Models in CSR

Business and Society Review 113:1 1–41
AVIVA GEVABUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEWOriginal Articles XXX0045-3609Malden, USA© 2008 Center for Business Ethics at Bentley CollegelAusiness and Society Reviewckwell PubliR hing Inc Three Models
of Corporate
Social Responsibility:
Interrelationships between
Theory, Research, and
Practice
AVIVA GEVA
D ecades of debate on corporate social responsibility (CSR) have resulted

in a substantial body of literature offering a number of philosophies that
despite real and relevant differences among their theoretical assumptions
express consensus about the fundamental idea that business corporations have an
obligation to work for social betterment. All accounts of CSR recognize that
business firms have many different kinds of responsibility, and seek to define both
the scope of corporate responsibility in society and the criteria for measuring
business performance in the social arena.1 Waddock2 used the metaphor of a
branching tree to describe how the field has evolved into its current understanding
of CSR, an understanding that attempts to link the relatively parallel universes of
theory and practice, and to illustrate how various conceptual branches are related
to each other. Fruitful as the development of a comprehensive organizing
framework for the field has been, we are still left with the same quagmire of
definitional problems that beclouded the old debate about the exact nature of CSR.
The old claim that CSR “means something, but not always the same thing to
everybody”3 is no less true today. This article seeks to add clarity
Aviva Geva is with the Open University of Israel, Department of Management and Economics, Israel.
© 2008 Center for Business Ethics at Bentley College. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK.
2 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
to CSR theory and research by focusing on the core responsibilities that form the
trunk of the branching CSR tree. A comparative analysis of three recognized CSR
models—represented graphically as a pyramid,4 intersecting circles,5 and
concentric circles6—might help locate and clarify ambiguities through revealing
systematic differences in their underlying assumptions, conceptual structure,
methodological tools, and managerial implications.
In the following section I briefly review the evolution of the CSR concept and
its extensions. I next present the three CSR models beginning with a critical
analysis of Carroll’s CSR pyramid, a dominant model that has enjoyed wide
popularity among business and society scholars; I will then examine the
intersecting circles (IC) model, a CSR configuration representing overlapping
responsibility areas; I will conclude with the concentric circle (CON) model,
originally developed by the Committee for Economic Development (CED), and
reformulated here so as to adjust to recent developments in CSR thought. In each
section of the comparative analysis, I will first portray the general idea of the
model, and then discuss its theoretical assumptions and its implications for
research and practice. The last section discusses some of the implications of this
analysis for future CSR research and teaching.
FROM CSR BRANCHES TO CSR TRUNK
Early definitions of CSR, or CSR1 in Frederick’s7 well-accepted classification,

carried heavy philosophic overtones. The abstract and often highly elusive
principles governing CSR1 yielded, toward the late 1970s, to the action-oriented
managerial concept of corporate social responsiveness (CSR2) and corporate
social performance (CSP). The new theoretical approaches to CSR went beyond
the previous somewhat narrower focus and, instead, aimed to develop more
comprehensive frameworks that incorporate operational and behavioral aspects of
corporate endeavor, relate the corporation to its external environment, and ground
CSR/CSP theory in one or more social sciences–humanities disciplines.8
Carroll’s foundational article on social performance 9 provided a three-
dimensional model defined by categories of CSR (economic, legal, ethical, and
discretionary) on the first dimension, managerial philosophies or modes of social
AVIVA GEVA 3
responsiveness (reaction, defense, accommodation, and proaction) on the second
dimension, and the range of social issues that business must address (e.g.,
consumerism, environment, product safety) on the third dimension. Wartick and
Cochran presented their evolution of the CSP model, which extended Carroll’s
model recasting his three dimensions of responsibility, responsiveness, and social
issues into a framework of principles (using Carroll’s four-part definition of CSR),
processes (social responsiveness—the general means to the ends of satisfying
corporate social obligations), and policies (social issues management). 10 They
emphasized that CSP can integrate the three dominant orientations in the field of
business and society: the philosophical orientation (relates primarily to the
principles of social responsibility), the institutional orientation (relates primarily
to the process of social responsiveness), and the organizational orientation (relates
primarily to the policies of social issues management).
In what became an important framework that continues to shape the
conceptualization of the field, Wood, building on Wartick and Cochran’s CSP
model, integrated much of the previous theoretical developments in an
acknowledged definition of CSP as the “configuration of the principles of social
responsibility, processes of social responsiveness, and policies, programs, and
observable outcomes as they relate to the firm’s societal relationships.”11 This
definition permits CSP to be seen as an assessment tool, a guiding framework that
provides an outline of what needs to be considered (policies, programs, processes,
and social outcomes) in evaluating CSR. It, however, does not clarify whether or
to what extent processes of responsiveness and observable social outcomes are
linked to principles of responsibility. In other words, the CSP model escapes the
central issue of defining the boundaries of CSR. Indeed, as Wood noted, one of
the major attractions of the CSP model has been its ability to sever the implicit
identity of responsibility, responsiveness, and social outcomes and to indicate, for
example, that a firm having social programs and policies can be seen as responsive
to social expectations, but not necessarily therefore as socially responsible.
In an effort to integrate normative and descriptive approaches to CSP, Swanson
reoriented Wood’s framework through shifting the focus of attention from the
CSP branches—processes of corporate social responsiveness, programs, policies,
and social impacts of corporate behavior—to the CSP trunk: the core
responsibilities that cannot be escaped because they are integral to action.12 Using
Frederick’s nature-based approach to foundational corporate values,13 it seems

that Swanson was looking for a more process-oriented, dynamic model of CSP
that could accommodate mutual influences and combined effects of different
clusters of values.
Consistent with Swanson’s reorientation of the CSP model, there has been
recently renewed interest in the core values or principles that provide the
behavioral and philosophical rationale for socially responsible corporate
practices. For example, Waddock suggests “generally agreed principles of
corporate citizenship,”14 Clarkson lists seven principles for stakeholders
management,15 Hemphill proposes sets of principles of excellence for managing
corporate relationships with primary stakeholders,16 Logsdon and Wood provide
a “relatively small set of basic universal principles”17 that govern the company’s
conduct, and Goodpaster presents the Caux Round Table Principles of global
business as “one of the best known sets of transcultural principles available
today.”18 Observing changes in social expectations from the business community,
scholars may revise and adapt existing formulations of CSR, but, as Carroll
noted,19 it seems unlikely that new concepts could develop apart and distinct from
the groundwork that has been established to date.
Rather than articulating a set of principles that purports to offer necessary and
sufficient conditions for CSR, this article focuses on the conceptual structure of
CSR and the relations between its elements as depicted in three different
schematic descriptions (Figure 1): pyramid, intersecting circles, and concentric
circles.
As Bacharach pointed out, “A theory is a statement of relations among concepts
within a set of boundary assumptions and constraints.”20 A comparative analysis
of the three conceptual models will show that the same terminology represents
different meanings and different approaches to CSR. More specifically, the
comparative analysis will demonstrate that the nature of CSR, its underlying
boundary assumptions, the methodological tools, and the performance
assessments are both the cause and the consequence of how the relationship
between its elements is understood. Analysis of the differences in the conceptual
structure across the three models (see Table 1) may assist in clarifying ambiguity
in CSR theory and research through explicating the implicit assumptions by which
each is bounded, unraveling inconsistent findings on the social impacts of
corporate behavior, and removing impurities in managerial decision making.
FIGURE 1 Three Basic Models of CSR: Relationships between Domains of

Responsibility.
AVIVA GEVA 5
i
For the sake of comparison, Figure 1b includes all four domains of responsibility. This
prototype model represents the general idea of intersecting circles, rather than trying to depict
every one of the resultant categories.
THE PYRAMID OF CSR
General Description
A leading model of CSR is Carroll’s four-part pyramid.21 The CSR pyramid was
framed to embrace the entire spectrum of society’s
TABLE 1 Comparison of Three CSR Models
CSR Pyramid Intersecting Circles Concentric Circles
General Description Hierarchy of separate Nonhierarchical set of intersecting Integration of responsibilities; all
responsibilities responsibilities sharing a central core
Theoretical Assumptions
Nature of CSR Normative restraints of Classification framework; no Incurred obligation to work for social
responsiveness normative guidance betterment
Scope of Responsibilities Narrow split Wide
Total CSR Conjunction Disjunction Integration
Order of importance Hierarchy; Economic No prima facie order Inclusion system; economic circle at
responsibility first the core
Role of Philanthropy “Icing on the cake” Subsumed under economic/ ethical Integral part of CSR
responsibilities
Research Implications
Operationalization Constant-sum method CSR portraits Representative range of measures
CSR–CFP relationship Positive Positive, Negative, or Neutral Nonlinear

Managerial Implications
Justification for CSR Ethics pays Strategic considerations Normative obligation
AVIVA GEVA 7
expectations of business responsibilities and define them in terms of categories.

According to the model (Figure 1a), four kinds of social responsibilities constitute
total CSR: economic (“make profit”), legal (“obey the law”), ethical (“be
ethical”), and philanthropic (“be a good corporate citizen”). According to Carroll,
the use of a pyramid to depict the conceptual model of CSR is intended “to portray
that the total CSR of business comprises distinct components that, taken together,
constitute the whole.”22 The model categorizes the different responsibilities
hierarchically in order of decreasing importance. The most fundamental is
economic responsibility, “all other business responsibilities are predicated upon
the economic responsibility of the firm, because without it the others become
moot considerations.”23 Businesses are expected to operate within the framework
of law, thus legal responsibility is depicted as the next layer of the pyramid.
Following is ethical responsibility defined in terms of “those activities or
practices that are expected or prohibited by society members even though they
are not codified into law.”24 Last in importance, at the top of the pyramid, is
philanthropic responsibility, which is discretionary in nature. In the main, the
pyramid purports to describe a necessary and sufficient set of obligations that
socially responsible businesses should simultaneously fulfill, taking into
consideration their decreasing importance.
The central assumptions underlying the CSR pyramid are presented below,
followed by a discussion of their theoretical implications (see summary in Table
1).
Nature of CSR Taking a managerial approach, the four-part pyramid defines

CSR in terms of social expectations that responsible corporations should strive to
meet. Prevailing social norms and expectations provide external criteria against
which corporate performance can be measured; thus, the notion of responsibility
in the pyramid model is reduced to normative restraints of responsiveness.25 In
other words, CSR in the pyramid formulation is basically accommodative.
Suggesting that businesses should treat CSR not as a goal to be maximized but as
a constraint, the pyramid does in effect promote satisficing behavior rather than
striving for excellence.
Scope of responsibilities Understanding CSR as an array of separate domains
naturally leads to narrow definitions of the different responsibilities. Thus, the
economic role of the corporation is reduced in the pyramid model to the narrow
emphasis on profit making of neoclassical economics.26 Likewise, legal
responsibility is restricted to the “letter” of the law, while the “spirit” of law is
reserved for the ethical domain.27 The ethical domain is further separated from
the legal domain using a negative definition: ethical responsibility relates to those
social expectations and norms not yet codified into law. In the same vein,
philanthropic responsibility designates those areas of voluntary social
involvement not specifically prohibited or demanded of companies because of
their economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities.
Total CSR The pyramid is a conjunction of separate domains of responsibility.

In contrast to the ordinary view, the so-called separation thesis,28 that businesses
can focus either on profits or social concerns but not on both, the CSR pyramid
“sought to argue that businesses can not only be profitable and ethical, but they
should fulfill these obligations simultaneously.”29 However, the clear-cut
separation of the domains raises the problem of integration. At most, the pyramid
model can postulate that while separate, the bundle of responsibilities—
formulated as a simple arithmetic sum30— must apply simultaneously; it says
nothing about how these responsibilities are interwoven.
Order of importance If the four responsibilities taken together constitute a

whole, what is the meaning of the decreasing order of importance? A number of
explanations have been offered to answer this question: (1) the pyramid suggests
a ranking of CSR priorities based on the level of essentiality—the most
fundamental is economic responsibility, of smallest importance is the
philanthropic category, which is a sort of “icing on the cake”; 31 (2) the pyramid
characterizes the social pressures imposed on the business sector in decreasing
order of their strength—whereas economic and legal responsibilities are required
of business and ethical practices are expected, philanthropic contributions, albeit
desired, are voluntary; (3) the hierarchy of importance “simply suggest[s] the
relative magnitude of each responsibility”;32 and lastly, (4) the four categories
“are ordered in the figure only to suggest what might be termed their fundamental
role in the evolution of importance. . . . [T]he history of business suggests an early
emphasis on the economic and then legal aspects and a later concern for the
ethical and discretionary aspects.”33
As it stands, the combination of simultaneity and hierarchy may explain the
wide popularity of the pyramid model among ethicists and management theorists
alike. Simultaneity reconciles the firm’s profit-making concern with social
concerns; the hierarchy of priorities provides the flexibility necessary to
management decision making. In the ideal case, a responsible firm will
AVIVA GEVA 9
simultaneously fulfill all component parts of the CSR pyramid. But this “win-
win” outcome is not always possible. In daily life, where different corporate
responsibilities often come into conflict, the good corporate citizen, though
striving to fulfill all its responsibilities, will actually apply the proposed order of
priorities to resolve the conflict.34
The role of philanthropy The role of philanthropy has been discussed in the
context of the CSR pyramid from two perspectives: inwards—as compared to
other components of CSR, and outwards— as compared to other notions of CSR.
Inwards, the question arises whether the philanthropic category can be correctly
considered a responsibility in itself. To the extent that responsibility is conceived
as a normative restraint or an obligation it clearly contradicts the discretionary
nature of philanthropy. In an attempt to reconcile this difficulty, Carroll has
argued that in fact, “philanthropy is highly desired and prized but actually less
important than the other three categories of social responsibility.”35
Looking outwards, philanthropy is often regarded as the defining component
of CSR. Milton Friedman’s statement that management is to make as much
money as possible within the limits of the law and ethical custom embraces three
components of the CSR pyramid—economic, legal, and ethical.36 A central tenet
of presentday thinking on CSR is that businesses have a responsibility that goes
beyond the demands of law and common morality. Philanthropy, which is usually
understood as exceeding this minimum, appears to serve as the distinguishing
point between the neoclassical economic position and the new widely accepted
notion of corporate citizenship, which highlights the importance of corporate
giving.37 However, given the discretionary nature of philanthropy, its role as the
distinguishing component of CSR creates a boundary problem that, as shown
below, will lead to two different resolutions.
The pyramid model of CSR has served as a platform for some of the major
research developments in the field. As Clarkson claimed, “the strength of its
influence can best be judged by its longevity and that of its progeny.” 38 A
considerable number of empirical studies published in recent years have focused
first on operationalizing the framework, and then on developing and testing a set
of hypotheses regarding the determinants and consequences of CSR.
Operationalization There has been extensive research on the issue of CSR in

general and in reference to the pyramid model in particular.39 Here, I shall focus
on the operationalization of the pyramid model. As Aupperle, Carroll and Hatfield

claimed, the attractive feature of the CSR pyramid was its definition of CSR
through four components.40 They viewed this comprehensive quality as
particularly conducive to the construction of a research instrument, which could
allow assessment of orientations toward social responsibility of corporate
executives as well as inquiry into whether or not four separate components of
CSR exist, and, if they do, whether they exist in the weighted proportions implied
by the pyramid.
The most widely used research tool in CSR pyramid studies is the constant-
sum instrument deployed by Aupperle.41 This sort of comparative rating scale
involves relative judgments of the importance of each component with direct
reference to the other components being evaluated. Raters are instructed to
allocate a given sum (e.g., 10 or 100 points) among statements in each of several
sets of four statements. Each statement in a set corresponds to one of the four
components of the CSR pyramid. The results of content validity studies appear to
support model and instrument as regards reliability, the number of CSR
components, their content, internal consistency, and relative weightings.42 Note,
however, that the more reliable the measure, the higher the similarity between the
different attempts to measure the same construct, and, accordingly, the narrower
the scope of this construct.
The partitioning of CSR in connection with the constant-sum method
introduces, perhaps as an unintended artifact, a trade-off assumption. Adopting
this method means assuming that societal concerns and concern for economic
performance are mutually subversive rather than mutually supportive. This
assumption has attracted widespread criticism in business and society literature, 43
and certainly cannot be justified in the framework of the pyramid that requires
simultaneous fulfillment of all four responsibilities. It is worth noting here that
trade-offs among responsibilities must not be confused with trade-offs among
outcomes. To be sure, many managerial decisions involve trade-offs among
outcomes, not responsibilities. One may assume full responsibility and still make
difficult decisions demanding high economic or social price.
While the constant-sum method does allow more insight into the relative
ranking of CSR components, it does not readily lend itself to assessing total CSR.
A different approach to evaluating total CSR is based on measuring CSP, the
pyramid providing the framework for data gathering on each of its four
components. Commonly, the measure of economic responsibility is profitability
as presented in annual reports; legal responsibility is assessed by the absence of
litigation and allegations of illegal corporate behavior or environmental or safety
problems; ethical responsibility is evaluated by the existence of corporate code of
AVIVA GEVA 11
ethics and other ethical programs and initiatives; and discretionary responsibility
is defined in terms of the extent of the corporation’s philanthropic activities.44 The
fundamental problem with this method, besides problems of accessibility to
corporate data, is one of validity; namely, of determining the types of behavior
that can serve as valid indicators of, or surrogates for the corresponding
responsibilities. For example, is the absence of allegations a valid indicator of
legal responsibility? Is the existence of a corporate code of ethics a valid surrogate
for ethical responsibility?
Several researchers have used Aupperle’s constant-sum instrument to examine
the impact of different factors, especially demographics and social context, on
people’s orientation toward CSR45 and to investigate whether and how society’s
changing expectations affect priority in CSR orientations across cultures and over
time.46 Given the globalization of business activities, more and more
organizations need to gain insight into the nature of CSR orientations in different
countries and as public expectations put increasing demands on the business
community. Research in this important direction is still in its infancy.
CSR–CFP relationship The question of CSR contributions can be approached

from a normative as well as from an instrumental point of view. The former holds
that no matter what the consequences of CSR, it must be adopted because it is the
morally right thing to do; the latter emphasizes the connection between CSR
principles and outcomes: CSR should be adopted because it may pay. Although
corporate financial performance (CFP) is only one, and not necessarily the
primary, expected consequence of adopting a CSR approach, the great bulk of
empirical research on CSR contributions has focused on the relationship between
the social and the financial performance of business corporations. After all, if it
could be demonstrated that socially responsible firms were also profitable, this
would be an added argument in support of the CSR movement. In spite of a long
record of studies and continuous improvements in currently available databases
and measurement methods, the connection, if any, between corporate social and
financial performance is still far from clear—studies have reported a positive,
negative, and neutral impact of CSP on CFP.47 One crucial reason for the
inconsistent findings stems from conceptual and methodological differences in
the operationalization of key terms. As Wood and Jones claimed, “the theory and
the methods have been incongruent.”48 To make sense of this body of research,
correlation studies must be integrated with a CSR model whose systematic power
would provide the conceptual and methodological tools needed for formulating
hypotheses and improving their testability. As my comparative analysis will
show, different models tend to beget different research instruments and generate
different hypotheses on the CSR-CFP link (see summary in Table 1).
A critical implication of the pyramid model is the positive relationship between
CSR and CFP. There are numerous grounds for this claim. First, the four-part
definition of CSR emphasizes the importance of the economic component as the
foundation upon which all others rest. In other words, a company is defined as
socially responsible primarily if it is profitable. Because of the interrelationship
between profitability and being defined as socially responsible, it can be expected
that companies having a favorable (unfavorable) reputation for CSR have
favorable (unfavorable) financial results. Indeed, as reputation researchers have
shown, CSR can have a positive impact on CFP through its impact on reputation.
And conversely, the absence of CSR can damage CFP due to negative
reputational effects.49 Second, the CSR pyramid is presented as an expectations-
based model. There is a CSR premium that can be earned by meeting the
expectations of various stakeholders. According to the good management theory,
well-matched attention to CSR domains can increase the efficiency of the
company’s adaptation to internal and external demands.50 Resulting benefits such
as employees’ productivity, reputation for product quality, and consumer
satisfaction lead to better financial performance. Finally, the pyramidal structure
suggests that companies high in CSR ranking are high on financial performance
because only well-to-do companies can afford the luxury of above-average social
performance.
Unfortunately, the measures used to assess the relationship between CSR and
CFP in empirical studies to date are somewhat illusory. The wide range of existing
methods—including reputational surveys, content analysis of disclosure
documents, examination of implementation arrangements, accounting-like
auditing procedures, and even Aupperle’s constant-sum measure of the four-part
CSR construct—are all based on a presumed dichotomy between corporate
economic and social performance.51 In defiance of the four-part definition,
Aupperle, Carroll and Hatfield claim that “[t]he social orientation of an
organization can be appropriately assessed through the importance it places on
the three noneconomic components compared to the economic.”52 Devoid of its
core component, it is doubtful whether this reduced yardstick can be considered
a valid measure of CSR. Studies using Aupperle’s constant-sum instrument did
not find any relationship between social responsibility and profitability. 53 An
ironical complementary result of these studies is the finding, which though not
reported can be logically inferred, that neither was there any relationship between
economic responsibility and profitability.54
AVIVA GEVA 13
The partitioning method deviates from the basic tenets of the pyramid model:
it excludes the core component from the measure of total CSR, it mandates trade-
off between social and economic responsibilities, it assumes a positive correlation
between social concern and total CSR and it ignores the hierarchical order of
priority. A more consistent measure of total CSR would embrace all its
components while allowing for more complex relationships among them and
between them and the total CSR. For example, a CSR function could be
developed that, for each possible bundle of the four responsibilities, would yield
a number representing the level of CSR provided by that bundle. The assumption
is, of course, that the raters are always able to rank each possible bundle in order
of preference. Their rankings could then be used to assess the correlation between
CSR and profitability.
In recent years, the friendship model of the relationship between financial and
social interests has gained growing acceptance premised on management’s belief
that “ethics pays.” The CSR pyramid dovetails well with this current trend among
corporate managements. While attempting to extend the neoclassical economic
paradigm to accommodate societal expectations and the effects of business
operations, the pyramid does emphasize that the fundamental responsibility of
business is economic. It suggests that it is in the financial interest of businesses
to comply with the law, to engage in ethical behavior, and to exercise
philanthropy. Stated differently, social responsibilities are accepted to the extent
that they can serve a part of the firm’s competitive strategy. The underlying
assumption of an expectations-based model such as the CSR pyramid is that
companies do not pursue their humane policies for altruistic reasons alone. They
do so because the nature of society is such that they could not behave any other
way and expect to survive as viable entities. The main problem with such a
responsive strategy is, of course, that it is highly contingent and thus may lead to
dual standards in the global market when dealing with stakeholders operating in
different sociopolitical contexts.55
A basic question regarding the provision of CSR is: precisely how much should
a firm spend on social responsibilities? Should it strive to maximize profits?
Given that philanthropy is a positive duty, should it assume a more-is-better
attitude toward this activity? The pyramid advances a proportionate allocation of
resources among the different kinds of responsibility. It implies that the firm must
achieve a critical level of profit; thereafter, priority is given to the fulfillment of
other social obligations in decreasing proportions: profit making gets the largest
portion, philanthropy the smallest. In practice, however, the pyramidal

lexicographic view of CSR can mean that “legal, ethical, and discretionary
(charitable) responsibilities might be ‘put on hold’ if business is bad or times are
tough.”56 Considering the lower weights given to the upper levels of the pyramid,
these responsibilities could be subject to a LIFO method of placement on a firm’s
action inventory, that is, “last in, first out.”57
In sum, the pyramid framework is consistent with the widely accepted general
view that CSR is an extensive and inclusive concept, encompassing a range of
responsibilities that must be simultaneously fulfilled. Within the broad consensus
on CSR as a compound concept, there are diverse views on the intricate
relationships among the different domains of responsibility. The pyramid model
suggests hierarchical relationships between separate domains of CSR; the
intersecting circles model below attempts to account for overlapping
nonhierarchical relationships among the different responsibilities.
THE INTERSECTING CIRCLES MODEL OF CSR
The intersecting circles (IC) model of CSR (Figure 1b) contrasts with the pyramid
model in two main aspects: (1) it recognizes the possibility of interrelationships
among CSR domains; and (2) rejects the hierarchical order of importance. The
distinctive features and implications of the IC model, as contrasted with the
pyramid model, are summarized in Table 1 and will become apparent as my
analysis proceeds.
General Description
A pyramid framework cannot fully capture the interpenetrating nature of the CSR
domains, nor does it denote all possible tension points among them. Such
mutuality has been recognized as an integral characteristic of CSR 58 and of such
fundamental importance that Schwartz and Carroll saw it necessary to propose an
alternative approach to CSR, one that includes the major domains of
responsibility and clearly depicts their interrelationships. 59 The IC model refutes
the notion that CSR is nothing but a collection of contingent, externally related
topics; it holds rather that the different responsibilities are in dynamic interplay
with each other, and it is the overall corporate responsibility to advance harmony
and resolve conflicts between them.
As Schwartz and Carroll claim, the primary idea behind the IC model is that
none of the CSR domains is prima facie more important or significant relative to
AVIVA GEVA 15
the others.60 In particular, the economic responsibility is not necessarily the most
fundamental. According to Davis’s Iron Law of Responsibility, 61 it is true that
corporations are designed for business, but before anything else they are social
creations whose very existence depends on the willingness of society to endure
and support them. In this view, the social responsibilities of the firm are not
necessarily less important than its economic undertakings.
The following discussion focuses on Schwartz and Carroll’s threedomain model

(Figure 2) as a recent example of the IC approach to CSR that stands in sharp
contrast to the pyramid insofar as its conceptual structure is concerned.62 Schwartz
and Carroll’s new model of CSR (and see the comparison with Jones’s model
below) is an attempt to develop the CSR domains “more completely both in terms
of what each means or implies and in terms of the overlapping categories that are
identified when the three domains are depicted in a Venn diagram format.” 63
Unfortunately, their use of a three-circle Venn diagram to amend the difficulties
inherent in the pyramid model introduced new difficulties that undermine its
ability to provide a proper conceptualization of CSR. Guided by Table 1, let me
highlight a few points that may help clarify controversial issues in CSR theory.
Nature of CSR The IC model seems to be primarily intended as a descriptive

model of CSR, not a normative model. A major feature of Schwartz and Carroll’s
version of the model is the depiction of the main domains of responsibility in a
Venn diagram, which highlights the overlapping nature of the domains and the
resultant creation of a set of CSR categories in which corporations and their
activities may be described, classified, and analyzed. As a descriptive model, it
permits CSR to be seen not as something that is implicitly good in itself, but as a
construct that must be used in conjunction with explicit values about appropriate
business–society relationship.64 Put differently, the categories of CSR should not
be thought of as normative standards, but as analytical forms to be filled with the
content of explicit values preferences that exist within a given cultural and
organizational context.
Scope of responsibilities The depiction of a three-domain CSR in a Venn

diagram creates eight sections: seven inner and one outer. Let us label the three
different responsibilities, economic, legal, and ethical (moral), “E,” “L,” and “M,”
respectively, and the corresponding complements, “´“ (no E), “Ò” (no L), and
“Â” (no M), in that order; the eight categories are: EÒÂ, EÒM, ELÂ, ´LÂ, ´LM,
1M, ELM, and 1Â.
AVIVA GEVA 17
The creation of pure and mixed classes of responsibilities in the framework of

the intersecting circles raises concerns about the definition of the boundaries of
CSR. CSR scholars gave different answers to this question. According to
Schwartz and Carroll, CSR is composed of all seven inner sections, suggesting
that each one of them represents instances of CSR. However, considering that
Venn diagrams chart a logical space of mutually exclusive classes in a universe
of all instances, it is difficult to make much sense of what particulars would fall
into each of these classes. For example, the so-called purely economic (EÒÂ)
category, that part of the economic responsibility domain (E), which is, by
definition, empty of social (legal and ethical) concerns, is nevertheless included
in the universe of CSR as one of its classes. Schwartz and Carroll describe this
class as follows: “[A]ctivities which are purely economic in nature must have a
direct or indirect economic benefit, be illegal (criminally or civilly), or passively
comply with the law, and be considered amoral or unethical.” 65 This description
of the purely economic domain of CSR represents a radical notion of economic
responsibility that even well-known critics of most social responsibilities for
corporations such as Milton Friedman would not accept. Taking the purely ethical
(1M) category as another example, we learn that this domain of CSR is defined
by a loss-making practice that cares about ethics but disregards the law.
Obviously, the new categories created by the partition of the three main domains
of CSR are difficult to justify in terms of social responsibility.
The nature of the Venn categories as closed areas requires a dichotomous
definition of what is in and what is out. The difficulty to define responsibility in
a dichotomous framework is perhaps the reason why what was meant to be a
categorization of the three core domains of corporate responsibility glossed
almost unnoticeably into a classification of corporate activities: responsible
activities are in, irresponsible activities are out. Thus, for example, according to
Schwartz and Carroll, a corporation’s actions would fall outside of the economic
domain if “they are engaged in without any real consideration of the possible
economic consequences to the firm.”66 If irresponsible practices fall outside of the
relevant domain of responsibility, in what terms of accountability are they to be
treated? Paradoxically, the very distinction between responsible and irresponsible
activities excludes from the domain of responsibility (whether economic, legal or
ethical) the most important matter of liability, i.e., reckless behavior. As Wood
has noted, every firm is responsible for its social performance, and a firm’s social
performance can be negatively or positively evaluated; however,
The entire CSP concept has taken on subtle “good” and binary connotations,
as though corporate social performance is something that responsible
companies do, but irresponsible companies do not do. Even though such
connotations are common in the literature, they are misrepresentations of
CSP.67
Total CSR If each of the seven categories is problematic as a class of CSR,

what can we say about the total CSR? In contrast to the pyramid framework which
depicts the total CSR as an "and" orientation, namely a conjunction of the
different responsibilities; the Venn model implies an "or" orientation, which is a
disjunction of the different categories. The pyramidal notion that a CSR firm
should strive to make a profit, obey the law, and be ethical is easy to follow, but
what is the meaning of CSR that incorporates EÒÂ, ´LÂ, 1M, EÒM, ELÂ, ´LM,
and ELM in the same framework? While the main responsibilities as defined in
the pyramid framework are complementary components of the total CSR, their
parts as defined in Schwartz and Carroll contradict each other and therefore
cannot add up to a coherent global concept of CSR. Thus, the proposed
application of the Venn model to CSR undermines its allencompassing
orientation.
Jones’s social control of business model, in contrast, used the Venn diagram
for general integration purposes.68 As a general framework for business and
society, the model was intended to describe the interrelationships of the various
subjects in the field and show how the parts fit together. Since the field is
concerned with the tensions that arise from the interaction of business and society,
only those segments representing the interplay of the economic system with the
political (law) and cultural (ethics) systems are considered relevant.69 In reference
to CSR, the relevant area is confined to those domains where corporate economic
concerns meet with social concerns, namely, EÒM, ELÂ, and ELM. Pure
economic responsibilities (which are empty of social concerns) as well as pure
ethical and legal responsibilities (which are empty of economic concerns) do not
count among the components of CSR, and thus fall outside its boundaries. Jones’s
institutional definition of CSR gains concrete meaning in the reality of cross-
sector partnerships that have become a widely adopted vehicle for business,
government, and communities to work together to address social issues. 70
However, the issue of cross-sector partnerships extends the discussion of CSR to
the field of public policy.
Order of importance Being committed to multiple objectives at one and the

same time, how are the different corporate responsibilities to be reconciled in
cases of conflict? The CSR pyramid resolves this fundamental difficulty by
AVIVA GEVA 19
specifying the order of priority among the various responsibilities; the concentric-
circle model (see below) offers a normative core of integration as another
solution. The IC model, in contrast, fails to provide any clear normative guidance
for managerial decision making. It leaves managers faced with competing
responsibilities with no way to make principled or purposeful decisions. As
Jensen has pointed out, “multiple objectives is no objective.” 71
The role of philanthropy In general, the domain categories in the three-circle

Venn diagram are defined in a manner consistent with Carroll’s four-part model,
with one exception: the philanthropic category is subsumed under the ethical
and/or economic domains. Many would argue that to subsume the philanthropic
category under economic responsibility is to convert what is seen as a virtue into
self-interest.72 Eventually, however, the choice to consider the philanthropic
category separately or subsume it under other domains of responsibility largely
depends on the costs and benefits of the particular framework of the problem at
hand.
Operationalization Under the assumption that none of the three CSR domains
is prima facie more important relative to the others, the immediate research
question concerns the assessment of the relative mix of economic, legal, and
ethical forces and orientations that pervade the business community. As Schwartz
and Carroll suggest, the model could be especially useful for the establishment of
“CSR portraits” for different entities (e.g., individuals, corporations,
stakeholders, industries, nations). Thus, for example, CSR portraits could be
established for stakeholder groups based on the domains they believe the
corporation is currently emphasizing or would prefer the corporation to operate
within. As yet, however, the IC model is in an early stage of development, still
waiting for the operationalization of the variables under consideration and the
creation of a valid and reliable data-gathering instrument. The most basic issue of
CSR research is: How do we measure better versus worse? Or, in terms of the IC
model, which portrait is better and which is worse: purely economic (EÒÂ) or
purely ethical (1M), legal and economic (ELÂ) or ethical and economic (EÒM)?
The IC framework, as a descriptive model of possible partnership between
corporate responsibilities, fails to provide a range of levels for evaluating CSR
portraits.
CSR–CFP relationship Are CSR portraits associated with CFP? Considering

the variety of CSR portraits, all kinds of relationships can be hypothesized—
positive (e.g., for “purely economic” and CFP), negative (e.g., for “purely ethical”
and CFP) or neutral.
The IC model draws managers’ attention to the overlapping nature of the CSR
domains and sets the running of the interrelationships among them as the central
issue of the CSR management agenda. As Schwartz and Carroll suggest, the
model could be useful in identifying and analyzing existing as well as anticipated
points of tension among the different domains. Considering that the different
responsibilities are in dynamic interplay with each other, the role of the manager
is not only to resolve existing conflicts or, better, to prevent them before they
develop, but to advance harmony and create opportunities for beneficial
partnerships.
From a managerial point of view, the most important advantage of the IC
model is its flexibility. Allowing for all sorts of interrelationship among the
different domains of responsibilities with no prima facie order of priority, the
model is open to a wide range of interpretations. In fact, its managerial
prescriptions and implications are nearly limitless. With such a breadth of
interpretation, it seems clear that this model can be attractive to all kinds of
managers and directors, socially responsible and opportunistic alike. Directing
managers to promote multiple responsibilities, while leaving them with no
principled criterion for decision making, plays into their hands by allowing them
to exercise their own preferences in spending the corporation’s resources.73 One
could make a case that the nonhierarchical nature of the IC model provides
unscrupulous managers with a ready excuse to act in their own self-interest. By
appealing to whichever responsibilities they like, opportunistic managers are able
to justify all but the most egregious self-serving behavior. Without specifying
what better is, the IC model effectively leaves managers unaccountable for the
effects of their decisions on the firm and on society at large.
THE CONCENTRIC-CIRCLE MODEL OF CSR
The concentric-circle (CON) model (Figure 1c) is similar to the pyramid in that
it views the economic role of business as its core social responsibility, and similar
to the IC model in that it emphasizes the interrelationships among the different
AVIVA GEVA 21
corporate social responsibilities. But underlying these similarities are essential

differences in the very definitions of the corporate responsibilities. Thus, the
pyramid defines the corporate economic role in terms of narrow self-interest (“be
profitable”), whereas the CON model defines this same role in terms of CSR,
namely, enhancing the good of society (“be constructively profitable”). In
contrast to the pyramid, which scales down the importance of the noneconomic
social responsibilities (i.e., legal, ethical and philanthropic), and in contrast to the
IC model which, along with interrelationships, also allows for no relations among
the different domains of responsibility, the CON model outlines the noneconomic
social responsibilities as embracing and permeating the core economic
responsibilities.
General Description
The CON model is adapted from a notable statement issued in 1971 by the
Committee for Economic Development (CED), an American association of
influential business leaders. In this statement, CED advocated the notion that
social contracts for business firms are not only feasible but morally necessary,
and urged business to adopt a broader and more humane view of its function in
society. The original CED model consists of three concentric circles. The inner
circle represents the core responsibility of business in terms of CSR. It includes
the basic responsibilities for the efficient execution of the economic function—
products, jobs, and economic growth. The intermediate circle, which can be
viewed as the ethical circle, encompasses responsibility to exercise the economic
function with a sensitive awareness of basic ethical norms as well as changing
social values and priorities. The outer circle, equivalent to the philanthropic
circle, outlines newly emerging and still amorphous responsibilities that business
should assume in order to become more broadly involved in actively improving
the social environment.
Legal responsibilities are not explicitly presented in the original CED framework,
but rather subsumed under other corporate responsibilities. Thus, for example, the
economic function of business includes “cooperating with the government in
developing more effective measures to control inflation and achieve high levels
of employment” or “supporting fiscal and monetary policies for steady economic
growth.”74 The CON version presented here differs from the original model in
that, for clarity and to create a common basis for comparison between the three
CSR models, it places the corporate legal responsibilities in a particular circle,
between the economic and the ethical.
For the sake of clarification, it should be noted that the structure of concentric
circles, as opposed to concentric rings, represents a system of inclusion relations
rather than a scheme of mutually exclusive domains. In a system of concentric
circles, every member of the inner circle is also a member of the wider, more
inclusive outer circle, but not vice versa. Thus, from a CSR perspective as
expressed in the CON model, all economic responsibilities also have legal and
ethical aspects.
Nature of CSR The CON model represents a normative approach to CSR.

Compatible with recent developments in CSR thinking, the fundamental idea
embedded in the CON model is that business corporations have an incurred
obligation to work for social betterment, and this obligation acts as a constant
function throughout all phases—mainstream and peripheral—of the company’s
operations. Applying Logsdon and Wood’s line of reasoning, “Above all, CSR is
a concept supporting social control of business that resides and operates inside
business itself, with the aim of protecting and enhancing the public welfare as
well as private interests.”75 While the pyramid and the IC models focus on the
tension between business and society, the CON model highlights their
interdependence. Advancing this notion of CSR, the CON model presents the
relationships between business and society from two perspectives: outsidein and
inside-out. The move from the outer circle inward reflects the long-standing
concept of social control that refers to society’s need to impose some standards
of behavior on business activity in order to preserve the core function of business
as an important instrument for social progress.76 The move from the inner circle
toward the outside represents the internalization of social norms that reside and
operate within business itself as affirmative or positive duties.77 In the framework
of the CON model, the inside-out and the outsidein dimensions work in tandem.
Translating the same approach to CSR into practice, Porter and Kramer have
recently argued that a CSR company must integrate a social perspective into the
core frameworks it already uses to guide its business strategy. 78
Scope of responsibilities Understanding CSR as a framework of integrated

responsibilities with a common core requires that each of the different
responsibilities be defined in reference to this unifying meaning or purpose. The
narrow definitions that characterized the separation of the CSR domains in the
pyramid framework and in the seven-category IC model are replaced here with
broad definitions that account for their common essence. A brief examination of
AVIVA GEVA 23
these broad definitions may be useful in clarifying the critical differences between
the contrasting CSR models.
The economic circle As we have seen, both the CSR pyramid and the seven-
category IC model adopt a narrow definition of economic responsibility that
focuses on the fundamental call on business to be a profit-making enterprise. In
the CON framework the scope of economic responsibility is much broader and
directly oriented toward the good of society. According to the CED statement, the
principal economic responsibility of the corporation in CSR terms is “to serve
constructively the needs of society—to the satisfaction of society.”79 Economic
responsibility, in this view, is not simply about wealth creation; it is about
generating wealth that improves the nation’s standard of living, supplying the
needs and wants of people for goods and services, and selling them at fair prices,
providing jobs and decent wages to the work force, expanding career
opportunities in all parts of society, and eliminating poverty. 80 Under this wide
definition, profitability is not the critical test for economic responsibility.
Contrary to the narrow focus on profit making, which represents the neoclassical
economics “IF” doctrine (if certain conditions are met, then if a firm concentrates
on profit making, it contributes to the common good), the CON model holds that
the CSR firm has direct responsibility to promote the quality of life, even at the
expense of profitability.81
The legal circle Christopher Stone distinguishes between two senses of legal
responsibility: responsibility 1, which emphasizes following the law, and
responsibility 2, which emphasizes deliberation with preparedness to give good
reasons for one’s actions in terms that admit for generalization.82 In more common
parlance we would say that responsibility 1 refers to the letter of law—i.e.,
observing the law per se, and responsibility 2 refers to the spirit of law—i.e.,
approaching law through socially appropriate considerations. The first type
demands obedience; the second, in a way almost diametrically opposed to the
first, puts a premium on autonomous choice. This distinction between the two
senses of legal responsibility has direct relevance to a comparative analysis of the
three CSR models. The pyramid and the seven-category IC models both limit the
legal responsibility to responsibility 1: obey the law. The narrow focus on
obedience reflects an external view of lawabiding behavior, and so breeds a cost–
benefit approach to the law. The legal system, in this view, is a burden that should
be avoided or, as there is no alternative, borne; the rationale for obedience being
to seek pleasurable consequences and avoid negative consequences. Under the
title of CSR, this kind of legal responsibility includes such varieties as restrictive
compliance, opportunistic compliance, avoidance of civil litigation and
anticipation of changes in legislation;83 all of which are characterized by what
Stone has called “morality of duty,” namely the specification of minimum
standards of conduct (“I won’t do anything more than I am absolutely required to
do”), rather than “morality of aspiration” and exhortations to realize one’s fullest
potential.84
The CON model, in contrast, incorporates into the legal circle both notions of
responsibility: obedience (responsibility 1) and considered autonomy
(responsibility 2). When rules of corporate behavior are relatively unambiguous
and well established, legal responsibility demands nothing but observing the law;
however, when legal control over corporations is ineffective, and perhaps even
counterproductive, the responsibility that is needed is of the perceptive sort,
emphasizing considerations of the general good. Defined in terms of commitment
to the common good, legal responsibility represents an internal view of the
company’s behavior. The CSR company seeks to comply with legal obligations
not because of the threat of litigation, but rather because these obligations have
been internalized as guiding standards of behavior.85 Rather than seeking to
“outsmart the law by the law,”86 a CSR firm is required to help to define the point
at which regulation is not only necessary but desirable. This idea is directly
expressed in Thomas McCabe’s memorandum cited in the CED document:
Indeed, if corporations cannot deal individually with major social

responsibilities such as pollution because of competitive cost disadvantages,
and if they are unable to cooperate in resolving such difficulties, then they
logically and ethically should propose and support rational governmental
regulation which will remove the short-run impediments from actions that
are wise in the long run.87
The ethical circle The ethical domain in both the CSR pyramid and the IC
model refers to those standards and norms of business behavior that are expected
by stakeholders and society at large even though they are not codified into law.
As argued above, this negative definition creates an artificial separation between
intimately related domains of responsibility, and identifies ethical responsibility
with responsiveness to external expectations and social conventions, regardless
of the motivation for responding. In contrast, the CON model maintains that
ethical issues are an integral part of every business activity. Ethical responsibility
cannot be performed in a detached way that conforms to external constraints
without valuejudgments. In line with Wood’s argument, socially responsible
AVIVA GEVA 25
firms are guided by their inner sense of commitment, and thus “need not choose
between the demands of economics and the demands of ethics; nor is ethics
something that is tacked onto economics, as in the phrase ‘economics and ethics.’
Economics is ethics, though ethics is more than economics.” 88
Rather than expedient conformity, the CON model defines ethical
responsibility in terms of self-governance based on internal commitment to the
good of society. While responsivenessbased morality may prompt companies to
“act smart,” it does not necessarily induce them to act ethically; a company may
take advantage of ill-defined local norms and still be considered socially
responsible. In keeping with recent developments in CSR thought, the CON
model would judge the ethical corporation by the extent to which it upholds its
duty to seize the opportunity to be an active participant in contributing to greater
stability, prosperity, and sustainability, and by the extent to which it does not
exploit its power against those stakeholders who are not protected by well-
established ethical norms and customs.89 The CON model’s emphasis on the
active aspect of corporate ethical responsibility is largely connected with the
process of globalization. In the words of Sethi:
The large corporation, and especially the multinational corporation, must
become an active agent for social change. . . . As a dominant institution in
society, the corporation must assume its rightful place and contribute to
shaping the public agenda instead of simply reacting to policy choices
advocated by others.90
Total CSR The CON model regards CSR as a global concept whose parts are
bound together by means of a shared intrinsic content, which can be defined as a
commitment to operate in a way that promotes the good of society. 91 One can
argue that the notion of the “good of society” is too abstract to serve as a
benchmark for assessing CSR. However, despite, and perhaps owing to, the many
meanings of this notion, nearly all today’s large corporations have their mission
codes stated in terms of commitment to the good of society, and in most cases this
general commitment is further translated into a list of more practical goals.
Rather than a mere aggregation, CSR is conceived as an entity or system made
up of interrelated responsibilities, with mutual and reciprocal influence on each
other. In other words, the value of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Fulfillment of one responsibility will always affect the fulfillment of the others.
For example, fulfilling (avoiding) the economic responsibility to provide jobs and
good wages to the work force while earning a profit, directly affects the
fulfillment (avoidance) of the legal responsibility to pay for labor, the ethical
responsibility to enhance justice, and the philanthropic responsibility to help the

workforce. The CON model rejects the pyramidal trade-off assumption, and holds
that the interaction among the different CSR responsibilities creates an enhanced
combined effect.
Order of importance A basic feature of the concentric circles is the existence

of a common core. In terms of CSR this means that all different corporate social
responsibilities share a common essence. The CON model recognizes that the
vital function of business is economic; even so, business decisions consist of
continuous, interrelated economic and moral components. Indeed, the inclusion
structure of the responsibility circles might blur the distinction between the
different responsibilities. However, this structure helps the manager to see that
the different types of obligations are in constant and dynamic interrelationships.
At the same time, it does not prevent the manager from considering each
responsibility in itself in the process of decision making.
The notion of shared intrinsic content stands in sharp contrast to the notion of
a range of separate responsibilities that must be simultaneously fulfilled. There is
no linearity and no hierarchy in the CON model. Rather than inter-
responsibilities, as in the pyramid, the order of essentiality in the CON model is
intraresponsibilities, with the more intense, straightforward, wellestablished, and
universally advantageous requirements in the center, and the more amorphous,
newly emerging, contestable, and indeterminate obligations along the periphery. 92
Thus, for example, in the CSR pyramid, ethical considerations are by definition
less important than economic considerations, whereas in the CON model, ethical
considerations can be less important, more important, or equivalent to economic
considerations. A CSR firm can indeed focus on one kind of responsibility and
then on another; but always through the lens of the general purpose, namely
promoting the good of society.
Role of philanthropy Corporate philanthropy commonly refers to the

contributions of business firms to humanitarian and social causes, which are
usually considered outside the firms’ natural line of business. Indeed, as we have
seen, Carroll’s pyramid treats philanthropic giving, or for that matter, good
corporate citizenship, as a discretionary responsibility, separated from daily
business operations and secondary to the more basic economic, legal, and ethical
responsibilities; and the IC model treats corporate philanthropy as either
“strategic philanthropy,” subsumed under economic responsibility, or “charity
expected by society,” subsumed under ethical responsibility. The CON model
holds a broader view of corporate philanthropy that draws on the general purpose
AVIVA GEVA 27
of CSR, namely the obligation of the corporation to help in achieving the good of
the larger society. In contrast to the pyramid, where the actions of a company in
society are divorced from its operating practices, the CON model presents an all-
encompassing view that integrates citizenship both locally and globally with day-
to-day business functions. Good citizenship is no longer a sort of “icing on the
cake” but, to use Porter and Kramer’s terms, “a sine qua non of CSR,”93 and CSR
companies need to integrate social considerations into core business operations
and strategy.
In the broad sense of the CON model, corporate philanthropy is not simply
corporate contributions to other entities to further a particular cause, but the use
of the corporate special competencies and advantages to solve major social
problems. Implicit in this broad definition is the view, once expressed in the CED
document and currently becoming increasingly commonplace, that because large
corporations possess considerable resources and skills that could make a critical
difference in solving social problems, they “must take up the slack resulting from
inadequate performance of other institutions, notably government.” 94 A wider
spectrum of corporate philanthropic responsibility is all the more significant in
the global arena where serious market imperfections, absence of strong
background institutions, inadequate regulation, and ineffective enforcement place
multinational corporations in a unique position to help alleviate harsh living
conditions, especially in developing countries.95
As we have seen, the CSR pyramid generated a proliferation of empirical research

attempting to establish its validity and study its nature in different contexts.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with the CON model. Taking a comparative
approach, two questions are on target: the validation of the CON model and the
hypothesized relationship between CSR and profitability.
Operationalization With regard to the question of validation, Guttman’s
definition of a theory, which establishes a partnership between concepts and
observations, seems most useful:
A theory is an hypothesis of a correspondence between a definitional system

for a universe of observations and an aspect of the empirical structure of
those observations, together with a rationale for such hypothesis. 96
The universe of observations that corresponds to the CON model is clearly

different from that corresponding to the pyramid (or the IC model). In the former
case, the definitional system refers to the common core of all corporate social
responsibilities, while the latter lacks a common core. Thus, research tools that
have been developed to test the validity of the pyramid are inadequate in testing
the CON model. Let us take Aupperle’s aforementioned constant-sum instrument
as an example. Corresponding to the idea of interresponsibilities difference in
importance, respondents were instructed to distribute up to ten points to four
statements reflecting the pyramid’s four domains; and, corresponding to the view
of separate domains, the allocation of points among them had to be “based on
their relative importance and application to your firm.” 97 Note that reference is
made to the multifunctional target, “your firm,” and not to the more articulated
target, “your firm’s social responsibility.” A hypothesis on the correspondence
between this definitional system and the pyramidal structure of the resulting
observations is straightforward.
The CON model requires a different research tool. Since it maintains that all
corporate social responsibilities share a common core, a measurement method
ignoring this feature is irrelevant; and since it stands for intra-rather than
interresponsibilities order of importance, a measurement method based on
distribution of points among different domains of responsibility makes no sense.
One way to approach the research on the relationships between conceptual
definitions and empirical observations draws on facet analysis, which, with the
companion of multidimensional scaling (MDS) procedures, provides a powerful
set of tools for studying the content of and order relations between and within
facets (subsystems or components) of the construct of interest. 98 In the course of
gathering data for assessing the geometry of the CON model, respondents could
be instructed to evaluate a range of items—wide enough to represent thickly
populated responsibility circles—based on their relative importance in fulfilling
the corporate commitment to enhance the good of society. To the extent that the
set of items is representative, we might find essential as well as peripheral
responsibilities in each of the circles, whether economic, legal, ethical, or
philanthropic. For example, the duty of the firm to ensure that its operations do
not put people’s life in danger can be thought of as an item representing essential
ethical responsibility; and the requirement that managers take advantage of
opportunities to avoid paying taxes to increase profits—an item representing
peripheral legal responsibility, or, for that matter, perhaps economic
responsibility (a clear-cut distinction is not very important from a CON
perspective). Using the proposed methodology, we would expect that the
interrelationships among the resulting observations be structured in concentric
circles in the same order as that depicted in the CON model.
AVIVA GEVA 29
CSR-CFP relationship As previously mentioned, relationships between CSR

and profitability (or CFP) have been generally assumed to be linear. Under the
CON theoretical assumption that there is more to CSR than responsiveness to
social expectations, the prevailing hypothesis of positive correlation between
CSR (that is, responsiveness) and profitability (that is, reward for responsiveness)
requires modification. As Sethi noted, under conditions of imperfect competition,
as in most modern economies, social expectations play a rather small role in
inspiring good corporate conduct.99 Instead, it is the values and the traditions of
the corporations, and their perceived risks in exploiting market opportunities, that
influence the extent of a corporation’s socially responsible conduct. Rather than
a simple linear CSR-CFP link (as reflected in the common use of correlations and
regression analysis for the detection of positive or negative association between
social and economic performance),100 a hypothesis of an inverted U-shaped
relationship between these two variables is called for. To wit, a positive
relationship between CSR and CFP can be expected for the range of undernormal
and normal profits (here profit levels are acceptable, i.e., higher profits mean
higher reward for responsiveness), and an inverse CSR–CFP relationship for the
range of above-normal profits (here corporate power is used to deprive ineffectual
stakeholders of their market-based gains, i.e., higher profits mean less social
responsibility). According to the CON model, a socially responsible firm is
expected to refrain from chasing unfairly high profits and to follow its inner
commitment to contribute to achieving social progress, even at the expense of
profitability.
A curvilinear hypothesis calls into question the adequacy of the conventional
methods used to substantiate the CSR–CFP link. First, there is a problem of
measurement. To capture the form of the relationship in its entirety, the entire
span of the variables must be covered. It is doubtful whether, assuming linearity,
all the diverse CSR–CFP studies to date actually covered, or attempted to cover,
the entire span. One may interpret the inconsistent results of these studies as
representing different segments of the plot, thus indicating, in fact, a curvilinear
relationship between variables. Second, data analysis must be appropriate to the
problem as specified. While the conventional linear hypothesis-testing techniques
may be convenient, they are useless for confirming a nonlinear relationship.
Both the pyramid and the IC models direct socially responsible managers to serve
“many masters” simultaneously (i.e., make profits, obey the law, and so forth),
with or without a fixed order of priorities. As Porter and Kramer claim:
The result is oftentimes a hodge-podge uncoordinated CSR and

philanthropic activities disconnected from the company’s strategy that
neither make any meaningful social impact nor strengthen the firm’s long-
term competitiveness. Internally, CSR practices and initiatives are often
isolated from operating units—and even separated from corporate
philanthropy. Externally, the company’s social impact becomes diffused
among numerous unrelated efforts, each responding to a different
stakeholder group or corporate pressure point. 101
In the same vein, Jensen has argued that without the clarity of mission provided
by a single criterion, corporate executives facing multiple objectives will
experience managerial confusion, conflict, and inefficiency. 102 The CON model
solves the problems that arise from the multiple objectives that accompany the
other two models by giving managers wishing to be socially responsible a single
criterion by which to choose among alternative courses of action: the
improvement of social welfare. This criterion, which resides incontestably as the
implicit raison d’être of the economic institution, is made explicit in the CON
model. Rather than assuming that profit maximization leads to the maximization
of social welfare, managers are guided to directly consider the social value of
alternative policy options before making their decisions. In more general terms,
rather than pursuing each of the diverse corporate responsibilities per se hoping
that this, in turn, will enhance the good of society, the CON model guides
managers to consider each responsibility in direct relation to the overall objective
of social welfare.
The CON model prescribes a CSR strategy that could, perhaps, be best
described in terms of Paine’s notion of “integrity strategy,” which is characterized
by “a conception of ethics as a driving force of an enterprise. Ethical values shape
the search for opportunities, the design of organizational systems, and the
decision-making process used by individuals and groups.” 103 Managers who
regard CSR as nothing more than conformity to externally imposed standards
necessarily endorse a code of moral mediocrity for their companies. In contrast,
managers who adopt the commitment strategy no longer view CSR as a
burdensome constraint within which they have to operate, but as the governing
purpose of the firm, a purpose that incorporates all corporate social
responsibilities, unites members of different divisions and inspires corporate
excellence.
AVIVA GEVA 31
CONCLUSION
This paper has sought to add clarity to CSR theory and research by comparing
and contrasting the underlying assumptions, the conceptual structures, the
methodological tools, and the managerial implications of three basic CSR
models—the pyramid, the intersecting circles, and the concentric circles. The
four-part CSR pyramid dovetails well with the current trend among corporate
managements towards growing acceptance of a friendship model of the
relationship between the basic economic role of the firm and its extended social
obligations. The pyramid’s unique combination of simultaneity and hierarchy of
importance attempts to reconcile the changing social expectations of businesses
with the traditional emphasis on profit making, the ideal CSR behavior with the
pragmatic considerations of CSR management. Unfortunately, the supposed
alliance between social concerns and profit making depends to a large extent on
the surrounding cultural and institutional context. Where external stakeholders
fail at holding corporations to account for the social consequences of their
activities, the necessary condition that glues the economic and social
responsibilities together in a coherent framework is lost, and the ability of the
pyramid to guide companies to take actions that would support both their
communities and their business goals is undermined. The IC model contrasts with
the pyramid in two main aspects: it refutes the notion that CSR is a range of
externally related domains of responsibility, and it rejects the hierarchical order.
The radical idea behind the IC model is that the different domains of CSR are
interrelated and none of them is prima facie more important relative to the others.
This advantage is also the main difficulty of the IC model. Failing to provide any
clear normative guide, it leaves managers to face competing responsibilities with
no way to make principled decisions. The CON model combines considerations
of external constraints on corporate behavior with a self-binding commitment to
the common good. Like the pyramid, it views the economic role of business as its
core responsibility, but this core is embedded in, rather than separated from, the
broader responsibility to the good of society. The pyramidal view of CSR as a
range of separate responsibilities that must be simultaneously fulfilled is replaced
in the CON model with a framework of integrated responsibilities, all sharing a
common essence—the responsibility to promote the quality of life. According to
the CON model, every corporate decision must be considered through the lens of
social betterment. The main conclusion of the comparative analysis is that unless
we are willing to acknowledge that all corporate social responsibilities share a
common normative essence, there is little prospect of finding a way out of the
difficulties inherent in disintegrated frameworks such as the CSR pyramid and

the IC model.
The development of the CON model may open new directions for CSR
research investigating intra as well as interresponsibilities order of importance,
and studying more complex relationships between CSR and profitability than the
regular linear hypothesis. However, the CON model needs further development
of research tools in the general directions outlined above. This is a task for future
research. Once the research tools are developed, a central objective would be to
establish a valid and reliable scale for total CSR.
At this stage, the immediate lesson from the comparative analysis for both CSR
research and teaching is that the same concept of responsibility may carry
different meanings, depending on the parent model. Unfortunately, when
alternative models of the same concept are held by different people in different
contexts, discussion frequently seems to represent mutual understanding and
agreement, while in fact there are no common points of reference, and problems
of ambiguity arise. To ensure that CSR theory and concepts can be established
and provide a source of managerial guidance, attention should be given to the
explication of the underlying assumptions which bound the theory, to the
distinction between different definitions of its constructs and variables, and to the
implications of the assumed interrelationships among them. Focusing on the
boundaries of CSR, the comparative analysis might also be used to help interpret
and discuss growing trends in the business and society field such as stakeholder
management, corporate citizenship, triple bottom-line accounting, and
sustainability. Each of these theoretical trends involves, to some extent, aspects
of the core responsibilities that form the trunk of CSR, so that the comparative
analysis might provide an initial framework to better understand the branches of
CSR thinking.
NOTES
1. For instance, A. B. Carroll, “A three-dimensional conceptual modelof corporate

performance,” Academy of Management Review 4, 4(1979): 497–505; M. B. E. Clarkson,
“A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance,”
Academy of Management Review 20, 1(1995): 92–117; W. C. Frederick, Corporation, Be
Good! (Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Publishing, 2006); S. P. Sethi, “Dimensions of corporate
social responsibility: an analytical framework,” California Management Review 17,
3(1975): 58–64; D. L. Swanson, “Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the
social performance model,” Academy of Management Review 20, 1(1995): 43–64; S. A.
Waddock, “Creating corporate accountability: foundational principles to make corporate
AVIVA GEVA 33
citizenship real.” Journal of Business Ethics 50, 4(2004): 313–327; D. J. Wood, “Corporate
social performance revisited,” Academy of Management Review 16, 4 (1991): 691–718.
2. S. A. Waddock, “Parallel universes: companies, academics, and theprogress of
corporate citizenship,” Business and Society Review 109, 1(2004): 5–42.
3. D. Votaw, “Genius becomes rare: a comment on the doctrine ofsocial
responsibility Part. I.” California Management Review 15, 2(1972):
25–31.
4. For instance, Carroll, “A three-dimensional conceptual model ofcorporate
performance.”
5. For instance, T. M. Jones, “An integrating framework for research inbusiness and
society: a step toward the elusive paradigm?” Academy of Management Review 8, 4(1983):
559–564; M. S. Schwartz and A. B. Carroll, “Corporate social responsibility: a three-
domain approach.” Business Ethics Quarterly 13, 4 (2003): 503–530.
6. Adapted here from the Committee for Economic Development(CED), Social
Responsibilities of Business Corporations, (New York: Author, 1971).
7. W. C. Frederick, “Theories of corporate social performance,” inBusiness and
Society: Dimensions of Conflict and Cooperation, eds. S. P. Sethi and C. Falbe (New York:
Lexington Books, 1987): 142–161.
8. For a detailed review, see for example, A. B. Carroll, “Corporatesocial
responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct.” Business and Society 38, 3(1999):
268–295; Frederick, Corporation, Be Good!; Waddock, “Parallel Universes.”
9. Carroll, “Three-Dimensional.”
10. S. L. Wartick and P. L. Cochran, “The evolution of the corporatesocial
performance model,” Academy of Management Review 10, 4(1985):
758–769.
11. Wood, “Corporate social performance revisited,” 693.
12. Swanson, “Addressing theoretical problem”; cf., D. L. Swanson,“Toward an
integrative theory of business and society: a research strategy for corporate social
performance,” Academy of Management Review 24, 4(1999): 506–521.
13. W. C. Frederick, Values, Nature, and Culture in the American Corporation (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1995).
14. Waddock, “Creating corporate accountability,” 313.
15. M. B. E. Clarkson, Principles of Stakeholder Management (Toronto:
The Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics, 1999).
16. T. A. Hemphill, “Corporate citizenship: the case for a new corporategovernance
model,” Business and Society Review 109, 3(2004): 339–361.
17. J. M. Logsdon, and D. J. Wood, “Business citizenship: from domesticto global
level of analysis,” Business Ethics Quarterly 12, 2(2002), 177.
18. K. E. Goodpaster, “Some challenges of social screening,” Journal of Business
Ethics 43, 3(2003), 239.
19. Carroll, “Corporate social responsibility.”
20. S. B. Bacharach, “Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation.”

Academy of Management Review 14, 4(1989), 496.
21. Carroll, “Three-dimensional”; see also, A. B. Carroll, “The pyramidof corporate
social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders,”
Business Horizons 34(July–August, 1991): 39–48.
22. Ibid., 42.
23. Ibid., 41.
24. Ibid., 41.
25. Swanson, “Toward integrative theory.”
26. For instance, A. B. Carroll, “Social responsibility,” in The Blackwell
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Business Ethics, eds. P. H. Werhane and R. E.
Freeman (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997): 593–595.
27. Ibid., 593–595.
28. R. E. Freeman, “The politics of stakeholder theory: some futuredirections,”
Business Ethics Quarterly 4, 4(1994): 409–421.
29. A. B. Carroll, “Ethical challenges for business in the new millennium: corporate
social responsibility and models of management morality,” Business Ethics Quarterly 10,
1(2000), 35.
30. A. B. Carroll and A. K. Buchholtz, Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder
Management, 6e. (Mason, OH: South-Western, Thomson, 2006): 40.
31. Carroll, “Pyramid of CSR,” 42.
32. Carroll, “Three-dimensional,” 499.
33. Ibid., 499.
34. W. Acar, K. E. Aupperle and R. M. Lowy, “An empirical explorationof measures
of social responsibility across the spectrum of organizational types,” International Journal
of Organizational Analysis 9, 1(2001): 26–57.
35. Carroll, “Pyramid of CSR,” 42.
36. Ibid., 43.
37. Carroll, “Corporate social responsibility”; Hemphill, “Corporatecitizenship.”
38. Clarkson, “Stakeholder framework,” 94.
39. For a general review of the empirical studies on CSR and the
associatedmeasurement problems see, for example, Acar et al., “Empirical exploration”;
S. A. Waddock and S. B. Graves, “The corporate social performance-financial
performance link,” Strategic Management Journal 18, 4(1997): 303–319.
40. K. E. Aupperle, A. B. Carroll and J. D. Hatfield, “An empiricalexamination of
the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability,” Academy of
Management Journal 28, 2(1985): 446–463.
41. K. E. Aupperle, “An empirical measure of corporate orientation,” Research in
Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 6(1984): 27–54.
42. For instance, Acar et al., “Empirical exploration”; Aupperle et al.,
AVIVA GEVA 35
“Empirical examination.”
43. For instance, T. M. Jones and A. C. Wicks, “Convergent stakeholder theory,”
Academy of Management Review 24, 2(1999): 206–221.
44. Clarkson, “Stakeholder framework.”
45. For instance, B. K. Burton and W. H. Hegarty, “Some determinants of student
corporate social responsibility orientation,” Business and Society 38, 2(1999): 188–205;
V. C. Edmondson and A. B. Carroll, “Giving back: an examination of the philanthropic
motivations, orientations and activities of large black-owned businesses,” Journal of
Business Ethics 19, 2(1999):
171–179.
46. For instance, I. Maignan and O. C. Ferrell, “Measuring corporate citizenship in
two countries: the case of the United States and France,” Journal of Business Ethics 23,
3(2000): 283–297; T. S. Pinkston and A. B. Carroll, “A retrospective examination of csr
orientations: have they changed?” Journal of Business Ethics 15, 2(1996): 199–206.
47. For instance, J. J. Griffin and J. F. Mahon, “The corporate social performance
and corporate social financial performance debate: twenty-five years of incomparable
research,” Business and Society 36, 1(1997): 5–31; L. E. Preston and D. P. O’Bannon, “The
corporate social-financial performance relationship: a typology and analysis,” Business
and Society, 36, 4(1997): 419–430; D. Wood and R. Jones, “Stakeholder mismatching: a
theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance,” The
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3, 3(1995): 229–267.
48. Wood and Jones, “Stakeholder mismatching,” 230.
49. M. Orlitzky, F. L. Schmidt and S. Rynes, “Corporate social and financial
performance: a meta-analysis,” Organization Studies 24, 3(2003): 403–441; C. K. Prahalad
and G. Hamel, “The core competence of the corporation,” Harvard Business Review,
(May–June, 1990): 79–91; Waddock and
Graves, “Social performance-financial performance.”
50. Waddock and Graves, “Social performance-financial performance.”
51. Acar et al., “Empirical exploration.”
52. Aupperle et al., “Empirical examination,” 458.
53. Ibid.; H. M. O’Neill, C. B. Saunders and A. D. McCarthy, 1989. “Board
members, corporate social responsiveness and profitability: are tradeoffs necessary?”
Journal of Business Ethics 8, 5(1989): 353–357.
54. The constant sum method places social responsibility (SR) and economic
responsibility (E) as complementary variables (SR + E = constant);
i.e., SR is a linear transformation of E. Since the correlation coefficient is invariant under
a linear transformation of the variables, if the correlation between SR and profitability
approaches zero, so does the correlation between E and profitability.
55. L. P. Hartman, B. Shaw and R. Stevenson, “Exploring the ethics and economics
of global labor standards: a challenge to integrated social contract theory,” Business
Ethics Quarterly 13, 2(2003): 193–220.
56. Wood and Jones, “Stakeholder mismatching,” 233.

58. Jones, “Integrating framework”; Waddock, “Parallel universes.”
59. Schwartz and Carroll, “Corporate social responsibility.”
60. Ibid., 508.
61. K. Davis, “The case for and against business assumption of social
responsibilities.” Academy of Management Journal, 16, 2(1973): 312–322.
63. Ibid., 508.
64. Wood, “Corporate social performance revisited.”
65. Schwartz and Carroll, “Corporate social responsibility,” 513.
66. Ibid., 509.
68. Jones, “Integrating framework.”
69. See figure 1: Business and society graphic model in Jones, “Integrating
framework,” 560.
70. B. K. Googins and S. A. Rochlin, “Creating the partnership society:
understanding the rhetoric and reality of cross-sectoral partnerships,” Business and
Society Review, 105, 1(2000): 127–144.
71. M. Jensen, “Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective
function.” Business Ethics Quarterly 12, 2(2002), 238.
72. P. F. Drucker, “The new meaning of corporate social responsibility.” California
Management Review 16, 2(1984): 53–63.
73. Jensen, “Value maximization.”
74. CED, Social Responsibilities, 37.
75. Logsdon and Wood, “Business citizenship,” 158.
76. Jones, “Integrating framework.”
77. cf. Swanson, “Toward integrative theory.”
78. M. E. Porter and M. R. Kramer, “Strategy and society: the link between
competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility,” Harvard Business Review,
(December 2006): 78–92.
79. CED, Social Responsibilities, 11, italics added.
80. See for example, A. Sen, Development as Freedom. (New York: Anchor Books,
1999); J. E. Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work (New York: W. W. Norton, 2006).
82. C. D. Stone, Where the Law Ends. (New York: Harper and Row, 1975).
84. Stone, Where the Law Ends, 101; cf. L. S. Paine, “Managing for organizational
integrity.” Harvard Business Review 72, 2(1994): 106–117.
AVIVA GEVA 37
85. See one implementation of this idea in Caux Round Table, Principles for
Business: Principle 3 – Going beyond the letter of law toward a spirit of trust, Available
from CRT network at: http://www.cauxroundtable.org/ principles.html.
86. J. Aharony and A. Geva, “Moral implications of law in business: a case of tax
loopholes,” Business Ethics: A European Review 12, 4(2003):
378–393.
88. D. Wood, “Toward improving corporate social performance,” Business Horizons
34(July–August, 1991): 66, italics in the original; cf. A. Etzioni, The Moral Dimension:
Toward a New Economics (New York: The Free Press, 1988); P. H. Werhane and R. E.
Freeman, “Business ethics: the state of the art,” International Journal of Management
Reviews 1, 1(1999): 1–16.
89. Frederick, Corporation, Be Good!; Logsdon and Wood, “Business citizenship”;
S. P. Sethi, “Globalization and the good corporation: a need for proactive co-existence.”
Journal of Business Ethics 43, 1(2003): 21–31.
90. S. P. Sethi, Setting Global Standards: Guidelines for Creating Codes of Conduct
in Multinational Corporations (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons 2003), 288.
91. CED, Social Responsibilities; see also W. C. Frederick, “Moving to CSR4: what
to pack for the trip.” Business and Society 37, 1(1998): 40–60;
Goodpaster, “Some challenges.”
92. CED, Social Responsibilities.
93. Porter and Kramer, “Strategy and society,” 85.
94. CED, Social Responsibilities, 16; S. A. Waddock, “Building successful social
partnership,” Sloan Management Review 23, 4(1988): 17–23.
95. T. Y. Dunfee and D. Hess, “The legitimacy of direct corporate humanitarian
investment.” Business Ethics Quarterly 10, 1(2000): 95–110; Sen, Development as
Freedom.
96. L. Guttman, “What is not what in theory construction,” In eds., R. M. Hauser, D.
Mechanic and A. Hailer, Social Structure and Behavior (New York: Academic Press,
1982), 338.
97. Aupperle, “Empirical measure,” 30.
98. S. Shye and D. Elizur, Introduction to Facet Theory: Content Design and
Intrinsic Data Analysis in Behavioral Research (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, 1994).
99. Sethi, “Globalization.”
100. For instance, O’Neill et al., “Board members”; Aupperle, Carroll and Hatfield,
“Empirical examination.”
101. Porter and Kramer, “Strategy and society,” 83.
102. Jensen, “Value maximization.”
103. Paine, “Managing integrity,” 111.

Models in CSR

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Models in CSR

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Business and Society Review 113:1 1–41

D ecades of debate on corporate social responsibility (CSR) have resulted

2 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

FROM CSR BRANCHES TO CSR TRUNK

Early definitions of CSR, or CSR1 in Frederick’s7 well-accepted classification,

Frederick’s nature-based approach to foundational corporate values,13 it seems

FIGURE 1 Three Basic Models of CSR: Relationships between Domains of

THE PYRAMID OF CSR

CSR–CFP relationship Positive Positive, Negative, or Neutral Nonlinear

expectations of business responsibilities and define them in terms of categories.

Nature of CSR Taking a managerial approach, the four-part pyramid defines

Total CSR The pyramid is a conjunction of separate domains of responsibility.

Order of importance If the four responsibilities taken together constitute a

Operationalization There has been extensive research on the issue of CSR in

on the operationalization of the pyramid model. As Aupperle, Carroll and Hatfield

CSR–CFP relationship The question of CSR contributions can be approached

portion, philanthropy the smallest. In practice, however, the pyramidal

THE INTERSECTING CIRCLES MODEL OF CSR

The following discussion focuses on Schwartz and Carroll’s threedomain model

Nature of CSR The IC model seems to be primarily intended as a descriptive

Scope of responsibilities The depiction of a three-domain CSR in a Venn

The creation of pure and mixed classes of responsibilities in the framework of

Total CSR If each of the seven categories is problematic as a class of CSR,

Order of importance Being committed to multiple objectives at one and the

The role of philanthropy In general, the domain categories in the three-circle

CSR–CFP relationship Are CSR portraits associated with CFP? Considering

THE CONCENTRIC-CIRCLE MODEL OF CSR

corporate social responsibilities. But underlying these similarities are essential

Nature of CSR The CON model represents a normative approach to CSR.

Scope of responsibilities Understanding CSR as a framework of integrated

Indeed, if corporations cannot deal individually with major social

responsibility to enhance justice, and the philanthropic responsibility to help the

Order of importance A basic feature of the concentric circles is the existence

Role of philanthropy Corporate philanthropy commonly refers to the

As we have seen, the CSR pyramid generated a proliferation of empirical research

A theory is an hypothesis of a correspondence between a definitional system

The universe of observations that corresponds to the CON model is clearly

CSR-CFP relationship As previously mentioned, relationships between CSR

The result is oftentimes a hodge-podge uncoordinated CSR and

difficulties inherent in disintegrated frameworks such as the CSR pyramid and

1. For instance, A. B. Carroll, “A three-dimensional conceptual modelof corporate

20. S. B. Bacharach, “Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation.”

56. Wood and Jones, “Stakeholder mismatching,” 233.

Potrebbero piacerti anche