1001765

research-article2021
BASXXX10.1177/00076503211001765Business & SocietyCarroll

Article
Business & Society

Corporate Social
1­–21
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
Responsibility: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00076503211001765
https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211001765
Perspectives on the journals.sagepub.com/home/bas

CSR Construct’s
Development and Future

Archie B. Carroll1

Abstract
This perspectives article seeks to comment and reflect on my 1999 BAS
article titled “Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional
Construct,” and subsequent writings addressing these same topics. First,
perspectives on the 1950-1999 period are offered. Second, reflections on
the 2000-2020 period are presented. Finally, thoughts about the future
and the new normal for CSR are set forth. Hopefully, the observations
presented will stimulate further thinking on this important concept. And,
it will be interesting to all of us to see where the dust settles when the
pandemic ends and organizations have had a chance to re-imagine or reset
their missions, goals, and processes with respect to CSR.

Keywords
business and society, CSR, field

It was my honor to receive an invitation from the editors of Business & Society
(BAS) to write this article on the subject of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
BAS is celebrating its 60-year history, and in the year 2021, a number of reflec-
tive commentaries will be offered. My invitation was to use as a point-of-depar-
ture my 1999 article in BAS titled “Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution

1
University of Georgia, Athens, USA

Corresponding Author:
Archie B. Carroll, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.
Email: archie.b.carroll@gmail.com
2 Business & Society 00(0)

of a Definitional Construct” (Carroll, 1999). Twenty years have passed since its
publication, and BAS reports that up until recently, it was the most-read article in
the past 6 months in BAS (2020; Hart, 2018). I appreciate this opportunity to
reflect upon this article, subsequent ones, and place the topic of CSR in perspec-
tive with my comments, observations, and current viewpoints.

Perspectives on 1950–1999
In retrospect, it is clear that the 1950s represented the launch of the modern
era of CSR. Although there was no preoccupation with the CSR construct’s
definition in the 1950s, this period was characterized by general CSR discus-
sions. Howard Bowen (1953) was the dominant and virtually solo advocate
in this period as he authored his landmark book Social Responsibilities of the
Businessman, in which he asked the singular most significant question driv-
ing the CSR story: “What responsibilities to society may businessmen rea-
sonably be expected to assume?” (Bowen, 1953, p. xi). As noted in 1999,
there were few businesswomen during Bowen’s era. Bowen’s general concept
of social responsibilities was both managerial and business-and-society
related. Bowen (1953) was concerned with managerial decisions, policies,
and actions that would be pursued based on the values and objectives of soci-
ety (p. 6).
The literature and characterizations of CSR increased significantly in the
1960s (Walton, 1967), but the business community was not yet quite on board
with the idea of CSR during this time, perhaps because they were being pum-
meled by the major social movements of the decade. The 1960s represented a
major tipping point for the business-and-society relationship as large numbers
were drawn to these social movements that were driving social change. The
primary movements serving as catalysts during this period were the civil
rights movement, the women’s movement, the consumer movement, and the
environmental movement. A little later came a concern for occupational health
and safety. These burgeoning movements formed the impetus for businesses
broadening the social contract that would change the business-and-society
landscape (Carroll et al., 2012). The social contract represents a set of recipro-
cal understandings and expectations that characterize the relationship between
major institutions—in this case, between business and society (Carroll et al.,
2018, p. 21).
Related but semiautonomous factors arising in the social environment
began to create a climate in which criticism of business took place and
flourished. The major factors emerging during this time included affluence,
education, awareness via television and movies, news and investigative
journalism and even, prime-time TV programs replete with misleading
Carroll 3

advertising, and business managers being depicted as powerful and greedy

people. When these factors combined, the result not mentioned in my 1999
article, was a “revolution of rising expectations” in society. This is the
belief or outlook that each succeeding generation ought to have a standard
of living higher than that of its predecessor. These factors combined
together to help produce evidences of an “entitlement mentality,” a “rights
movement,” and even a “victimization philosophy,” wherein some citizens
believed they were victims of unfair societal institutions, among which
businesses played a huge part (Carroll et al., 2018).
Discussions of what constituted CSR exploded in the 1970s. This decade
became a period when company managements sensed a need to respond, per-
haps to ward off further regulations, and definitions of what constituted CSR
began to proliferate to meet the need for more refined and analytical thinking.
Responding to newly created legal mandates served as surrogates of CSR
during this time. From an academic perspective, the primary takeaway from
the 1970s was the emergence of what I would call the core trajectory of CSR:
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR1) → Corporate Social Responsiveness
(CSR2) → Corporate Social Performance (CSP).
William Frederick (2006) is generally considered to be the author of the
CSR1 and CSR2 nomenclatures, and Robert Ackerman and Raymond Bauer
(1976) were the initial authors emphasizing the distinction between responsi-
bility and responsiveness. This distinction was a useful one. However, CSR1
reflected the idea of an implicit obligation embedded in CSR and whether
one existed, CSR2 focused more on how companies should respond to the
social environment and therefore it was much more managerial in nature and
action-oriented. In my own mind, this period began a “march towards CSR
specificity.”
Regardless of the definition of CSR used, CSR2 represented an action-
oriented variant of CSR. Ackerman and Bauer went on to say “The connota-
tion of responsibility is that of the process of assuming an obligation. It places
an emphasis on motivation rather than on performance.” They continued:
“Responding to social demands is much more than deciding what to do.
There remains the management task of doing what one has decided to do, and
this task is far from trivial” (Ackerman & Bauer, 1976, p. 6). It is interesting
to me that they used the word “performance” in their quote but chose “respon-
siveness” to characterize action. As we will discuss, the performance charac-
terization would become popular later. Although many decades have passed
and performance has continued to be deliberated, the “CSR literature has
measured outcomes other than firm performance,” even in the current decade
(Barnett et al., 2020, p. 937).
4 Business & Society 00(0)

In the mid-to-late 1970s, the concept of corporate social performance

(CSP) entered the literature. S. Prakash Sethi (1975) published an article
titled “Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: An Analytical
Framework.” Sethi never developed the idea of performance being distinct
from responsibility and responsiveness, however. He seemed to employ the
term performance as a kind of collective term rather than having a specific
meaning other than CSR1 and CSR2.
In 1979, I presented a CSP model which was striving to bring together
different dimensions of CSR (Carroll, 1979). In this three-dimensional (3D)
model depicted as a 3D cube, the three dimensions were asserted to be (1) a
basic definition of CSR, embracing economic, legal, ethical, discretionary
(philanthropic) responsibilities; (2) a philosophy, mode, or strategy of social
responsiveness; and (3) an identification of social issues in which these
applied (e.g., consumers, environment, employees, product safety, etc.). I
tended to use the term performance as a collective term in which these three
aspects of CSP were articulated, interrelated, and implemented to achieve
CSP (Carroll, 1979, p. 499).
My CSP model was later elaborated by Wartick and Cochran (1985), who
extended and described the model to consist of dimensions of principles, pro-
cesses, and policies. The policies dimension extended and developed my
model, which stopped at identifying the issues. The CSP model was further
refined by Donna Wood (1991) in her important article in which, among
other contributions, she described that CSP needed to incorporate social
impacts (CSIs), policies, and programs as the collective outputs of a compa-
ny’s CSR initiatives. Wood’s emphasis on outcomes and impacts advanced
the CSP construct to where it is today. In addition, she contended that the
term CSP could “serve as a central organizing concept for research and the-
ory in business-and-society” (Wood, 1991, p. 713.). In summary, this stream
of writings solidified the concept of CSP as a key element in the CSR story-
line or core trajectory.
As we moved into the 1980s, the concepts of CSR1, CSR2 and CSP navi-
gated forward and indeed are still here with us today. In looking back at my
1999 article, I observed that the 1980s was a decade of “fewer definitions,
more research, and alternative themes” (Carroll, 1999, p. 284). In retrospect,
I think these were appropriate descriptors. Empirical research became the
watchword in the 1980s focusing on early forms of CSR measurement, such
as content analyzing annual reports, or conducting simple surveys as to what
constituted CSR. This was also a time during which alternative themes were
beginning to emerge as well.
The major conceptual contribution to CSR in the 1980s was stakeholder
theory, articulated by R. Edward Freeman (1984) in his seminal book,
Carroll 5

Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Although intended to be a

book on strategic management, it was immediately perceived as a major con-
tribution to the CSR stream of literature and thought. Stakeholder concepts
added a new way of thinking and characterizing CSR concerns in the busi-
ness-and-society field. The contributions to our field of stakeholder theory
and stakeholder management are too extensive to develop here because today
our field is deeply infused with stakeholder concepts, language, strategies
and thinking that now they are virtually inseparable from the CSR discussion
(Laplume et al., 2008).
Although Freeman’s book was not immediately accepted by strategic
management scholars, business-and-society scholars took it and ran with it
without ever looking back. During the first years of the book’s existence, I
thought the topic was so important to the business-and-society field and to
CSR that in the first edition of my textbook, I put the stakeholder term in the
title: Business & Society: Ethics & Stakeholder Management (Carroll, 1989),
and it is still there today in the 10th edition, 30 years later (Carroll et al.,
2018). In spite of the mounting importance of stakeholders, a study I con-
ducted and published in 1994, reported in my 1999 article, found that only
1.8% of academics thought “stakeholders” would be an important research
area in the Social Issues in Management (SIM) field in the 1990s. By con-
trast, Business Ethics garnered 21.5% of mentions and this topped the list of
various social issues/CSR topics (Carroll, 1994). It is remarkable how things
have changed!
The topic of Business Ethics began accelerating and flourishing in the
1980s. The founding of the Society for Business Ethics (SBE) and the cre-
ation of the journal Business Ethics Quarterly (BEQ) were springboards to
escalation in modern business ethics theory and research. They joined the
already existing Journal of Business Ethics (JBE) and Business & Society
(BAS) to provide another major research outlet for the blossoming field. SBE
brought together diverse scholars from a multitude of fields that embraced
the topics of business ethics and CSR. SBE, BEQ, and JBE, from my per-
spective, must be regarded as landmarks in the development of our fields
whether it be called business-and-society or SIM. When SBE began regularly
meeting with the Academy of Management, this unlocked the world of busi-
ness and management to the philosophers and opened up the world of phi-
losophy to management scholars.
In 1991, I decided to extract my four-part definition of CSR from the 1979
CSP model and present it as a CSR Pyramid (Carroll, 1991). I was not
attempting to give CSR a new meaning using the pyramidic graphic. Rather,
I found in my teaching that it was helpful for business students to see that
most of what we have thought about as CSR stood on the shoulders of
6 Business & Society 00(0)

businesses’ foundational economic role in society. In addition, I found that

business executives accepted the CSR message more readily when it was
clear that we explicitly valued their economic contributions to society. I cer-
tainly was not trying to say economic responsibility was more important than
law, ethics, and philanthropy, as some have misconstrued.
From my perspective, I considered economic responsibility as similar to
the inner circle of the Committee for Economic Development’s (1971) “three
concentric circles” of CSR, wherein their inner circle included the basic eco-
nomic functions of business—growth, products, jobs (p. 15). In retrospect, I
should have explicated the economic responsibility category more fully.
Also, I made it clear that “business should not fulfill these responsibilities in
sequential fashion but that each is to be fulfilled at all times” (Carroll, 1999,
p. 289). Furthermore, I summarized the multipurpose view that “the CSR
firm should strive to make a profit, obey the law, be ethical, and be a good
corporate citizen” (Carroll, 1999, p. 289).
In thinking about the CSR Pyramid today, I realize I could have explained it
more thoroughly because some have misunderstood it, misrepresented it, or
made claims about it that are not accurate or were not intended. Some research-
ers have attempted to replicate the CSR Pyramid in their home countries and
have found that their respondents do not agree with the sequencing. This could
be because they used different respondents (e.g., consumers, students) rather
than business people to answer their questionnaires. Furthermore, in some
developing countries where the CSR Pyramid has been tested, they are not
steeped in the values of capitalism and, perhaps the foundational importance of
the economic responsibility has not yet been experienced or realized. In any
event, especially in developing countries, I believe that if companies want to be
successful, their economic role must be regarded as foundational, not as an
afterthought to law, ethics, and philanthropy. Wayne Visser concurs with this
point about the importance of economic responsibility in developing countries
because many of these countries suffer from a shortage of foreign direct invest-
ment, high unemployment, and widespread poverty. Therefore, the economic
contributions of foreign direct investment are highly prized by communities
and governments (Visser, 2011, p. 265). Moreover, I always have maintained
that the economic responsibility is laced with an ethical dimension. As Adam
Smith already argued, economics and ethics are not antithetical to one another
though some practitioners interpret them that way. I also contend that in devel-
oping countries, a legal infrastructure is critical if they want to attract foreign
direct investments; hence, the legal responsibility is essential.
Alternative frameworks for portraying CSR-oriented policies, actions, and
practices that became and continued to be important in the 1990s included
business ethics, stakeholder theory/management, corporate citizenship, and
sustainability. Each of these would have their adherents, literature, and
Carroll 7

advocates and would transition into the 21st century competing with and
complimenting the more traditional and historical spectrum of CSR con-
structs—discussing them in detail is beyond the scope of this invited article.

Perspectives on 2000–2020
Three persistent questions continued to frame the CSR discussion as we tran-
sitioned to the 2000–2020 era: To whom is a corporation responsible? For
what is the corporation responsible? How should corporations behave?
(Carroll et al., 2012, pp. 376–403). In spite of many social challenges facing
our world as the millennium arrived, research and thought on CSR and CSR-
related topics escalated in popularity and interest around the globe. One of
the topics that continued to be of extreme interest was the relationship
between corporate social and financial performance. Many researchers stud-
ied this relationship in the 1980s and 1990s, and a landmark summary of 25
years of incomparable research on the topic was presented by Jennifer Griffin
and John Mahon (1997) to close out the decade. In the early 2000s, this was
followed by a meta-analysis of the relationship (Orlitzky et al., 2003). Based
on decades of research, these researchers concluded that “there is a positive
association between CSP and CFP across industries and across study con-
texts” (Orlitzky et al., 2003, p. 423). Other studies have confirmed these con-
clusions (Kim et al., 2018; Orlitzky, 2008; Waddock & Graves, 1997).
A positive relationship between these two variables strengthens the argu-
ment that it pays to “do good” (Thompson, 2018) in terms of CSP. One result
of this discussion was an emphasis on the idea that came to be known as the
“business case for CSR.” The business case for CSR refers to the bottom-line
financial benefits for businesses pursuing CSR strategies and policies. It
became a popular theme during the first decade of 2020 (Carroll & Shabana,
2010) and it is likely to continue because business advocates want assurance
that CSR pays off. From another perspective, other researchers and writers
are saying that CSR and business ethics are justified for their own purposes
and that the business case is overstated or not needed (Ciulla, 2014; Taylor,
2017).
A natural and logical management idea flowing from the linkage between
CSR and CFP and the business case arguments has been the concept of “stra-
tegic CSR” (Carroll, 1980; Carroll & Hoy, 1984). Thus, if CSR pays off, then
managers should employ CSR strategically for maximum impact, that is, for
improvements in financial and economic performance (Orlitzky et al., 2011).
This renewed interest in strategic CSR was further reinforced by Michael
Porter and Michael Kramer’s (2006) article, “Strategy and society: The link
between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility.” These
articles together chronicled important topics that came to dominate the 2000s,
8 Business & Society 00(0)

those of “the business case for CSR” and “strategic CSR.” If it could be
shown that there was a business case for CSR, thinking in terms of strategic
CSR would logically follow. In reflecting on this topic of strategy and CSR
that became popular in the 2000s, this reconciliation of economic and social
goals was a subject that long had been on my agenda (Carroll, 1980). In 1984,
I followed up on this theme and argued for the integration of corporate social
policy into strategic management (Carroll & Hoy, 1984), also seeking to rec-
oncile economic and social goals in a strategic sense (Chrisman & Carroll,
1984). We again pursued this topic in 1987 as we continued to support the
linkage between CSR and strategic management (Meznar et al., 1991). In
short, though “strategic CSR” became widespread and, perhaps, “of age” in
the 2000s, its foundations were explored decades earlier.
Somewhat related to the CSR-CSP relationship and strategic CSR was the
introduction by Porter and Kramer of the concept of “creating shared value”
(CSV) (Porter & Kramer, 2011). These authors maintain that CSV focuses on
the connections between societal and economic progress and has the power
to unleash a next wave of global growth. These ideas sound a lot like strategic
CSR though these authors may have embraced slight differences in how CSV
might be conceived and implemented. The CSV idea has garnered supporters
but in a rather serious critique of the concept, a number of shortcomings were
identified. Among these shortcomings were claims it was unoriginal, ignored
tensions inherent to business responsibility, was somewhat naïve about busi-
ness compliance, and is not based on a robust conception of the role of busi-
ness in society (Crane et al., 2014). In fairness to Porter and Kramer (2014),
they were given an opportunity to respond to these criticisms and presented
useful explanations and counterpoints. The debate between these two author
groups highlights the still contested nature of both CSV and CSR.
Another theme that heightened in popularity during the 2000s was that of
globalization, including global CSR; several research strands stand out
reflecting this new concern. The observation arose that CSR would be per-
ceived differently across countries. In response, the distinction between
explicit CSR and implicit CSR as posited by Matten and Moon (2008), the
notion of political CSR (pCSR) (Scherer & Palazzo, 2011), and the applica-
tion of CSR in developing countries (Jamali et al., 2017), were presented. It
was quite perceptive for Matten and Moon to make a distinction between
CSR in the U. S. and Europe as these two regions have been prolific in their
study and application of CSR. The authors maintained that CSR is more
“explicit” in America whereas it is more “implicit” in Europe (Matten &
Moon, 2008). Explicit CSR would typically consist of voluntary, self-interest
driven policies characterized by those in the United States. But in Europe,
CSR would be more “implicit” or understood, in that it is infused more into
Carroll 9

the culture, wherein some aspects of CSR are decreed or imposed by institu-
tions, such as government. In retrospect, I find this to be an insightful contri-
bution to the reality that CSR does vary across the globe, based upon system
of government, governance, society, culture, and other factors. The “one size
fits all” model of CSR clearly does not work at the global level.
Closely aligned with the explicit–implicit distinction is the concept of
pCSR which has arisen primarily in the past decade (Scherer & Palazzo,
2011) and seems to have had more applicability in contexts wherein the gov-
ernment has historically assumed a more prominent role in providing societal
benefits. Scherer et al. (2016, p. 278) have held that pCSR entails

responsible business activities that turn corporations into political actors by

engaging in public deliberations, collective decisions, and the provision of
public goods or the restriction of public bads in cases where public authorities
are unable or unwilling to fulfil this role.

One can readily see that pCSR is more applicable in implicit CSR cultures
whereas an alternate term, corporate political activity (CPA), might be more
applicable in explicit CSR cultures. However, pCSR has more impact on
society, CPA has more impact on the organizations initiating it (Rehbein
et al., 2018).
A related topic, closely aligned with global CSR, has been the emergence
of interest in CSR in developing countries or emerging economies. This
emphasis on developing or emerging economies has been critical as the
global CSR drivers differ from the local drivers, wherein the latter emphasize
cultural traditions, political reforms, socio-economic priorities, governance
gaps and crisis responses (Visser, 2011, pp. 268–273). From my perspective,
the eruption of interest by academics regarding CSR in developing econo-
mies has been one of the most notable trends of the past 5 years. In a related
context, interest in CSR in small and medium enterprises links in with growth
in developing countries (Jamali et al., 2017).
The concept of sustainability has expanded and complimented much of the
CSR discussion during the past 20 years. Although initially defined and dis-
cussed in the 20th century, sustainability has become one of the most enduring
topics shaping CSR in the 2000s. Although the idea of sustainability is embed-
ded in CSR and they are interrelated, the term itself has become ever more
popular with both the business and the academic communities. The business
community likes it because it gets away from what many of them consider to
be the fatigued nomenclature of CSR, which they interpret to be that they have
unrelenting responsibilities to society and stakeholders for which they should
be held accountable. As for the academic community, many of them prefer the
10 Business & Society 00(0)

terminology for the same reason and also because it creates a fresh idea that
focuses on stakeholder survival and success in the future.
Sustainability, as a concept, is not quite as loaded with a sense of burden
as CSR. And, when you construe sustainability to be concerned with profits,
people, and the planet, it represents a more balanced approach. It focuses on
economic, social, and environmental spheres which need to be more bal-
anced and includes a concern for economics, one of business’s important
priorities. Another reason the business community likes the idea of sustain-
ability is that it focuses on both the present and the future. Thus, anytime you
reference the future, business can argue that it is a work in progress and that
it is the long-term that matters, though their obsession with quarterly earnings
belies that priority. Elkington’s (2007) notion of the triple bottom-line, of
course, has been at the center of this sustainability thrust in business.
Businesses have embraced sustainability terminology in the past decade
more than any other of the concepts in this realm. That business people see
little distinction between CSR and sustainability is illustrated somewhat by
their quickly renaming their CSR reports—sustainability reports—with vir-
tually no change to the content being expressed. Over time, however, busi-
nesses have been picking up on the true meaning of sustainability and likely
will be focusing more vigorously on their current and long-term impacts on
society and stakeholders.
Two other major topics that have arisen in the past several years that seem
quite important include the rise of purpose-driven business terminology and
the recent landmark announcement by the Business Roundtable regarding a
new view of their social contract. Regarding purpose-driven businesses or the
new emphasis on companies identifying their “purpose,” this strikes me as an
attempt to employ new language to refresh, or repackage, their traditional
CSR concerns. Like so many other alternative views of CSR, purpose-driven
businesses seek to aspire to a “higher purpose” than profits only (Conscious
Capitalism, 2020). Virtually all of the companies that publicly adhere to a
higher purpose or to conscious capitalism are the same companies that adhere
to CSR, sustainability and the other CSR-type concepts. Whether significant
progress is being made or not, only time and better measures will tell. Some
of the leading companies appear to be making a difference; it remains to be
seen if the mainstream CSR-adopter companies are doing more than chang-
ing nomenclature. With the recent COVID-19 pandemic, however, the stage
has been set for businesses to upgrade their CSR, purpose, or sustainability
initiatives and commitments.
In August, 2019, the Business Roundtable, the prestigious organization
composed of CEOs of major corporations, announced an updated statement
that posited a shift from shareholder primacy to a commitment to all
Carroll 11

stakeholders (Business Roundtable, 2019). This statement was widely and

enthusiastically received, but enough time has yet to pass to determine
whether the organization and its members will actually “walk the talk.” There
is cautious optimism on my part that they really mean it this time and only
time will tell as to whether this uplifting strategy shift will become a reality
or represents further “greenwashing.” If one is looking for an optimistic take
on the future, this formal posturing of the Business Roundtable sounds like a
promising beginning. To a significant extent, the stakeholder view has been
bolstered during the COVID-19 pandemic as companies have been striving
hard to be visible manifestations of social concern. Perhaps some of these
companies are taking action for defensive reasons. It is difficult to know what
companies’ authentic motives are with this new statement.
Owing to space limitations, I have had to focus on just a limited number
of the major CSR-related developments of the past 20 years. But many other
topics have captured our attention during this time period and should not be
forgotten. In their review of CSR, Aguinis and Glavis (2012) noted that inter-
est in CSR was accelerating rapidly in part because, as organizations became
increasingly involved in CSR, scholars have had more opportunities to
engage in CSR research—at multi-levels, over different points in time, and
with more intricate and novel methodologies. Most of the more important
topics and research streams that have developed during the past 20 years are
likely to continue and they include pCSR, the CSP/CFP relationship and the
business case for CSR, strategic CSR, upstream/downstream CSR, CSR in
emerging economies, CSR in small and medium enterprises, corporate social
activism, human rights, and corporate social irresponsibility (CSiR) (Carroll
& Brown, 2018).

Thoughts About the Future and a New Normal for

CSR
As I am reflecting on the future of CSR, the world is in the grasp of the
COVID-19 virus pandemic and many businesses, large and small, are experi-
encing threats to their very survival. The pandemic’s effects have been deep
and wide and businesses will have an enormous rebuilding mission when it is
over. These companies are being challenged, once again, with their very exis-
tence at stake, as to whether they can satisfy society’s need for goods, services
and jobs, foundational roles they are expected to play in the social contract
between business-and-society, along with profits adequate to continue. As
supply chains have been stressed and challenged, the pandemic has reminded
us of the critical economic role that businesses play in the social responsibili-
ties of business in world societies. Also, at this time, societies are experiencing
12 Business & Society 00(0)

widespread unemployment, nationwide protests over many topics, especially

racial justice, unprecedented social activism, and a roller-coaster stock market
(“Six Months That Shook the World,” 2020, June 27–28).
I have been asked to provide some reflections on the future and I guard-
edly do so.
Let’s begin with the global COVID-19 pandemic that has engulfed and
strangled the world. The economic, social, technological, and political shock-
waves have blasted the world like a giant uncontrolled tsunami, and it seems
obvious but necessary to assert that a new normal will emerge and that every-
one’s priorities may be measurably altered concerning the future. Vaccines
are in process of being administered, but there have been numerous com-
plaints of things moving too slowly. Many universities and schools adopted
online education platforms well into 2021. Already articles have begun
appearing offering advice to companies as to how their CSR initiatives should
be designed to accommodate COVID-19, and space does not permit summa-
rizing them here. Academics have quickly seized the moment, and now we
are seeing virtual conferences, papers, articles, special issues, and, soon,
books discussing the implications of the pandemic for society, organizational
life, universities, teaching, and every imaginable topic.
Human rights issues of racial equity and justice have moved to the fore-
front of the business-and-society relationship and became even more focused
in 2020. Social activism has increased and widespread protests have occurred
all over the world. The pandemic and protests over human rights have hit the
world, businesses, communities, and individuals so hard that virtually no
region nor relationship has been spared, so anything we say about the future
must be taken in the light of uncertainty now and in the future.
These issues have highlighted serious complexities impacting the busi-
ness-and-society relationship, and many people, including academics and
business people, perceive opportunities to re-imagine or reset our visions of
the future based upon developing and changing conditions and priorities as
we become aware of them. Consequently, I cautiously approach the topic of
the future when we talk about CSR, and it must be kept in mind that the
social, economic, and political turbulence of 2020–2021 must be seen as an
overlay to everything said here about the future. Having provided these cau-
tions, let me touch upon some other important themes.

Age of Responsibility
We are most certainly in the “age of responsibility” as Wayne Visser (2011) so
elegantly and persuasively put it. From my perspective, Visser’s ages and
stages of CSR have aptly captured the evolution and transformation of CSR.
Carroll 13

Visser argued that we have moved through five overlapping ages and stages,
and these give us insights into how CSR has matured in theory and practice.
He maintains that we have moved through the ages of greed, philanthropy,
marketing, management, and now responsibility. I like his idea that we are
now in CSR 2.0, or systemic CSR. CSR 1.0, in his view, has been preoccupied
with philanthropy, community relations, image building, and CSR depart-
ments, (Visser, 2011, p. 144). It has not gone away because its characteristics
and roots form the foundation for the macro-shifts into CSR 2.0. Some of the
distinctions Visser makes between CSR 1.0 and CSR 2.0 reflect what I per-
ceive happening as well. A few of these include the following: from image-
driven to performance-driven; from specialized to integrated; from
standardized to diversified; from Western to Global (Visser, 2011, p. 148). He
further asserts that the DNA code of CSR 2.0 includes value creation, strong
governance, societal/stakeholder contributions, and environmental integrity,
with sustainable ecosystems (p. 150). From my perspective, this is an appro-
priate list, and we now have the overlay of the pandemic and other social tur-
bulence that may alter the responsibility applications and implications, and
possibly speed up developments.
Although their details get outside the scope of this article, it should be
noted that already researchers are proposing a future evolution noted as
CSR.3.0 and CSR 4.0. CSR 3.0, according to Dumont (2012) involves com-
munities across geographical, age, and socio-economic boundaries, reducing
lag time, sustaining stakeholders’ interest, and taking ownership. In a pro-
posed CSR 4.0 framework, Munro (2020) argues for changing the way orga-
nizations and companies operate and do business within an evolving CSR
framework and shared and integrated setting. The key principles and themes
for CSR 4.0 would include “purpose” as an essential priority; innovation,
inclusion, and collaboration with all partners; identification, engagement,
and co-creation with all stakeholders; shared and integrated value at a deeper
level; deep transformation and networking in a new ecosystem; measurable
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with ongoing assessment and
renewal; a systems orientation at the C-suite and employee level; and circular
social missions with environmental loops (Munro, 2020, pp. 217–219).

Employees and Consumers

While navigating through COVID-19, wherein the issues and timing are
difficult to pin down, companies will need to ensure that their two primary
stakeholder groups, employees and consumers, are attended to in a sustain-
able manner. Economic pressures and requirements, however, may moder-
ate what companies are able and willing to do. For example, it is expected
14 Business & Society 00(0)

that companies will emerge from the pandemic with more contract workers
and fewer permanent positions as companies will strive to maintain their
flexibility.
With respect to employees, jobs, work, workplace locations and culture,
and health care are topics that will be high on corporations’ CSR agenda in
the coming years. As countries have experienced job and work crises in the
pandemic, these topics will intensify in many CSR-related programs.
Technology and social media have opened up a new worldview of work that
will also characterize business-and-society relationships. The digital enter-
prise is quickly arising. With all this has arrived an urgent concern for cyber-
security, artificial intelligence (AI), and governance. With respect to consumer
markets, there should be a renewed sense of urgency on health care, wellness,
and product safety. Related to this is the topic of where critical components
in the health care industry will be manufactured. Global supply chains have
been challenged and companies in the future must pay more attention to the
sensitivity of products that might be at risk should another pandemic arise.
Food, water, medicines, health care products, and physical and mental well-
being will become urgent CSR topics.

Social Contract
Doubtless, the particulars of the social contract between business and society
will be shuffled and realigned to account for recent turbulence. CSR will
become a more urgent challenge for the entertainment and hospitality indus-
tries whether it involves travel, vacations, cruises, tours, what and when we
watch TV, and gaming, as well. Educational systems around the world will
have to become more agile to adapt to the changing expectations of the public
and companies will have to alter their CSR plans accordingly. Educational
institutions will more heavily rely on the use of technology. Businesses will
rely more on videoconferencing than travel. Sports will also be affected dra-
matically. Large crowded stadiums for sports and concerts will be a sore
point for many and companies and institutions will have to adapt to these
changing circumstances. These industries and sectors, along with many oth-
ers, will be significantly affected. Social media strategies and crisis manage-
ment will become imperative for CSR-committed companies to communicate
and act swiftly on rapidly changing circumstances.

Strategic CSR Postures

Companies’ commitment to and engagement with CSR must become more
strategic and more cohesive in the future. Strategies such as CSR “lite” or
CSR “compliant” (Strandberg, 2002) will become approaches of the past.
Carroll 15

Successful company strategies will abandon resistance, reactive, and accom-

modative postures and trend toward proactive leadership. A strong CSR pos-
ture will become a mandate for those companies desiring to survive. Excellent
examples of strong, strategic postures, especially for dealing with the pan-
demic, have been provided by Romeo et al. (2020). They claim that compa-
nies showing the most agility and resilience in their response to the global
pandemic are pursuing four main strategies: prioritizing people; making
megatrends matter (digitalization, health, and wellness); building resilience
to accelerated change; and, championing stakeholder capitalism. A simple
perspective on stakeholder capitalism is that companies have been moving in
that direction ever since they began taking CSR seriously. Factoring stake-
holders into decisions is at the heart-and-soul of CSR. If countries and com-
panies continue their move toward stakeholder capitalism, strategic CSR
postures will undoubtedly follow. More recently, taking the lead from the
Business Roundtable’s (2019) statement that the purpose of a corporation is
to serve all stakeholders rather than just owners or shareholders (Business
Roundtable, 2019), we likely will see noticeable movement in this direction
as strategic postures are modified to become broader and more stakeholder
inclusive. But, the move toward stakeholder capitalism continues to meet
resistance. Some think it is just for show (Bebchuk & Tallarita, 2020), and
others argue that we need to quit modifying capitalism (Kessler, 2017). Jamie
Dimon (2020), chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase and chair of the
Business Roundtable believes we need to save capitalism by business and
government collaborating better to create opportunities for all.

Further CSR-Related Frameworks

There will continue to arise competing and complimentary frameworks and
theories contending to displace CSR with more faddish or fashionable nomen-
clatures. To date, the prominent alternative schemes include corporate citizen-
ship, stakeholder management, sustainability, creating shared value, conscious
capitalism, responsible management, and purpose-driven business (Carroll,
2016). Although each of these have varied nuances, they have more in common
than not. When Mark Schwartz and I examined alternative CSR-related frame-
works, as we were seeking a common core in the business-and-society field,
we concluded that each of the candidates had at least three core ideas: value,
balance, and accountability (Schwartz & Carroll, 2008). To these could be
added other dimensions, and these would likely reflect what Dahlsrud (2008)
discovered when he studied what numerous different definitions of CSR had in
common—a stakeholder dimension, a social dimension, an economic dimen-
sion, a voluntariness dimension, and an environmental dimension (Dahlsrud,
2008, p. 5). Sustainability has become ever more centerstage since then.
16 Business & Society 00(0)

Institutionalization of CSR Reporting

In a renewed atmosphere of transparency, CSR reporting, now often called
Sustainability Reporting, will expand and become more sophisticated due to
stakeholder demands and more forward-thinking CSR leadership. According
to recent research, CSR reporting will follow a three-stage model driven by
isomorphism (Shabana et al., 2017). In this pattern, companies will leave
stage one where coercion reigns via pressure (defensive reporting) and will,
nominally, move to stage 2 characterized by proactive reporting which is
normatively sanctioned. In the third stage of reporting, institutionalization or
imitative diffusion, managers faced with uncertainty will tend to pattern their
organizations after others and reporting practices will become widely dif-
fused thorough a range of industries and firms (pp. 1109–1116). This three-
stage model of institutionalization will not apply solely to CSR reporting but
could be applicable to other social innovations as well.
Other important topics for research in the future should include social
entrepreneurship and innovation, especially B-Corps, social intrapreneur-
ship, pCSR, the business case for CSR, upstream/downstream CSR, corpo-
rate social activism, CSiR (Carroll & Brown, 2018), and supply chain
transformation. Another important topic that never seems to go away because
it has worldwide ramifications is that of human rights. This is a topic that
holds considerable promise for CSR researchers in the future. As Florian
Wettstein has argued, there needs to be a better integration of human rights
into CSR thinking and practice. The field needs to move beyond just “respect-
ing” human rights and get into proactive company involvement in protecting
and realizing human rights (Wettstein, 2012).
Over the past years, companies and citizens have had to re-imagine their
lives via digital adoption of new technologies. In the future, this will lead to
transformations in our personal-work relationships, in the way we understand
work and organizations, and how we conduct the routine transactions of life.
One of the biggest challenges facing companies will be to refocus their digi-
tal efforts to reflect changing consumer and employee expectations and this
trend will doubtless also alter CSR policies, patterns, and practices.
CSR research in the future will need to focus less on CSR1 and CSR2 and
more on social performance and social impacts than definitions, motives,
and processes. This position has recently been substantiated by Barnett
et al. (2020) as they have argued that CSR initiatives in the future must go
“beyond good intentions” and be designed for greater social impacts. I
would even go so far as to say that CSP should give way to CSIs, and their
measurement, in the future. The updated CSR core trajectory might now
Carroll 17

look like this: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR1) → Corporate Social

Responsiveness (CSR2) → Corporate Social Performance (CSP) →
Corporate Social Impacts (CSI).

Conclusions
The accelerating expanse of thought, research, and practice on CSR has
been mind-boggling, and it is easy to conclude that CSR has had a robust
past and will have an upbeat and optimistic future. CSR has continued to
expand in support, adaptation, and applications by business and academics
alike. Businesses acceptance of CSR, recently framed as purpose or sus-
tainability, has been a major driver in the growth of CSR. Social activism
by corporate leaders has increased. Global growth, and especially develop-
ments in developing economies, have been another driving force. Another
powerful factor is academic proliferation of the concept in its various
nomenclature forms. The books, journals, articles, dissertations, confer-
ences, blogs, and social media postings have exploded over the past 20
years and show no signs of moderating. It is little wonder that this journal,
Business & Society, one of the oldest and earliest to focus on this research,
is celebrating 60 years and is increasingly popular as the preferred research
outlet for these vital and related topics.
In this article, I have sought to share just some of my reflections of the
past, present, and future. In such a dynamic field as business-and-society and
CSR, it is impossible to get a fix on current status as theory, research, and
practice are quickening with each passing year. Hopefully, the observations
presented herein will stimulate further thinking on this important concept.
And, it will be interesting to all of us to see where the dust settles when the
pandemic ends and organizations have had a chance to re-imagine or reset
their missions, goals, and processes aimed at improving CSR and business-
and-society relationships. There is a strong chance that many of the transfor-
mations and innovations brought about by the pandemic will become
permanent fixtures in organizations and managements.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.
18 Business & Society 00(0)

References
Ackerman, R., & Bauer, R. (1976). Corporate social responsiveness: The modern
dilemma. Reston Publishing.
Aguinis, H., & Glavis, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate
social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management,
38(4), 932–968.
Barnett, M. L., Henriques, I., & Husted, B. W. (2020). Beyond good intentions:
Designing CSR initiatives for greater social impact. Journal of Management, 46,
937–974.
Bebchuk, L., & Tallarita, R. (2020, August 7). Stakeholder capitalism seems mostly
for show. The Wall Street Journal, A15.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. Harper.
Business Roundtable. (2019, August 19). Business Roundtable redefines the purpose
of a corporation to promote “an economy that serves all Americans.” https://
www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-
corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans
Business & Society. (2020). Most read articles in this journal in the last six months.
https://journals.sagepub.com/home/bas
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social per-
formance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.
Carroll, A. B. (1980). Social responsibility as an objective of business: Evolving
toward a model of corporate social performance. In W. E. Glueck (Ed.), Business
policy and strategic management (3rd ed., pp. 62–70). McGraw-Hill.
Carroll, A. B. (1989). Business & Society: Ethics & stakeholder management. South-
Western Publishing.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the
moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39–48.
Carroll, A. B. (1994). Social issues in management research: Experts’ views, analysis
and commentary. Business & Society, 33, 5–29.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional con-
struct. Business & Society, 38, 268–295.
Carroll, A. B. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: Taking another look. International
Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1(3), 1–8.
Carroll, A. B., & Brown, J. A. (2018). Corporate social responsibility: A review
of current concepts, research and issues. In J. Weber & D. Wasieleski (Eds.),
Corporate social responsibility (pp. 39–69). Emerald.
Carroll, A. B., Brown, J. A., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2018). Business & Society: Ethics,
sustainability, and stakeholder management (10th ed., pp. 10–17). Cengage
Learning.
Carroll, A. B., & Hoy, F. (1984). Integrating corporate social policy into strategic
management. Journal of Business Strategy, 4(3), 48–57.
Carroll, A. B., Lipartito, K. J., Post, J. E., Werhane, P. H., & Goodpaster, K. E. (2012).
Corporate responsibility: The American experience. Cambridge University Press.
Carroll 19

Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social
responsibility: A review of concepts, research, and practice. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 85–105.
Chrisman, J. J., & Carroll, A. B. (1984). SMR forum: Corporate responsibility-rec-
onciling economic and social goals. Sloan Management Review, 25(2), 59–65.
Ciulla, J. B. (2014). Ethics, the heart of leadership (3rd ed.). Praeger Publishers.
Committee for Economic Development. (1971). Social responsibilities of business
corporations.
Conscious Capitalism. (2020). Higher purpose. https://www.consciouscapitalism.
org/higher-purpose
Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of cre-
ating shared value. California Management Review, 56(2), 130–153.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of
37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
15, 1–13.
Dimon, J. (2020, February 3). How to save capitalism. Time, 62.
Dumont, J. M. (2012, March 5). Don’t mess with CSR 3.0. Singapore Business
Review. https://sbr.com.sg/search/google?query=Don%27t+mess+with+CSR+3.
0&op=%EF%80%82&form_build_id=form-qFlb6pE-d_dU14KmJ8qxJCFIXL6
0yhygSuC0ytJcAXU&form_id=google_cse_searchbox_form (Accessed 7 April
2021).
Elkington, J. (2007). Partnerships from Cannibals with forks: The triple-bottom line
of 21st century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51.
Frederick, W. C. (2006). Corporation be good: The story of corporate social respon-
sibility. Dog Ear Publishing.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corpo-
rate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research.
Business & Society, 36, 5–31.
Hart, T. (2018, November 16). Most read: The evolution of CSR. Business & Society
Blog. https://businessandsociety.org/most-read-the-evolution-of-csr/
Jamali, D., Lund-Thomsen, P., & Jeppesen, S. (2017). SMEs and CSR in developing
countries. Business & Society, 56, 11–22.
Kessler, A. (2017, November 20). Quit modifying capitalism. The Wall Street
Journal, A15.
Kim, K., Kim, M., & Qian, C. (2018). Effects of corporate social responsibility on
corporate social performance: A competitive-action perspective. Journal of
Management, 44, 1097–1118.
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a
theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34, 1152–1189.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Implicit and explicit CSR: A conceptual framework
for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of
Management Review, 33, 404–424.
20 Business & Society 00(0)

Meznar, M. B., Chrisman, J. J., & Carroll, A. B. (1991). Social responsibility and
strategic management: Toward an enterprise strategy classification. Business and
Professional Ethics Journal, 10, 47–66.
Munro, V. (2020). CSR for purpose, shared value and deep transformation. Emerald.
Orlitzky, M. (2008). Corporate social performance and financial performance: A
research synthesis. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 113–134).
Oxford University Press.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial
performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403–441.
Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2011). Strategic corporate social
Responsibility and environmental sustainability. Business & Society, 50, 6–27.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between com-
petitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review,
84(12), 78–92.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business
Review, January-February, 62–77.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2014). A response to A. Crane, et al’s article by
Michael Porter and Mark Cramer, (2014). California Management Review,
56(2), 149–151.
Rehbein, K., den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. A. (2018). Aligning adverse activi-
ties? Corporate social responsibility and political activity. In J. Weber & D. M.
Wasieleski (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility (pp. 295–324). Emerald.
Romeo, J., Moukanas, H., & Rung, G. (2020, July 30). The age of accelerating strat-
egy breakthroughs. MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/
article/the-age-of-accelerating-strategy-breakthroughs/
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a global-
ized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the
firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 899–931.
Scherer, A. G., Rasche, A., Palazzo, G., & Spicer, A. (2016). Managing for politi-
cal corporate social responsibility: New challenges and directions for PCSR 2.0.
Journal of Management Studies, 53, 273–298.
Schwartz, M., & Carroll, A. B. (2008). Integrating and unifying competing and
complementary frameworks: The search for a common core in the business-and-
society field. Business & Society, 47, 148–186.
Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytic frame-
work. California Management Review, 17, 58–64.
Shabana, K. M., Buchholtz, A. K., & Carroll, A. B. (2017). The institutionalization
of corporate social responsibility reporting. Business & Society, 56, 1107–1135.
Six months that shook the world. (2020, June 27–28). The Wall Street Journal, B1–
B2.
Strandberg, C. (2002). The future of CSR. Strandberg Consulting.
Taylor, A. (2017, September 19). We shouldn’t always need a “business case” to do
the right thing. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/09/we-shouldnt-
always-need-a-business-case-to-do-the-right-thing
Carroll 21

Thompson, A. B. (2018). Do good: Embracing brand citizenship to fuel both purpose

and profit. American Management Association.
Visser, W. V. (2011). The age of responsibility. John Wiley.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance—Financial
performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303–319.
Walton, C. C. (1967). Corporate social responsibilities. Wadsworth.
Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social perfor-
mance model. Academy of Management Review, 10, 758–769.
Wettstein, F. (2012). CSR and the debate on business and human rights: Bridging the
great divide. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22, 739–770.
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management
Review, 16, 691–718.

Author Biography
Archie B. Carroll (PhD, Florida State University) is the Robert W. Scherer chair/
professor Emeritus at the Terry College of Business, University of Georgia. He has
received numerous awards that included the first Lifetime Achievement Award in
Corporate Social Responsibility by the Institute of Management, Humboldt University,
Berlin, Germany, and the Best Book Award of the Academy of Management’s Social
Issues in Management Division in 2014. He is a fellow of the Academy of Management,
the International Association for Business and Society, and the Southern Management
Association. He is former president of the Society for Business Ethics (1998–1999)
and former chair (1976–1977) of the Social Issues in Management Division of the
Academy of Management. He has published more than 100 articles in leading man-
agement journals and more than 20 books including multiple editions of several.