Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Three Dimensional Model of Corp Gov of Archie
Three Dimensional Model of Corp Gov of Archie
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Academy of Management Review
A Three-Dimensional Conceptual
Model of
Corporate Performance
ARCHIE B. CARROLL
University of Georgia
497
498
499
500
501
Public
Davis & Relations Legal Problem
Blomstrom Withdrawal Approach Approach Bargaining Solving
DO DO
NOTHING MUCH
Figure 2
Social Responsiveness Categories
Several writers have provided conceptual for social responsibility. CSR1 (corporate social re-
schemes that describe the responsiveness continu- sponsibility), as Frederick [1978] terms it - our first
um well. lan Wilson, for example, asserts that there aspect of the conceptual model - has ethical or
are four possible business strategies - reaction, moral threads running through it and, hence, is
defense, accommodation, and proaction [1974]. problematical. In contrast, CSR2 (corporate social
Terry McAdam has, likewise, described four social responsiveness) - our third aspect - has no moral
responsibility philosophies that mesh well with Wil- or ethical connotations but is concerned only with
son's strategies and, indeed, describe the mana- the managerial processes of response. These
gerial approach that would characterize the range processes would include planning and social fore-
of responsiveness. His philosophies are (1) "Fight casting [Newgren, 1977], organizing for social re-
all the way," (2) "Do only what is required," (3) "Be sponse [McAdam, 1973], controlling social activi-
progressive," and (4) "Lead the industry" [1973]. ties [Carroll & Beiler, 1975], social decision making,
Davis and Blomstrom, too, describe alternative re- and corporate social policy [Bowman & Haire, 1975;
sponses to societal pressures as follows: (a) with- Carroll, 1977; Fitch, 1976; Post & Mellis, 1978;
drawal, (b) public relations approach, (c) legal Preston & Post, 1975; Steiner, 1972; Sturdivant &
approach, (d) bargaining, and (e) problem solving Ginter, 1977]. Figure 3 puts the three aspects to-
[1975]. These correspond, essentially, with the gether into a conceptual social performance model.
above schemas. Figure 2 plots these responses on The social issues identified in Figure 3 are illus-
a continuum: trative only. Each organization should carefully as-
Corporate social responsiveness, which has sess which social issues it must address as it plans
been discussed by some as an alternate to social for corporate social performance.
responsibility is, rather, the action phase of man-
Uses of the Model
agement responding in the social sphere. In a
sense, being responsive enables organizations to This corporate social performance conceptual
act on their social responsibilities without getting model is intended to be useful for both academics
bogged down in the quagmire of definitional prob- and managers. For academics, the model is pri-
lems that can so easily occur if organizations try to marily an aid to perceiving the distinction among
get a precise fix on what their true responsibilities definitions of social responsibility that have ap-
are before acting. peared in the literature. What heretofore have been
The responsiveness continuum presented here regarded as separate definitions of social responsi-
represents an aspect of management's social per- bility are treated here as three separate issues per-
formance that is distinctly different from the concern taining to corporate social performance.
502
Reaction
Discretionary
Responsibilities
Ethical
Responsibilities
SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
CATEGORIES
Legal
Responsibilities
Economic
Responsibilities
Figure 3
The Corporate Social Performance Model
One aspect pertains to all that is included in our toward understanding the major facets of social
definition of social responsibility - the economic, performance.
legal, ethical, and discretionary components. The The conceptual model can assist managers in
second aspect concerns the range of social issues understanding that social responsibility is not sepa-
(e.g., consumerism, environment, and discrimina- rate and distinct from economic performance but
tion) management must address. Finally, there is a rather is just one part of the total social responsibili-
social responsiveness continuum. Although some ties of business. The model integrates economic
writers have suggested that this is the preferable concerns into a social performance framework. In
focus when one considers social responsibility, the addition, it places ethical and discretionary expec-
model suggests that responsiveness is but one ad- tations into a rational economic and legal
ditional aspect to be addressed if corporate social framework.
performance is to be acceptable. The three aspects The model can help the manager systematically
of the model thus force us to think through the think through major social issues being faced.
dominant questions that must be faced in analyzing Though it does not provide the answer to how far
social performance. The major use to the aca- the organization should go, it does provide a con-
demic, therefore, is in helping to systematize the ceptualization that could lead to a better-managed
important issues that must be taught and under- social performance program. Moreover, it could be
stood in an effort to clarify the social responsibility used as a planning tool and as a diagnostic prob-
concept. The model is not the ultimate conceptuali- lem-solving tool. The model can assist the manager
zation; it is, rather, a modest but necessary step by identifying categories within which the organiza-
503
REFERENCES
504
Drucker, P. The responsibilities of management. Harper's Mag- Newgren, K. Social forecasting: An overview of current business
azine, November 1954. practices. In A. B. Carroll (Ed.), Managing corporate social
responsibility. Boston: Little, Brown, 1977.
Eells, R., and Walton, C. Conceptual foundations of business.
Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, 1961. Post, J. E., and Mellis, M. Corporate responsiveness and organi-
zational learning. California Management Review, 1978, 20(3),
Fitch, G. Achieving corporate social responsibility. Academy of
57-63.
Management Review, 1976, 1(1), 38-46.
Preston, L. E., and Post, J. E. Private management and public
Frederick, William C. From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of
business-and-society thought. Working Paper No. 279, Grad- policy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
uate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, 1978. Sethi, S. P. Dimensions of corporate social responsibility. Cali-
Friedman, M. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of fornia Management Review, 1975, 17(3), 58-64.
Chicago Press, 1962. Steiner, G. A. Business and society (2nd ed.). New York: Ran-
dom House, 1975.
Greenwood, W. (ed.). Issues in business and society. Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin, 1964. Steiner, G. A. Social policies for business. California Manage-
ment Review, 1972,15(2), 17-24.
Hay, R. D., Gray, E. R., and Gates, J. E. Business and society.
Cincinnati: Southwestern Publishing, 1976. Sturdivant, F. D., and Ginter, J. L. Corporate social responsive-
Holmes, S. L. Executive perceptions of corporate social respon- ness: Management attitudes and economic performance. Cali-
sibility. Business Horizons, 1976,19(3), 34-40. fornia Management Review, 1977, 19(3), 30-39.
Manne, H., and Wallich, H. C. The modern corporation and Wilson, lan. What one company is doing about today's demands
social responsibility. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise on business. In George A. Steiner (Ed.), Changing business-
Institute for Public Policy Research, 1972. society interrelationships. Los Angeles: Graduate School of
Management, UCLA, 1975.
Received 9/25/78
505