A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead
Tóm tắt
This study aims to trace the conceptual evolutionary path of theories on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to reflect on the implications of the development. The retrospection has revealed that the trend has been a progressive rationalization of the concept with a particular focus on tighter coupling with organizations’ financial goals. Rationalization involves two broad shifts in the conceptualization of CSR. First, in terms of the level of analysis, researchers have moved from the discussion of the macro‐social effects of CSR to organizational‐level analysis of CSR's effect on profit. Next, in terms of theoretical orientation, researchers have moved from explicitly normative and ethics‐oriented arguments to implicitly normative and performance‐oriented managerial studies. Based on the retrospection, the limitations of the current state of CSR research that places excessive emphasis on the business case for CSR are outlined, and it is suggested that future research needs to refocus on basic research in order to develop conceptual tools and theoretical mechanisms that
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Ackerman R.W.(1973).How companies respond to social demands.Harvard Business Review 88–98.
Baron D.P., 2003, Stanford Business Magazine
Baumol W.J., 1970, A New Rationale for Corporate Social Policy
Boli J.andHartsuiker D.(2001).World culture and transnational corporations: sketch of a project.Paper presented at the International Conference on Effects of and Responses to Globalization. Istanbul.
Bowen H., 1953, Social Responsibilities of the Businessman
Brancato C.K., 1995, New Corporate Performance Measures
DiMaggio P.J., 1988, Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment
DiMaggio P.J., 1991, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis
Drucker P.F., 1993, Post‐capitalist Society
Fiorina C., 2001, Technology, Business and Our Way of Life: What's Next
Friedman M., 1962, Capitalism and Freedom
Friedman M., 1972, Milton Friedman responds, Business and Society Review, 1, 5
Friedman M., 1972, Milton Friedman responds: a Business and Society Review interview, Business and Society, 1, 1
Galaskiewicz J., 1985, Social Organization of an Urban Grants Economy: a Study of Business Philanthropy and Nonprofit Organizations
Guggenheim D., 2006, An Inconvenient Truth
Gunther M., 2004, Money and morals at GE, Fortune, 150, 176
Guthrie D., 2004, Corporate Investment, Social Innovation, and Community Change: The Local Political Economy of Low‐Income Housing Development
Hart S., 1997, Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable world, Harvard Business Review, 75, 66
Hoffman A.J., 2001, From Heresy to Dogma: an Institutional History of Corporate Environmentalism
Kanter R.M., 1999, From spare change to real change: the social sector as beta site for business innovation, Harvard Business Review, 77, 122
Kaplan R.S., 1992, The Balanced Scorecard: measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review, 70, 71
Klepper A., 1986, Screening Requests for Corporate Contributions
Kotler P., 2005, Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause
Laszlo C., 2003, The Sustainable Company: How to Create Lasting Value through Social and Environmental Performance
Levitt T., 1958, The dangers of social responsibility, Harvard Business Review, 36, 41
Lewis D.L., 1976, The Public Image of Henry Ford: an American Folk Hero and His Company
Lydenberg S.D., 2005, Corporations and the Public Interest: Guiding the Invisible Hand
Meredith R.(1999).The newest Ford generation takes the company spotlight.New York Times14 May C6.
Merton R.K., 1968, Social Theory and Social Structure
Miles R.A., 1987, Managing the Corporate Social Environment
Mills C.W., 1956, The Power Elite
Muirhead S.A., 2002, Citizenship in the New Century: Accountability, Transparency, and Global Stakeholder Engagement
Murray E.A., 1976, The social response process in commercial banks: an empirical investigation, Academy of Management Review, 1, 5, 10.5465/amr.1976.4400575
Nee V., 2005, The Handbook for Economic Sociology
Paine L.S., 2003, Value Shift: Why Companies Must Merge Social and Financial Imperatives to Achieve Superior Performance
Porter M.E., 2002, The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy, Harvard Business Review, 80, 56
Porter M.E., 2006, Strategy and society, Harvard Business Review, 84, 78
Post J.E., 1978, Corporate Behavior and Social Change
Prasso S., 2007, Saving the world one cup of yogurt at a time, Fortune, 155, 96
Preston L.E., 1975, Corporation and society: the search for a paradigm, Journal of Economic Literature, 13, 434
Read R.(1999).Houston‐based electric firm pursues elephant for Portland Ore. Zoo.The Oregonian 7 October.
Rochlin S., 2004, The State of Corporate Citizenship in the U.S.: A View from Inside, 2003–2004
Ruckelshaus W.D., 1993, William D. Ruckelshaus: Oral History Interview
Scott W.R., 2001, Institutions and Organizations
Sebastian P.(1998).Giving: a special background report on trends in industry and finance.Wall Street Journal 24 December A1.
Smith A., 1976, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
Supreme Court of Michigan, 1919, Dodge vs. Ford Motor Co, Northwestern Reporter, 170, 668
Swedberg R., 2005, The Economic Sociology of Capitalism
The Economist(2005).The good company: a survey of corporate social responsibility. 22 January.
Vogel D., 2005, The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility
Wallich H.C., 1970, A New Rationale for Corporate Social Policy