This study also found that the relative values or weights of each of the components as implicitly depicted by Carroll, approximated the relative degree of importance the 241 executives surveyed placed on the four components-economic = 3.5 legal = 2.54 ethical = 2.22 and discretionary/philanthropic = 1.30. That there are four empirically interrelated, but conceptually independent components of corporate social responsibility. Further, the factor analysis conducted concluded The study found that experts were capable of distinguishing among the four components. In the first research study using the four categories it was found that the construct’s content validity and the instrument assessing it were valid. Of four responsibilities creates a foundation or infrastructure that helps to delineate in some detail and to frame or characterize the nature of businesses’ responsibilities to the society of which it is a part.
Review The four-part definitional framework for CSRĬarroll’s four part definition of CSR was originally stated as follows: Corporate social responsibility encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (philanthropic) expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time. The ensuing discussion explains briefly each of the four categories that compriseĬarroll’s four-part definitional framework upon which the pyramidal model is constructed. The purpose of the current commentary is to summarize the Pyramid of CSR, elaborate on it, and to discuss some aspects of the model that were not clarified when it was initially published in 1991. Searches for “Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR,” well over 100 variations and reproductions of the pyramidal model are presented there ( Google Images) and over 5200 citations of the original article are indicated there Wayne Visser has said that “Carroll’s CSR Pyramid is probably the most well-known model of CSR…” (Visser 2006). Based on his four-part framework or definition of corporate social responsibility, Carroll created a graphic depiction of CSR in the form of a pyramid.ĬSR expert Dr. In this article, however, the goal is to revisit one of the more popular constructs of CSR that has been used in the literature and practice for several decades. In one study published in 2006, Dahlsrud identified and analyzed 37 different definitions of CSR and his study did not capture all of them (Dahlsrud 2006 ). Movement, consumer movement, environmental movement and women’s movements.ĭozens of definitions of corporate social responsibility have arisen since then. Its’ evolving refinements and applications came later, especially after the important social movements of the 1960s, particularly the civil rights From a scholarly perspective, most of the early definitions of CSR and initial conceptual work about what it means in theory and in practice was begun in the 1960s by such writers as Keith Davis, Joseph McGuire, Adolph Berle, William Frederick, and Clarence Walton Much of the early emphasis on developing the CSR concept began in scholarly or academic circles. Today there are countless business women and many of them are actively involved in Things have changed significantly since then. xi) As the title of Bowen’s book suggests, this was a period during which business women did not exist, or were minimal in number, and thus they were not acknowledged in formal writings. The key question that Bowen asked that continues to be asked today was “what responsibilities to society may businessmen reasonably be expected to assume?” (Bowen 1953, p. Bowen’s work proceeded from the belief that the several hundred largest businesses in the United States were vital centres of power and decision makingĪnd that the actions of these firms touched the lives of citizens in many ways. Bowen of his landmark book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman in 1953. The modern era of CSR, or social responsibility as it was often called, is most appropriately marked by the publication by Howard R.
0 kommentar(er)
