (Hoffman
& Fisher, 1990; Klonoski, 1986), utilitarian theory (Den Uyl, 1984), and
religious theory (Pava, 1996; Williams, 1986).
In terms of potential deficiencies relative to the other frameworks, CSR,
when typically expressed as a normative construct, fails to explicitly
address the responses (i.e., corporate social responsiveness) and outcomes
of actions (i.e., CSP) by companies. Although certain models of CSP (e.g.,
Carroll, 1979; Sethi, 1975; Swanson, 1995; Wartick & Cochran, 1985;
Wood, 1991) include CSR and/or corporate social responsiveness, the term
performance still suggests an emphasis on the outcomes as opposed to the
principles and processes. For example, Swanson criticizes Wood’s (1991)
CSP model as not giving sufficient weight to the BE component, in partic-
ular, the notion of responsibility (Swanson, 1995, p. 46). The use of the
term corporate social responsibilities (as opposed to business) also fails to
explicitly capture noncorporate entities that operate within the business
world (although this is typically assumed to be the case). As well, CSR has
difficulty capturing the ethical responsibilities of individual managers and
employees toward their organizations or others, as opposed to their organi-
zation’s responsibilities.
What makes the CSR concept stand out, however, is the use of the term
social, reflecting concern with society’s best overall interests, as well as
responsibility, which adds an important normative component (with the
extent and nature of the responsibility being left open for debate; Swanson,
1995, p. 46). Despite any possible deficiencies with CSR, “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” (Carroll, 1999, p. 292). Furthermore, the term has
developed broad acceptance in the business community. For example, the

nonprofit organization of business executives that calls itself Business for

Social Responsibility (BSR) was founded in 1992 and has experienced sig-
nificant growth ever since.
BE
One could argue that the topic of BE has been around since the beginning
of business: “Concern about ethical issues in business goes back as far as
history itself; there has always been some form of mandate for people in com-
merce” (McMahon, 1997, p. 317). As an academic framework however, De
George (1987) might be considered the first to distinguish BE as a separate
field of study. In discussing the past and future status of BE, De George (1987)
identifies the 1970s as the period of time during which BE developed as a
field. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s, however, that BE became institutionalized:
“By 1985 business ethics had become an academic field, albeit still in the
process of definition” (De George, 1987, p. 203). Several important early con-
tributors (among many others) to the field of BE, mainly through their text-
book publications, include Beauchamp and Bowie (1979), Donaldson and
Werhane (1979), De George (1982), Velasquez (1982), Hoffman and Moore
(1984), and Boatright (1993). Although originally discussing the morality of
business in general, BE in both the academic and business communities
appears to have become more focused recently on the notion of business and
its agents “avoiding harm” to others because of major corporate scandals (e.g.,
Enron, WorldCom, etc.) and the resulting regulation (e.g., U.S. Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002).
Although defining BE has been problematic (e.g., Beversluis, 1987;
Lewis, 1985; Nel, Pitt, & Watson, 1989; Trundle, 1989), several definitions
of BE have been proposed. De George (1987) defines the field broadly as
“the interaction of ethics and business” and although its aim is theoretical,
the product has practical application (p. 204). De George suggests three
levels of analysis for the field of BE: (a) the study and justification of eco-
nomic systems (i.e., the system of free enterprise and possible alternatives
and modifications to it), (b) the study of business within the free enterprise
system, and (c) the study of individual morality in economic and business
transactions (p. 204). Velasquez (2006) defines the BE field as “a special-
ized study of moral right and wrong. It concentrates on how moral stan-
dards apply particularly to business policies, institutions, and behavior”
(p. 12). Goodpaster (1997) takes a similar approach: “Business ethics . . . is
the study of business action—individual or corporate—with special atten-
tion to its moral adequacy” (p. 51).

Although the field of BE covers a broad range of topics, the core of the
field is based in moral philosophy and its use of moral standards (i.e., values,
principles, and theories) to engage in ethical assessments of business activity
and to prescribe ethical courses of action. A literature review indicates that
five moral standards have been applied in the field of BE to a greater extent
and with greater consistency than others. Two moral theories are particularly
dominant in the BE literature: utilitarianism and deontology (Brady, 1985;
Klein, 1985; Lewis & Speck, 1990). Utilitarianism, often expressed as a tele-
ological or consequentialist framework, is primarily based on the writings of
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Deontology (i.e., duty-based obliga-
tions) is often expressed in terms of “Kantianism” (or more specifically, as
the principle of the “categorical imperative”), being primarily based on the
writings of Immanuel Kant. In addition to utilitarianism and deontology, two
other moral theories (typically considered deontological in nature) have been
used extensively in the BE field: moral rights and justice (e.g., procedural and
distributive) (Cohen, 2001; Fritzche & Becker, 1984). The fifth moral theory
receiving attention appears to be moral virtue, being primarily based on the
writings of Aristotle (Macdonald & Beck-Dudley, 1994; Solomon, 1992).
The predominant use by business ethicists of these moral theories points
toward their importance in the field. Other important moral standards that are
also utilized (albeit to a somewhat lesser extent) in the field of BE include
moral relativism, ethical egoism, and religious doctrine.
In terms of potential deficiencies, BE is inherently normative in nature,
rendering it less amenable relative to the other frameworks to sufficiently
capture or integrate descriptive and instrumental research taking place in
the business and society field (other than either providing a normative jus-
tification for such research or critiquing it) (Carroll, 1994; Trevino &
Weaver, 1994). As a framework, BE does not explicitly address legal oblig-
ations, that is, it focuses on expected behavior that “goes beyond the law”
(Laczniak, 1983) or on behavior that is expected when the law is not pre-
sent or clear (see Crane & Matten, 2004). Philanthropy also tends to be
ignored by business ethicists to a greater degree than those involved in CSR
or CC.
BE, as an inherently normative framework, does, however, place the
greatest focus on the ethical responsibilities of business as opposed to other
responsibilities (e.g., economic, legal, or philanthropic). It also pays partic-
ular attention to the ethical responsibilities of individuals (e.g., managers
and employees) operating within a business context, which is sometimes
ignored by the other constructs, which tend to focus on organizational
responsibilities.

SM
During the past 20 years, SM has emerged as a dominant construct
within management circles and a “mainstay of management theory”
(Harrison & Freeman, 1999, p. 483). In terms of its early history:
Evidence of stakeholder concepts can be traced as far back as Barnard (1938),

and these concepts are present in the thinking of systems theorists (March &
Simon, 1958) and corporate planners (Mason & Mitroff, 1981). . . . It was not
until Freeman (1984) integrated stakeholder concepts into a coherent strategic
management construct, however, that “stakeholderism” moved to the forefront
of academic attention. (Rowley, 1997, p. 888)
Although SM originally appeared to shift managerial focus to nonshare-

holders, it now appears to have shifted back to balancing the interests of all
stakeholders, including the firm’s shareholders or owners.
Jones and Wicks (1999) outline some essential premises of stakeholder
theory:
1. the corporation has relationships with many constituent groups (“stake-

holders”) that affect and are affected by its decisions (Freeman, 1984);
2. the theory is concerned with the nature of these relationships in terms of
both processes and outcomes for the firm and its stakeholders;
3. the interests of all (legitimate) stakeholders have intrinsic value, and no
set of interests is assumed to dominate the others (Clarkson, 1995;
Donaldson & Preston, 1995); and
4. the theory focuses on managerial decision making (Donaldson & Preston,
1995). (p. 207)
SM, like the other business and society frameworks, has suffered from
definitional stress. According to Donaldson and Preston (1995):
Unfortunately, anyone looking into this large and evolving literature with a
critical eye will observe that the concepts stakeholder, stakeholder model,
stakeholder management, and stakeholder theory are explained and used by
various authors in very different ways and supported (or critiqued) with
diverse and often contradictory evidence and arguments. Moreover, this
diversity and its implications are rarely discussed—and possibly not even
recognized. (p. 66)
Most of the debate in SM appears to focus on how stakeholders should

be defined and prioritized (e.g., Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). There

appear to be two distinct versions of SM, the “broad” version, which

includes all those constituent groups that “can affect or are affected by” the
firm’s decisions or actions (Freeman, 1984, p. 46), and the “narrow” ver-
sion based on notions such as placing something at “risk” in relationship
with the firm (Clarkson, 1995) or those groups that are “necessary” for the
firm’s survival (Bowie, 1988; Freeman & Reed, 1983). The various defini-
tions of stakeholder often depend on what is considered to be the appropri-
ate normative basis for stakeholder theory. The normative foundations
suggested include moral rights and Kantianism (Evan & Freeman, 1988);
social contract or utilitarianism (Donaldson & Preston, 1995); distributive
justice, libertarianism, and social contract theory (Donaldson & Preston,
1995); trust (Jones & Wicks, 1999); Kantian capitalism (Bowie, 1994; Evan
& Freeman, 1988); fairness (Phillips, 1997, 2003); fair contracts (Freeman,
1994); and feminism (Wicks, Gilbert, & Freeman, 1994).
In terms of potential deficiencies relative to the other frameworks, both
the narrow and broad versions of SM face difficulties. Under the narrow
version, SM may not sufficiently capture the full extent of business and
society relations. Several important societal groups or constituents, such as
the media or competitors (see Donaldson & Preston, 1995, p. 86), in addi-
tion to certain activist groups or the natural environment (see Phillips, 2003,
pp. 135-148), although not completely discarded under the narrow version,
are not explicitly captured as legitimate stakeholders. Instead, they are left
to be dealt with by other devices, such as through the field of BE. For
example, Phillips (2003) makes it clear that beyond minimal ethical con-
siderations (e.g., promise keeping), nonstakeholder groups deserve “no
additional moral consideration . . . in managerial decision-making” (p. 83).
On the other hand, the broad version of SM may capture too many con-
stituent groups, including competitors, media, activists, the natural envi-
ronment, or even God (see Schwartz, 2006), thereby diminishing the
conceptual meaning and relevance of the stakeholder concept: “If everyone
is a stakeholder of everyone else, how useful is the term stakeholder itself?”
(Phillips, 1997, p. 53). SM theorists appear to be caught in a bind; the def-
inition of stakeholder necessarily implies that to keep the theory relevant,
nonstakeholders (or nonlegitimate stakeholders) must also exist (Phillips,
2003, p. 121). The result however is that SM becomes forced under the nar-
row version to place what might be considered insufficient managerial or
moral attention on nonstakeholder groups. On the other hand, under the
broad version, SM may include too many groups, creating other practical
difficulties. For example, according to Mitchell et al. (1997), the broad ver-
sion of SM “is bewilderingly complex for managers to apply” (p. 857).

In addition, not everyone accepts SM as constituting theory (e.g.,

Trevino & Weaver, 1999; Wheeler et al., 2003). Others raise concerns about
prioritization with respect to shareholders:
If shareholder interests lost their primacy, then Pandora’s box opens. How are
corporate duties to shareholders evaluated against duties to other stakeholders?
How are conflicts between and among stakeholders resolved? These questions
are both unanswerable and give management unbridled discretion that will
too frequently result in either absolute chaos or criminality. (Coelho et al., 2003,
p. 19).
It is also not clear whether managers themselves should be considered

stakeholders (or merely those agents responsible for integrating stakeholder
interests), leaving SM to focus on the firm’s actions as opposed to those of
its agents (Lawrence, Weber, & Post, 2005, p. 9).
Despite its potential limitations, however, SM appears to possess certain
characteristics not held by the other frameworks. Gaining a foothold in the
strategic management field (Freeman, 1984), SM provides a powerful orga-
nizing tool for business firms and managers in particular to utilize when
establishing corporate strategy. Näsi (1995) emphasizes that it is “stakeholder
thinking” that fully embraces the theory and its application. SM focuses
attention on managerial decision making with respect to identifying and
addressing stakeholder interests, one of the key functions of management.
SM is also consistently subsumed or referred to by each of the other four
frameworks and has been recommended as “an integrating theme for the
business and society discipline” (Harrison & Freeman, 1999, p. 479).
SUS
The origins of corporate (or business) SUS come from the 1987 publi-
cation of Our Common Future, the report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development (WCED). The commission’s definition of
sustainable development, since widely used, is “development which meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future gener-
ations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 42). Although SUS orig-
inally appeared to focus on protecting the natural environment, over time
the construct has been broadened to take into account societal impacts in
general, including concern for future generations. Elkington (1999) intro-
duced the concept of “the triple bottom line” to management thinking and
linked it to the notion of SUS: “Sustainable development involves the

simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental quality, and

social equity. Companies aiming for sustainability need to perform not
against a single, financial bottom line but against a triple bottom line”
(p. 397). According to Elkington, there are more than “one hundred defin-
itions of sustainability” (p. 397). Garriga and Melé (2004) state, “The con-
cept of sustainable development is ‘fuzzy, elusive, contestable and/or
ideologically controversial’ and with multiple objectives and ingredients,
complex interdependencies and considerable moral thickness. But in spite
of everything, the concept is becoming more and more popular” (p. 66).
One proposed broad definition of SUS links it to SM: “Corporate sus-
tainability . . . refers to a company’s activities—voluntary by definition—
demonstrating the inclusion of social and environmental concerns in
business operations and in interactions with stakeholders” (Marrewijk &
Werre, 2003, p. 107). During the past decade, several authors have contin-
ued to develop the construct of sustainable development into a framework
suitable for business applications. Some of the major contributors include
Schmidheiney (1992); Hawken (1993); Elkington (1999, 2001); Hart
(1995, 1997, 1998); Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins (1999); Nattrass and
Altomare (1999); Freeman, Pierce, and Dodd (2000); Zadek (2001); and
Willard (2002). According to Elkington (1999), SUS “is the emerging 21st
century business paradigm” (p. 20).
In terms of potential deficiencies, however, SUS is currently defined too
narrowly, as it fails to adequately and explicitly address the ethical compo-
nent of business beyond taking into account impacts on society and the nat-
ural environment. For example, even Elkington (1999) suggests that as
opposed to taking a primary role, BE should merely be considered part of
a “shear zone” (p. 91) between the social and economic bottom lines. In
addition, there may also be too great a dependence on the social and envi-
ronmental bottom lines merging with the economic bottom line, when this
may not always be the case. SUS, in terms of proposed definitions, also
does not appear to explicitly address the legal responsibilities of business.
Others critique the triple bottom line concept as lacking conceptual and
practical validity (Norman & MacDonald, 2004).
Despite its limitations, SUS possesses certain strengths relative to the
other frameworks. For example, SUS emphasizes the long-term nature of
the benefit that business is expected to provide to society. SUS also shifts
the firm’s perspective to the natural environment and future generations
more explicitly than any of the other frameworks (e.g., Willard, 2002, p. 9)
and also provides a more global (i.e., cross-border) perspective.

CC
CC appears to be the newest kid on the business and society block but
appears to be quickly gaining in popularity: “Corporate citizenship is one
of the latest frameworks to talk about the relationship between business and
society” (Waddell, 2000, p. 107). Altman and Vidaver-Cohen (2000) state:
Corporate citizenship is a term whose use has grown exponentially in the cor-
porate sector in the past five years. Given the explosion of action and writing
about the concept it seems new, yet in fact, organization scientists and people
in the philanthropic world have been using it for some time. . . . Corporate
citizenship is not a new concept, but one whose time has come. (p. 1)
Although originally focusing on corporate philanthropy and community

involvement, CC appears to have transformed into a broader business and
society framework. For example, some suggest that “the language of cor-
porate citizenship (CC) appears to be replacing that of corporate social
responsibility (CSR)” (Logsdon & Wood, 2002, p. 155). Some of the
important contributors to the notion of CC include Andriof and McIntosh
(2001); Carroll (1998); Davenport (2000); Waddock (2002); McIntosh,
Leipziger, Jones, and Coleman (1998); McIntosh et al. (2003); and Wood,
Logsdon, Lewellyn, and Davenport (2006).
Several definitions of CC have been suggested. Marsden (2000) pro-
poses a general definition for the concept: “Corporate citizenship is defined
as a company’s management of its influences on and relationships with the
rest of society” (p. 11). Post’s (2000) definition (2000, p. 29) is more spe-
cific and action oriented:
Global corporate citizenship is the process of identifying, analyzing, and

responding to the company’s social, political, and economic responsibilities
as defined through law and public policy, stakeholder expectation, and vol-
untary acts flowing from corporate values and business strategies. Corporate
citizenship involves actual results (what corporations do) and the processes
through which they are achieved (how they do it). (p. 29)
Waddock (2002) provides a more normative definition of CC:
Good corporate citizens live up to clear constructive visions and core values.
They treat well the entire range of stakeholders who risk capital in, have an
interest in, or are linked to the firm through primary and secondary impacts
through developing respectful, mutually beneficial operating practices and by
working to maximize sustainability of the natural environment. (p. 5)

Wood et al. (2006) have developed the natural extension of the concept by
proposing that “global business citizenship” is what’s really important.
In terms of potential deficiencies, it is not clear that CC has sufficient
substance that clearly differentiates it from CSR. Quite often CC is used as
preferred terminology or language, especially in the business community
where its popularity began. CC, initially at least, has been used as alterna-
tive language to embrace concerns that historically had been captured by
CSR. Regardless, academics have been working feverishly to give CC more
legitimate status by fleshing out more concrete substance, usually taking off
from the “citizenship” metaphor.
Beyond its very close resemblance to CSR, CC faces other difficulties as
well. Like CSR, CC also fails to capture noncorporate business entities.
Although the use of business citizenship would address this concern (e.g.,
Logsdon & Wood, 2002), this term has not received much traction to date.
In addition, a narrow definition of CC that focuses on philanthropy (Matten
et al., 2003) or neglects the ethical dimension should be rejected if CC is to
assume greater primacy in the business and society field.
CC, despite its limitations, has several features that stand out relative to
the other frameworks. For example, CC highlights the metaphor of being a
good citizen, which naturally relates to notions of compliance with the law,
protecting the environment, and assisting the community. The term citizen-
ship also brings into focus the rights and duties of corporations with respect
to all of society, which other frameworks (e.g., SM) do not explicitly dis-
cuss. For example, Morrison (2003) suggests that CC is superior to the
stakeholder approach, which is more limited:
The stakeholder concept therefore struggles with the notion of society as a

whole as a stakeholder. . . . The corporate citizenship approach, by contrast,
suggests that the prudent manager should assess rights and duties of those
affected by the company’s actions before they crystallize into specific claims.
(p. 99)
Table 1 summarizes some key characteristics of each of the five dominant

business and society frameworks.
Proposed Integrating Framework:

The “VBA Model”
As discussed above, the overlapping nature of the five frameworks, espe-

cially when expressed in their broader versions, has resulted in a great deal of

Table 1
166
Comparative Analysis of Dominant Business and Society Frameworks
Corporate Social Stakeholder
Criteria/Concept Responsibility (CSR) Business Ethics (BE) Management (SM) Sustainability (SUS) Corporate Citizenship (CC)
History 1960s (and prior) 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Origins Social impact Morality Nonshareholders Natural environment Community/philanthropy
Core definition Do good Avoid harm Balance interests Ensure future Societal contribution
Focal entities Organization Managers, employees, Managers and Organization Organization
and organization organization
Narrow vs. Economic/legal Law/compliance vs. Narrow/primary Homocentric vs. Philanthropy/community
broad versions vs. ethical/ ethics/integrity/ stakeholders vs. ecocentric relations vs.
discretionary values wide/broad/ social/global
secondary
stakeholders
Theoretical • Shareholder model • Ethics-based • Stakeholder • Corporate • Business citizenship
offshoots • Corporate management relations environmentalism • Global business
responsibility • Values-based • Stakeholder • Business and the citizenship
• Social issues in management engagement environment
management • Corporate • Stakeholder • Sustainable capitalism
• Corporate societal governance and corporation
accountability ethics • Stakeholder

• Corporate social • Moral leadership capitalism
responsiveness and ethics
• Corporate social
performance
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)
Corporate Social Stakeholder
Criteria/Concept Responsibility (CSR) Business Ethics (BE) Management (SM) Sustainability (SUS) Corporate Citizenship (CC)
Theoretical • Social contract • Utilitarianism • Agency • Utilitarianism • Utilitarianism

justification • Moral agency • Deontology • Justice/fairness • Moral rights • Social contract
• Social power • Moral rights • Social contract • Moral rights
• Interpenetration • Justice • Moral rights
• Stakeholder • Moral virtue • Kantianism
• Utilitarian • Utilitarianism
• Property-based • Libertarianism
• Religious • Trust
• Feminist ethics

167
confusion in their use. To address the confusion among the five constructs
as currently described, it may be appropriate to unpack or disaggregate each
of the frameworks to identify the core concepts or elements that potentially
bind each of them together. In some respects, this process is similar to that
used by Mitnick (1995) in his “decomposition” and “reconstruction” of
Frederick’s three models of CSR (Frederick, 1986, 1987, 1994). An analy-
sis of each of the five constructs reveals that despite their differences, three
core concepts consistently appear, each supported by certain normative
principles. We suggest that in addition to their normative justification, the
presence of the three core concepts among each of the five frameworks
demonstrates their perceived fundamental importance by business and
society theorists and practitioners. The three core concepts include (a)
value, (b) balance, and (c) accountability. This will be referred to as the
VBA model or framework.
Value
The fundamental element underlying the entire business and society
field appears to be the generation of value. Value is primarily created when
business meets society’s needs by producing goods and services in an effi-
cient manner while avoiding unnecessary negative externalities. As opposed
to mere long-term value maximization of the firm, however (e.g., Jensen,
2002), the notion of value proposed here suggests that all firms have an
obligation to work toward generating net societal value; in other words,
business firms are expected to improve the general welfare of society or to
“help make the world a better place” (Bakan, 2004, p. 31). Enhanced long-
term value of both the firm and society is the outcome component of the
VBA framework, most closely aligned with the notion of CSP, which also
tends to focus on outcomes.
Each of the five constructs is concerned about business activities generat-
ing net value or benefit to society. All CSR theorists, including Milton
Friedman (1970), are ultimately concerned about the creation of net societal
value when it comes to CSR (Buchholz & Rosenthal, 1997, p. 185). For
example, Frederick (1994) states that “the obligation to work for social bet-
terment is the essence of the notion of corporate social responsibility” (p. 151).
BE tends to predominantly rely on utilitarianism (in addition to deontology),
which evaluates business activities as ethical only when they generate the
greatest net societal value (Brady, 1985; Klein, 1985; Lewis & Speck, 1990).
In discussing SM, Jones and Wicks (1999, p. 211) suggest that:

. . . one facet of utilitarianism, a normative standard that admonishes moral

agents to maximize net social benefits, is widely endorsed. Its universalism
is retained; the maxim “stakeholders, not (just) stockholders” suggests a
concern for the welfare of all [italics added] who are affected by corporate
decisions—not just a limited group of investors. (p. 211)
Value may not be sufficient, however. The SUS construct adds an important
qualification to value. In other words, the value generated must be sustainable
(including environmental sustainability), which would necessarily incorpo-
rate both short-term and long-term considerations (e.g., Hart, Milstein, &
Caggiano, 2003). Wheeler et al. (2003) are explicit in their view that creating
value should be the core focus of business. Their goal is to:
. . . reconcile the concepts of corporate social responsibility and sustainable

development (or “sustainability” in business terms) with a stakeholder
approach, through a focus on the creation of value . . . as an integrating
ground. We believe that a business model that places value creation [italics
added] at its core will allow concepts of CSR, sustainability and the stake-
holder approach to find their natural homes, whether at a strategic or man-
agerial level. (p. 2)
Similar to the other frameworks, CC has also always included the notion of
business working toward the “social good” (Waddock, 2002, p. 5). The cre-
ation of value is supported by normative concepts such as caring (i.e.,
avoiding unnecessary harm or doing good when of little cost to oneself) and
utilitarianism.
Balance
The concept of balance suggests that striving for net societal value, a
utilitarian concern, is not sufficient. There must also be a degree of balance
that is maintained in addressing and appropriately responding to potentially
conflicting stakeholder interests and/or moral standards. Other concepts
similar to balance include “reflect” and “respect” (Coehlo et al., 2003,
p. 18), “weigh” (Siebens, 2002, p. 111), “trade-off” (Jensen, 2002, p. 242;
Tapscott & Ticoll, 2003, p. 70; Wheeler et al., 2003, p. 10), or “satisfy”
(Buchholz & Rosenthal, 1997, p. 182; Joyner & Payne, 2002, p. 303).
The notion of balance has been discussed for years in business and
society literature. According to Drucker (1999, p. 59), the balancing of
stakeholder interests by managers dates to the 1920s. Berle and Means
(1932) in their classic work The Modern Corporation and Private Property
indicate that in serving the interests of society as a whole, corporations

must “[balance] a variety of claims by various groups in the community and

assign to each a portion of the income stream” (p. 356). Balance does not
merely involve stakeholders, however; the interests of groups or entities
that might be considered to be nonstakeholders (e.g., the natural environ-
ment) would necessarily be taken into account if a more comprehensive
ethical decision-making framework were utilized. By balancing different
moral standards, such as utilitarianism, Kantianism, moral rights, or dis-
tributive justice, such potential nonstakeholders can be taken into account
as well. The notion of balancing or applying different moral standards is
based on the notion of moral or ethical pluralism, whereby no single ethi-
cal approach or principle is deemed to be sufficient (e.g., Buchholz &
Rosenthal, 2001; De George, 1999, p. 53).
Balance is the process component of the VBA framework, whereby busi-
ness firms, managers, and employees would be required to take active steps
to achieve appropriate balance among competing stakeholder interests and/or
moral standards. The notion of balance would be most closely aligned with
corporate social responsiveness (Frederick, 1986), including stakeholder
engagement, or E. M. Epstein’s (1987) corporate social policy process.
The concept of balance is incorporated by all five frameworks. For
example, with respect to CSR, Wulfson (2001) states, “While corporate social
responsibility does not negate earning a profit, it does require corporations to
balance [italics added] the benefits, to be gained against the cost of achieving
those benefits” (p. 136). BE is more focused on balancing potentially
conflicting moral standards (as opposed to competing stakeholder interests)
by searching for “the ethical optimal choice between alternative options”
(Siebens, 2002, p. 111). According to Buchholz and Rosenthal (1997), “The
right act is the one which is subsumed under the proper balance [italics
added] of rules or principles” (p. 184). SM emphasizes the notion of balance
by addressing how managers “can successfully balance [italics added] the
competing demands of various stakeholder groups” (Harrison & Freeman,
1999, p. 480). SUS, originally focused on balancing economic development
with environmental conservation, now attempts to balance or meet the three
bottom lines of economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity
(Elkington, 1999). According to the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (2000), “Sustainable development requires the integration of
social, environmental, and economic considerations to make balanced [italics
added] judgments for the long term” (as cited in Garriga & Melé, 2004, p. 61).
CC is also based on the notion of balance. It has been defined as “striving to
conduct all business dealings in an ethical manner, making a concerted effort
to balance [italics added] the needs of all stakeholders while working to
protect the environment” (Davenport, 2000, p. 216).

It is important to note, however, that stakeholder interests (e.g., share-

holders vs. nonshareholders) can converge in that good BE, CSR, CSP, or
SUS leads to better financial performance (e.g., Margolis & Walsh, 2001;
Orlitzky, Schmidt, & Rynes, 2003; Roman, Hayibor, & Agle, 1999; Willard,
2002), meaning there may not always be a conflict between stakeholder inter-
ests that needs to be balanced. Moral standards may also not necessarily con-
flict when applied to determine the morality of business activities. For
example, Donaldson, Werhane, and Cording (2002) state that “the two meth-
ods [consequences and duties] may overlap” (p. 2). The concept of balancing
stakeholder interests, when required, would be supported by several norma-
tive principles, including fairness, distributive justice, equity, respect for oth-
ers (i.e., Kantianism), and moral rights.
Accountability
Accountability has been defined as “being responsible to an audience
with reward or sanction power” (Beu & Buckley, 2001, p. 58). Acting in an
accountable manner implies that business and its agents, while attempting to
fulfill their economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities (e.g., Schwartz &
Carroll, 2003), must acknowledge responsibility for their actions and deci-
sions and take steps to rectify failures and prevent them from happening again
in the future (Dubnick, 2003). According to Waddock (2002), accountability
means that “companies need to assume responsibility for the impacts of their
practices, policies and processes and the decisions that stand behind those
practices” (p. 219).
As part of acting responsibly, accountability also suggests that business
must act in a trustworthy and transparent manner (Tapscott & Ticoll, 2003).
For there to be real accountability, business must engage in a process of pro-
viding sufficient, accurate, timely, and verifiable disclosure of all of its activ-
ities (e.g., through auditing and reporting) when such activities might affect
others (Pruzan, 1998, p. 1391; Zadek, 2001; Zadek, Pruzan, & Evans, 1997).
The underlying importance of accountability in business and society relations
has been recognized by numerous theorists (e.g., M. J. Epstein & Birchard,
2000; Waddock, 2002, 2004; Wilson, 2003; Windsor, 2001). The importance
of accountability is also highlighted by recent legal developments. For
example, regulatory initiatives are now requiring or encouraging greater
corporate accountability with respect to financial information (e.g., U.S.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act) as well as the disclosure of nonfinancial or “social” per-
formance information (e.g., U.K. Pensions Act). Accountability might be
seen as representing the principles component of the VBA framework.

All five frameworks include the notion of accountability, albeit to different

degrees. CSR includes the notion of accountability: “Corporate social respon-
sibility means that a corporation should be held accountable [italics added] for
any of its actions that affect people, their communities, and their environment”
(Lawrence et al., 2005, p. 46). Friedman (1970) relies on the notion of
accountability (i.e., managers to owners) to support his social responsibility
position, while at the same time implicitly requiring firms to maintain at least
a degree of transparency in to order to “avoid deception and fraud” (p. 126).
According to Coelho et al. (2003), “Transparency in corporate decision-
making allows the citizenry to address what they see as ethical issues. . . .
Ethical executives will provide information that allows an informed public to
act” (p. 16). BE has always placed an emphasis on the notion of accountabil-
ity. For example, in response to a series of corporate scandals (e.g., Enron and
WorldCom), U.S. President George Bush called for greater corporate account-
ability: “Corporate America must be made more accountable to employees
and shareholders and held to the highest standards of conduct” (CNN, 2002).
SM has always been hinged on the notion of a firm’s accountability to its
stakeholders. According to Clarkson (1995), “Obligations and responsibilities
to customers, shareholders, employees, and other important constituencies are
defined by most companies, together with corresponding accountabilities
[italics added]” (pp. 98-99). The SUS construct also incorporates the notion of
accountability, as demonstrated in the Global Reporting Initiative’s (2002)
“Sustainability Reporting Guidelines” and the related process and assurance
standards of AccountAbility’s AA1000 (1999) and AA1000AS (2003).
According to Elkington’s (1999) perspective on SUS, “The predominant par-
adigm is flipping from ‘closed’ to ‘open’” (p. 160). In terms of CC, Waddock
(2002) makes it clear that corporate actions and decisions must be made
“visible to interested stakeholders” (p. 219). Accountability is supported by
the normative principles of responsibility, transparency, promise keeping, reli-
ability, honesty, trustworthiness, and integrity.
As further substantiation of the key role of accountability in business and
society relations, one can look to the recent four-volume series edited by
Marc Epstein and Kirk Hanson titled The Accountable Corporation (2006).
The series not only focuses two of its volumes on BE and CSR but includes
several articles on SUS and CC as well, thereby directly linking the notion of
accountability to four of the five major frameworks discussed above.
By bringing together the three core concepts of value, balance, and
accountability, a normative proposition emerges that attempts to incorpo-
rate and link together the fundamental characteristics of each of the five
related business and society constructs (i.e., CSR, BE, SM, SUS, and CC).

The resulting normative proposition (i.e., the value, balance, and account-
ability or VBA model), which effectively is a statement of the purpose or
role of business in society in its most basic form, is set forth as follows:
All organizations and individuals operating within a business context have a

responsibility (CSR) as good citizens (CC) to (a) contribute to sustainable
(SUS) societal value and (b) appropriately balance stakeholder interests
(SM), including shareholders or owners and/or moral standards (BE), while
(c) demonstrating sufficient accountability.
In its most basic formulation, the VBA integrating model is represented by

the following normative equation:
Value + Balance + Accountability = Proper Role of Business in Society
Any proposed integrating business and society framework should meet

certain minimum criteria to be theoretically legitimate while retaining prac-
ticality. The proposed VBA model, by focusing on the three core elements
of the five frameworks, arguably achieves the following: (a) takes into
account what some SM theorists might consider to be nonstakeholders
(e.g., the natural environment) in addition to stakeholders (including share-
holders) (e.g., Elkington, 1999; Frederick, 1997); (b) integrates the impor-
tance of ethical considerations into managerial decision making or firm
actions (e.g., Windsor, 2001; Frederick 1986); (c) maintains relevance to
managers (e.g., Clarkson, 1995; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman,
1984); and (d) ensures a long-term global perspective (e.g., Elkington,
1999; Waddock, 2002). By focusing on the core elements, the VBA model
is better able to incorporate the strengths of each of the five frameworks
while simultaneously addressing their potential deficiencies as outlined
above. Because of their prominence in the academic and business commu-
nities, the essential or core elements of each of the five business and society
frameworks should be incorporated into any proposed integrating frame-
work. We believe that the VBA model facilitates this objective.
In addition, the proposed three-prong approach is consistent with the
three dimensions suggested by Wood (1991) as important to corporate
social performance: (a) outcome (i.e., create sustainable value), (b) process
(i.e., achieve appropriate balance), and (c) principles (i.e., demonstrate suf-
ficient accountability). The VBA proposition, although essentially norma-
tive in nature, has important descriptive and instrumental implications,
considered by Donaldson and Preston (1995) as important in categorizing

research in SM. The proposed model does not ignore economic responsi-
bilities toward shareholders and continues to respect the interests of other
stakeholders (and even nonstakeholders) within society.
While each of the five business and society frameworks contains elements
of all three core concepts, they appear to place a different degree of empha-
sis on each one. For example, based on the discussion of the frameworks pre-
sented above, CSR appears more focused on creating societal value, whereas
SM is primarily concerned with achieving appropriate balance. SUS and
CC each focus on both value and balance, whereas BE and CSR are more
concerned about demonstrating accountability. The proposed VBA model
reflects Zadek’s (1998) and Simmon’s (2003) position that value (referred to
as “performance”), balance (referred to as “ethics” or “equity”), and account-
ability must each be appropriately realized by business.
The portrayal of the three core concepts in a Venn diagram emphasizes the
fact that abiding by only one or even two of the three concepts not only is
insufficient from a normative perspective but can eventually lead to either a
firm’s collapse or significant harm to society. For example, a company that
fails to remain accountable (i.e., sufficiently disclose its activities), despite
contributing to sustainable societal value while appropriately balancing
the interests of stakeholders, will ultimately be challenged. According to
Elkington (1999):
Companies that have previously sought to justify no disclosure or low-

disclosure policies will find that they . . . are increasingly operating in a global
goldfish bowl. . . . The difficulties of keeping secrets will become immeasur-
ably greater. Sooner or later, most things a company thinks or does will become
public knowledge. Companies that fail to plan with this fact in mind must be
prepared to pay the price. (p. 8)
A firm that fails to act in a sustainable manner, despite balancing interests

while demonstrating accountability, will also potentially face societal pres-
sures in addition to harming the world’s ecosystem: “Many businesspeople
will argue that it is not their business to save the world. But the expectation
is growing around the world that business will deliver” (Elkington, 1999,
p. 20). A firm that fails to appropriately balance competing interests, despite
generating sustainable value and demonstrating sufficient accountability, will
also come under pressure. Invoking Davis and Blomstrom’s (1966) “iron law
of responsibility,” Carroll and Buchholtz (2006) argue, “Whenever power
and responsibility become substantially out of balance [italics added], forces
will be generated [e.g., government, media, special interest groups] to bring

Figure 1
The VBA Model: Five Business and Society Frameworks
and Their Three Core Concepts
Creating Sustainable
Value
Normative
Foundation:
Utilitarianism
Caring
Proper
Role
of Business in
Society
Achieving
(CSR; BE; SM; Demonstrating
Appropriate
SUS; CC) Sufficient
Balance
Accountability
Normative
Normative
Foundation:
Foundation:
Moral Pluralism
Transparency
Justice/Fairness
Trustworthiness
Kantianism/Respect
Honesty
Moral Rights
Reliability
Integrity
Note: VBA = value, balance, accountability; CSR = corporate social responsibility; BE = business
ethics; SM = stakeholder management; SUS = sustainability; CC = corporate citizenship.
them into closer balance” (p. 19). Freeman (2004) is even more explicit:
“Management must keep the relationships among stakeholders in balance.
When these relationships become imbalanced [italics added], the survival of
the firm is in jeopardy” (pp. 60-61). Any business that is judged as meeting
all three core concepts can be said to be acting according to the primary con-
cerns expressed by all five frameworks (i.e., CSR, BE, SM, SUS, and CC)
and would be positioned in the middle of the Venn diagram. Figure 1 portrays
the five frameworks with respect to the three core concepts, along with their
normative foundations.

Future Research Directions
In terms of future research, the VBA model could be utilized to assess,

analyze, or link together other fields such as strategic management or cor-
porate governance, which over time have become more and more intercon-
nected with the various constructs of the business and society field. For
example, research questions could be explored such as to what extent are a
firm’s strategies (including corporate objectives and/or mission statements)
directed toward generating sustainable societal value, appropriately balanc-
ing stakeholder interests, and/or demonstrating sufficient accountability?
To what extent do boards of directors and managers act in ways that ensure
value, balance, and accountability? To what extent do government regula-
tors, stock exchanges, or industry associations require or encourage them to
do so? Whether the VBA model also helps reveal the normative core of
other institutions beyond the field of business and society (e.g., in govern-
ment, trying to create social value while balancing the interests of con-
stituents and being accountable to voters) might also be examined further.
The VBA framework might also provide a more suitable means by
which to evaluate or analyze corporate failures as well as successes. For
example, Enron appears to have failed to meet all three core elements: lack
of providing sustainable societal value, inappropriate balance, and insuffi-
cient accountability. Wal-Mart, although arguably generating net value for
society through employment and more affordable consumer goods, contin-
ues to face criticism that it does not appropriately balance competing stake-
holder interests nor demonstrate acceptable levels of accountability (e.g.,
Frazier, 2005; Johnson, 2005). Other classic corporate examples frequently
referenced in the business and society field, such as Johnson & Johnson’s
Tylenol recall, Merck’s decision to develop a medicine to help cure river
blindness, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Union Carbide’s poisonous leak from
its pesticide plant in Bhopal India, and the case of Ford’s rollovers versus
Firestone’s tire blowouts, could all be more fully analyzed in relation to
whether the core elements of the VBA model were being met.
Although the VBA model is essentially normative in nature, empirical
studies could be undertaken to examine the potential relationship between
the three core elements of the model and long-term financial performance.
For example, do companies that consistently generate sustainable societal
value, appropriately balance stakeholder interests and/or moral standards,
and demonstrate sufficient accountability financially outperform or under-
perform those that do not in the long term? Although more precise mea-
surements for “net societal value,” “appropriate balance,” and “sufficient

accountability” would necessarily have to be developed before such a study

could be conducted, the VBA model suggests that an empirical focus
beyond merely the relationship between corporate social performance and
firm performance may be appropriate.
In addition, the relationship between and among the three core elements
could be more fully examined. For example, under what conditions is one
element more necessary than the others? Which element should take prece-
dence if any of the elements conflict with each other? Do greater account-
ability efforts (e.g., through social auditing and reporting) lead to a more
appropriate balancing of stakeholder interests and/or generation of net soci-
etal value?
Finally, researchers aligned to each of the five dominant frameworks can
potentially use the VBA model to better locate and understand their work
in relation to the other frameworks. By doing so, potential confusion as
well as potential criticism from their colleagues from both within and out-
side of the business and society field may be reduced.
Limitations and Conclusion
There are several potential limitations to the proposed VBA model. To

begin with, one might question whether the five frameworks are true theo-
retical frameworks or merely pieces of nomenclature, umbrella concepts,
heuristics, or approaches that have arisen around collections of writers and
thinkers who happen to share similar attitudes and reading habits (e.g.,
Trevino & Weaver, 1999; Wheeler et al., 2003). Even if the five frameworks
are deemed to have theoretical status, other potential frameworks could also
be considered to exist within the business and society field as noted above.
In addition, there are clear limitations to the proposed integration of the
different frameworks through the core concepts of value, balance, and
accountability. For example, do other core concepts or elements (i.e., in addi-
tion to value, balance, and accountability) also underlie or potentially unify
the five frameworks? It may also be the case that the VBA model should
make explicit the obligation of firms and their agents to obey the law, con-
sidered fundamental in the CSR (e.g., Carroll, 1979; Schwartz & Carroll,
2003) and CC fields (e.g., Maignan & Ferrell, 2000; Post, 2000), although
somewhat ignored or seemingly assumed in the fields of BE, SM, and SUS.
Definitional and measurement issues still persist as well with respect to
understanding net societal value (i.e., how should it be measured?), appropri-
ate balancing of stakeholder interests (i.e., who is a stakeholder and which

stakeholder interests should take priority?), or moral standards (i.e., which

ones should be applied and how should conflicting standards be reconciled?).
Unfortunately, notions such as “value maximization” (Jensen, 2002), “value
creation” (Wheeler et al., 2003), “social accounting” (Gray, 2001), the “triple
bottom line” (e.g., Elkington, 1999), “stakeholder salience” (Mitchell et al.,
1997), “moral pluralism” (e.g., De George, 1999), and the development of
various “social performance indicators” (e.g., Norman & MacDonald, 2004)
are just beginning to address these issues. It is also not clear to what extent
business must disclose its operations to be held sufficiently accountable,
what might be considered reasonable limits to disclosure (e.g., undue cost or
competitive concerns), or whether “public relations” or “window dressing”
reporting should count toward “sufficient accountability.” In any event,
although it may be some time before researchers agree on appropriate mea-
surements for sustainable societal value, appropriate balance, or sufficient
accountability, there seems to be less difficulty pointing to examples where
any of the three elements is not considered to be apparent.
Although it is not clear which, if any, of the five dominant complementary
and competing frameworks will take precedence in the academic or business
communities in the long term, it must still be recognized that each of the
frameworks is important and has something unique to contribute to the con-
tinued development of the business and society field. In discussing a possible
paradigm for the business and society field, Windsor (2001), however,
expresses his desire for a merger among the dominant frameworks:
Business and society studies comprise a very loose affiliation of several

research and teaching streams. While partly overlapping, these streams do
not organize around any widely accepted core paradigm (cf. Preston, 1975).
These streams include (at a minimum): business ethics, corporate social per-
formance, environmental protection, global corporate citizenship . . . and
stakeholder management theory. . . . Chief candidate for a core paradigm
would be an overarching integration [italics added] of corporate social per-
formance (embedding responsibility and responsiveness constructs) and
stakeholder theory—extended by full incorporation of business ethics and
environmentalism (cf. Swanson, 1995). But even this assertion competes
with a more nature-oriented approach (Frederick, 1998). (p. 229)
Responding to Windsor’s call for “an overarching integration,” the pro-

posed VBA model attempts to synthesize the five complementary and com-
peting business and society streams together by focusing on three important
core elements they share in common: value, balance, and accountability. By
focusing on the core elements underlying the frameworks, two objectives

are potentially achieved: (a) a normative proposition emerges on the core

purpose of business and how it ought to be fulfilled and (b) clarification is
facilitated by identifying the core concepts that are held in common by each
of the five business and society frameworks and how the frameworks relate
to each other. We propose that the core elements of value, balance, and
accountability potentially tie the frameworks together in a simplified and
coherent manner and provide the basis for further discussion and theoreti-
cal development of the business and society field.
References
About the journal of corporate citizenship. (2003). Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 10, 109.
AccountAbility. (1999). AA1000 framework. London: Author.
AccountAbility. (2003). AA1000AS (Assurance standard). London: Author.
Altman, B. W., & Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2000). A framework for understanding corporate citi-
zenship. Business and Society Review, 105(1), 1-8.
Andrews, K. R. (1973). Can the best corporations be made moral? Harvard Business Review,
May/June, 57-64.
Andriof, J., & McIntosh, M. (2001). Perspectives on corporate citizenship. Sheffield, UK:
Greenleaf.
Anshen, M. (1970). Changing the social contract: A role for business. Columbia Journal of
World Business, November/December, 6.
Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. Toronto,
Ontario: Viking Canada.
Barnard, C. L. (1938). The functions of executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Bowie, N. E. (1979). Ethical theory and business. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York:
Macmillan.
Beu, D., & Buckley, M. R. (2001). The hypothesized relationship between accountability and
ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(1), 57-73.
Beversluis, E. H. (1987). Is there “no such thing as business ethics”? Journal of Business
Ethics, 6, 81-88.
Boatright, J. R. (1993). Ethics and the conduct of business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.
Bowie, N. (1988). The moral obligations of multinational corporations. In S. Luper-Foy (Ed.),
Problems of international justice (pp. 97-113). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Bowie, N. (1994, November). A Kantian theory of capitalism. Paper presented at the 1994
Ruffin Lectures, Darden School, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Brady, F. N. (1985). A Janus-headed model of ethical theory: Looking two ways at business/
society issues. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 568-576.
Buchholz, R. A. (1995). Business environment and public policy: Implications for manage-
ment (5th ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (1997). Business and society: What’s in a name. The
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(2), 180-201.

Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (2001). A philosophical framework for case studies.
Journal of Business Ethics, 29(1/2), 25-32.
Buono, A. F., & Nichols, L. T. (1990). Stockholder and stakeholder interpretations of business’
social role. In M. W. Hoffman & J. M. Moore (Eds.), Business ethics: Readings and cases
in corporate morality (2nd ed., pp. 170-175). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance.
Academy of Management Review, 4, 497-505.
Carroll, A. B. (1981). Business and society: Managing corporate social performance. Boston:
Little, Brown.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral man-
agement 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(1), 5-25.
Carroll, A. B. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review,
100(1), 1-7.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct.
Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.
Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2006). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder man-
agement (6th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate
social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
CNN. (2002, March 7). In wake of Enron debacle, Bush pushes rules for corporations.
Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/03/07/bush
.corporations/
Coelho, P. R. P., McClure, J. E., & Spry, J. A. (2003). The social responsibility of corporate
management: A classical critique. Mid-American Journal of Business, 18(1), 15-24.
Cohen, J. (2001). Appreciating, understanding, and applying universal moral principles. Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 578-594.
Committee for Economic Development. (1971). Social responsibilities of business corpora-
tions. New York: Author.
Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Questioning the domain of the business ethics curriculum.
Journal of Business Ethics, 54(4), 357-369.
Davenport, K. (2000). Corporate citizenship: A stakeholder approach for defining corporate
social performance and identifying measures for assessing it. Business & Society, 39(2),
210-220.
Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management
Review, 2, 70-76.
Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities.
Academy of Management Journal, 1, 312-322.
Davis, K. (1975). Five propositions for social responsibility. Business Horizons, 18(3), 19-24.
Davis, K., & Blomstrom, R. L. (1975). Business and society: Environment and responsibility
(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
De Bakker, F. G., Groenewegen, P., and Den Hond, F. (2005). A bibliometric analysis of 30
years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social per-
formance. Business & Society, 44(3), 283-317.
De George, R. T. (1982). Business ethics. New York: Macmillan.
De George, R. T. (1987). The status of business ethics: Past and future. Journal of Business
Ethics, 6, 201-211.

De George, R. T. (1999). Business ethics (5th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Den Uyl, D. (1984). The new crusaders: The corporate social responsibility debate. Bowling
Green, OH: Social Philosophy and Policy Center.
Donaldson, T. (1982). Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts,
evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
Donaldson, T., & Werhane, P. H. (1979). Ethical issues in business: A philosophical approach.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Donaldson, T., Werhane, P. H., & Cording, M. (2002). Ethical issues in business: A philosophi-
cal approach (7th ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Drucker, P. F. (1984). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California
Management Review, 26, 53-63.
Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York: HarperBusiness.
Dubnick, M. J. (2003). Accountability and ethics: Reconsidering the relationships. International
Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 6(3), 405-441.
Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with forks. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New
Society.
Elkington, J. (2001). The chrysalis economy. Oxford, UK: Capstone.
Epstein, E. M. (1987). The corporate social policy process: Beyond business ethics, corporate
social responsibility, and corporate responsiveness. California Management Review, 29(3),
99-114.
Epstein, M. J., & Birchard, B. (2000). Counting what counts: Turning corporate accountability
to competitive advantage. New York: Perseus.
Epstein, M. J., & Hanson, K. O. (2006). The accountable corporation: Corporate social
responsibility (Vols. 1-4). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation:
Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business
(3rd ed., pp. 75-93). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
FedEx. (2007). About FedEx: Social responsibility. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from
http://www.fedex.com/us/about/responsibility/?link=4
Frazier, M. (2005). Academia chimes in on debate over retailing behemoth. Advertising Age,
76(46), 10.
Frederick, W. C. (1960). The growing concern over business responsibility. California
Management Review, 2, 54-61.
Frederick, W. C. (1986). Toward CSR3: Why ethical analysis is indispensable and unavoidable
in corporate affairs. California Management Review, 28(2), 126-155.
Frederick, W. C. (1987). Theories of corporate social performance. In S. P. Sethi & C. M.
Falbe (Eds.), Business and society: Dimensions of conflict and cooperation (pp. 142-161).
Lexington, MA: Lexington/D.C. Heath.
Frederick, W. C. (1994). From CSR1 to CSR2. Business & Society. 33(2), 150-165.
Frederick, W. C. (1997). Business and society. In P. H. J. Werhane & R. E. Freeman (Eds.),
Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of business ethics (pp. 48-50). Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409-422.

Freeman, R. E. (2004). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In T. L. Beauchamp &

M. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (7th ed., pp. 55-64). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Freeman, R. E., Pierce, J., & Dodd, R. H. (2000). Environmentalism and the new logic of busi-
ness. New York: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on
corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 93-94.
French, P. A. (1979). The corporation as a moral person. American Philosophical Quarterly,
3, 207-215.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The
New York Times Magazine, (September 13): 32-33, 122, 124, 126.
Fritzche, D. J., & Becker, H. (1984). Linking management behavior to ethical philosophy: An
empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 166-175.
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory.
Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51-71.
Gibson, K. (2000). The moral basis of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(3),
245-257.
Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly,
1(1), 53-73.
Goodpaster, K. E. (1997). Business ethics. In P. H. J. Werhane & R.E. Freeman (Eds.), Blackwell
encyclopedic dictionary of business ethics (pp. 51-57). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Goodpaster, K. E., & Mathews, J. B., Jr. (1982). Can a corporation have a conscience?
Harvard Business Review, 60 (January/February), 132-141.
Gray, R. (2001). Thirty years of social accounting, reporting, and auditing: What (if anything)
have we learnt? Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 9-15.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2002). Sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: Author.
Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance:
Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5),
479-485.
Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural resource–based view of the firm. Academy of Management
Review, 20(4), 986-1014.
Hart, S. L. (1997). Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Business
Review, 75(1), 66-77.
Hart, S. L. (1998). From heresy to dogma: An institutional history of corporate environmen-
talism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 354-358.
Hart, S. L., Milstein, M. B., & Caggiano, J. (2003). Creating sustainable value: Executive
commentary. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 56-67.
Hawken, P. (1993). The ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability. New York:
HarperBusiness.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Hunter Lovins, L. (1999). Natural capitalism. Boston: Little, Brown.
Hoffman, W. M., & Fisher, J. V. (1990). Corporate responsibility: Property and liability. In
W. M. Hoffman & J. M. Moore (Eds.), Business ethics: Readings and cases in corporate
morality (2nd ed., pp. 176-182). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hoffman, W. M., & Moore, J. M. (1984). Business ethics: Readings and cases in corporate
morality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective
function. Business Ethics Quarterly. 12(2), 235-264.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency cost,
and capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
Johnson, B. (2005, June 13). Wal-Mart is the best! No, wait, it’s the worst! Advertising Age, p. 14.
Jones, T. M. (1980). Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management
Review, Spring, 59-67.
Jones, T. M. (1983). An integrating framework for research in business and society: A step
toward the elusive paradigm? Academy of Management Review, 8(4), 559-564.
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics.
Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404-437.
Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management
Review, 24(2), 206-221.
Joyner, B. E., & Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and implementation: A study of values, business
ethics, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(4), 297-311.
Klein, S. (1985). Two views of business ethics: A popular philosophical approach and a value
based interdisciplinary one. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 71-79.
Klonoski, R. J. (1986). The moral responsibilities of stockholders. Journal of Business Ethics,
5, 385-390.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Laczniak, G. (1983). Business ethics: A manager’s primer. Business, 33(1), 23-29.
Lawrence, A. T., Weber, J., & Post, J. E. (2005). Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics,
public policy (11th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lesser, L. M. (2000). Business, public policy, and society. Orlando, FL: Dryden.
Levitt, T. (1958). The dangers of social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 36(5), 41-50.
Lewis, P. (1985). Defining “business ethics”: Like nailing Jell-o to a wall. Journal of Business
Ethics, 4, 377-383.
Lewis, P. V., & Speck, H. E. (1990). Ethical orientations for understanding business ethics.
Journal of Business Communication, 27(3), 213-232.
Logsdon, J., & Wood, D. J. (2002). Business citizenship: From domestic to global level of
analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 155-187.
Macdonald, J. E., & Beck-Dudley, C. L. (1994). Are deontology and teleology mutually exclu-
sive? Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 615-623.
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2000). Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: The
case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 283-297.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley.
Margolis J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2001). People and profits: The search for a link between a
company’s social and financial performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marrewijk, M. V. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability:
Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 95-105.
Marrewijk, M. V., & Werre, M. (2003). Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. Journal of
Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 107-119.
Marsden, C. (2000). The new corporate citizenship of big business: Part of the solution to sus-
tainability? Business and Society Review, 105(1), 9-26.
Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions. New York:
John Wiley.
Matten, D., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of cor-
porate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1), 109-120.
McGuire, J. W. (1963). Business and society. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McIntosh, M., Leipziger, D., Jones, K., & Coleman, G. (1998). Corporate citizenship:
Successful strategies for responsible companies. London: Financial Times/Pitman.
McIntosh, M., Thomas, R., Leipziger, D., & Coleman, G. (2003). Living corporate citizen-
ship: Strategic routes to socially responsible business. London: Financial Times/Pearson.
McMahon, T. M. (1997). History of business ethics. In P. H. J. Werhane & R. E. Freeman
(Eds.), Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of business ethics (pp. 317-320). Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identifica-
tion and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of
Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
Mitnick, B. M. (1995). Systematics and CSR: The theory and processes of normative refer-
encing. Business & Society, 34(1), 5-33.
Mohan, A. (2003). Strategies for the management of complex practices in complex organiza-
tions: A study of the transnational management of corporate responsibility. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Warwick, UK.
Morrison, J. (2003). Corporate citizenship: More than a metaphor? Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, 10, 89-102.
Näsi, J. (Ed.). (1995). Understanding stakeholder thinking. Helsinki, Finland: LSR.
Nattrass, B., & Altomare, M. (1999). The natural step for business. Gabriola Island, British
Columbia, Canada: New Society.
Nel, K., Pitt, L., & Watson, R. (1989). Business ethics: Defining the twilight zone. Journal of
Business Ethics, 8(10), 781-791.
Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the bottom of “triple bottom line.” Business
Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 243-262.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial perfor-
mance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-441.
Pava, M. L. (1996). The Talmudic concept of “beyond the letter of the law”: Relevance to
business social responsibilities. Journal of Business Ethics. 15(9), 941-951.
Phillips, R. A. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 7, 51-66.
Phillips, R. A. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
Post, J. E. (2000). Moving from geographic to virtual communities: Global corporate citizen-
ship in a dot.com world. Business and Society Review. 105(1), 27-46.
Post, F. R. (2003). A response to “The social responsibility of corporate management: A clas-
sical critique.” Mid-American Journal of Business, 18(1), 25-35.
Preston, L. E., & Post, J. E. (1975). Private management and public policy: The principle of
public responsibility. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pruzan, P. (1998). From control to values-based management and accountability. Journal of
Business Ethics, 17(13), 1379-1394.
PwC International. (2007). Sustainability services. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://
www.pwc.com/extweb/service.nsf/docid/9C4D355FA123525A85257013005B16D2
Roman, R. M., Hayibor, S., & Agle, B. R. (1999). The relationship between social and finan-
cial performance: Repainting a portrait. Business & Society, 38, 109-125.
Ross, S. (1973). The economy theory of the agency: The principal’s problem. American
Economic Review, 63, 134-139.
Rowley, T. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences.
Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887-910.

Schmidheiny, S. (1992). Changing course. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Schwartz, M. S. (2006). God as a managerial stakeholder? Journal of Business Ethics, 66(2/3),
291-306.
Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three domain
approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503-530.
Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytic framework.
California Management Review, 17, 58-64.
Sharma, S. (2004). Living corporate citizenship: Strategic routes to socially responsible busi-
ness. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 14, 116-118.
Siebens, H. (2002). Concepts and working instruments for corporate governance. Journal of
Business Ethics, 39(1/2), 109-116.
Simmons, J. (2003). Balancing performance, equity, and accountability in stakeholder relation-
ships. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10(3), 129-140.
Solomon, R. C. (1992). Corporate roles, personal virtues: An Aristotlean approach to business
ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(3), 317-339.
Steiner, G. A. (1971). Business and society. New York: Random House.
Steiner, G. A., & Steiner, J. F. (2003). Business, government, and society: A managerial
perspective (10th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Steurer, R., Langer, M. E., Konrad, A., & Martinuzzi, A. (2005). Corporations, stakeholder,
and sustainable development I: A theoretical exploration of business-society relations.
Journal of Business Ethics, 61(3), 263-281.
Swanson, D. L. (1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social
performance model. Academy of Management Review, 20, 43-64.
Tapscott, D., & Ticoll, D. (2003). The naked corporation. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Viking
Canada.
Trevino, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (1994). Business ethics/business ethics: One field or two?
Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 113-128.
Trevino, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (1999). The stakeholder research tradition: Convergent
theorists, not convergent theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 222-227.
Trundle, R., Jr. (1989). Is there any ethics in business ethics? Journal of Business Ethics, 8,
261-269.
U.K. Pensions Act. (1995). The Local Government Pension Scheme (Management and
Investment of Funds) (Amendment) Regulations 1999, SI 3259.
U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Pub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745 (2002).
Velasquez, M. G. (1982). Business ethics: Concepts and cases. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Velasquez, M. G. (2006). Business ethics: Concepts and cases (6th ed). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Waddell, S. (2000). New institutions for the practice of corporate citizenship: Historical, inter-
sectoral, and developmental perspectives. Business and Society Review, 105(1), 107-126.
Waddock, S. (2002). Leading corporate citizens. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Waddock, S. (2004). Creating corporate accountability: Foundational principles to make cor-
porate citizenship real. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(4), 313-327.
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, 758-765.

Wheeler, D., Colbert, B., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Focusing on value: Reconciling corporate
social responsibility: Sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world.
Journal of General Management, 28(3), 1-28.
Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, D. R., Jr., & Freeman, R. E. (1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the
stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 475-498.
Willard, B. (2002). The sustainability advantage: Seven business case benefits of a triple bot-
tom line. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society.
Williams, O. F. (1986). Can business ethics be theological? What Athens can learn from
Jerusalem. Journal of Business Ethics, 5, 473-484.
Wilson, M. (2003). Corporate sustainability: What is it and where does it come from? Ivey
Business Journal, March/April, 1-5.
Windsor, D. (2001). The future of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 9(3), 225-256.
Wood, D. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review,
16(4), 691-718.
Wood, D. J., Logsdon, J. M., Lewellyn, P. G., and Davenport, K. (2006). Global business cit-
izenship: A transformative framework for ethics and sustainable capitalism. Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2000). Corporate social responsibil-
ity: Making good business sense. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Wulfson, M. (2001). The ethics of corporate social responsibility and philanthropic ventures.
Journal of Business Ethics, 29(1/2), 135-145.
Zadek, S. (1998). Balancing performance, ethics, and accountability. Journal of Business
Ethics, 17(13), 1421-1441.
Zadek, S. (2001). The civil corporation. London: Earthscan.
Zadek, S., Pruzan, P., & Evans, R. (1997). Building corporate accountability. London: Earthscan.
Mark S. Schwartz is an assistant professor of governance, law, and ethics at the Atkinson
School of Administrative Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada. He is the author of sev-
eral journal articles in such publications as the Journal of Business Ethics, Business & Society,
and Business Ethics Quarterly and is a coauthor of the textbook Business Ethics: Readings and
Cases in Corporate Morality (McGraw-Hill). His research interests include corporate ethics
programs, ethical leadership, ethical investment, and corporate social responsibility.
Archie B. Carroll is a professor emeritus of management and currently director of the Nonprofit
Management and Community Service program in the Terry College of Business, University of
Georgia. He is the senior coauthor of Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management
(6th ed., 2006). He was a founding board member of the International Association for Business
and Society. In 1992, he was awarded the Sumner Marcus Award by the SIM Division of
the Academy of Management, and he served as president of the Society for Business Ethics dur-
ing 1998-1999. He was elected a fellow of the Academy of Management and the Southern
Management Association.
View publication stats

Integrating and Unifying Competing and Complementary Frameworks: The Search For A Common Core in Th...

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrating and Unifying Competing and Complementary Frameworks: The Search For A Common Core in Th...

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Integrating and Unifying Competing and

Article in Business & Society · September 2007

M.s. Schwartz Archie B Carroll

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Socially responsible investing View project

Wiley Encyclopedia of Management View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Integrating and Unifying Competing and Complementary

The online version of this article can be found at:

International Association for Business and Society

Email Alerts: http://bas.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

In the field of business and society, several complementary frameworks appear

Keywords: corporate social responsibility; business ethics; stakeholder

I n the field of business and society, several complementary constructs or

theoretical or practical legitimacy, this situation appears to have changed con-

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

citizenship.” PricewaterhouseCoopers appears to equate sustainability with

Marrewijk (2003) sums up the confusion:

An intensive debate has been taking place among academics, consultants,

To help address the confusion, several researchers have attempted to ana-

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

This article attempts to address the apparent confusion that currently

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

We propose that by focusing on the core elements underlying each of the

A consolidated classification of research can be an important step toward

The Search for a Paradigm in the

Before discussing the primary frameworks dominating the business and

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

constructs or frameworks, they have also been referred to as paradigms

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

Primary Frameworks in the Business

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

each, including origins, proposed definitions, primary contributors, and

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

The second school of thought on CSR suggests broader responsibilities for

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

nonprofit organization of business executives that calls itself Business for

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

Evidence of stakeholder concepts can be traced as far back as Barnard (1938),

Although SM originally appeared to shift managerial focus to nonshare-

1. the corporation has relationships with many constituent groups (“stake-

Most of the debate in SM appears to focus on how stakeholders should

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

appear to be two distinct versions of SM, the “broad” version, which

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

In addition, not everyone accepts SM as constituting theory (e.g.,

It is also not clear whether managers themselves should be considered

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental quality, and

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

Although originally focusing on corporate philanthropy and community

Global corporate citizenship is the process of identifying, analyzing, and

Waddock (2002) provides a more normative definition of CC:

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009

The stakeholder concept therefore struggles with the notion of society as a

Table 1 summarizes some key characteristics of each of the five dominant

Proposed Integrating Framework:

As discussed above, the overlapping nature of the five frameworks, espe-

Downloaded from http://bas.sagepub.com by Archie Carroll on April 30, 2009