Essays on Analysis of the Various Perspectives of Corporate Social Responsibility Coursework

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Analysis of the Various Perspectives of Corporate Social Responsibility" is a perfect example of business coursework.   Corporate social responsibility has aroused great public and business debate in its implementation, and application in the current corporate environment (Garriga & Mele, 2004). Organizations are now adopting social responsibility initiatives as part of their vision, mission, and business ethical values. However, many organizations have been criticized for unethical practices and business externalities that do not represent the desires of shareholders, employees, customers, communities and the environment (Bowie, 1995). Despite these drawbacks in the application, corporate social responsibility is strongly favored as a bridge to sustainable companies, healthier communities and environment (Schaefer, 2008).

This essay will discuss and critically analyze the various perspectives of corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility Caroll (1979, p. 500) defines social responsibility as the ethical, legal, discretionary and economic expectations of the society to businesses at any point in time. In later years, this definition was refined by McWilliams and Siegel (2001) to mean corporate engagement in voluntary social efforts that goes beyond the legal regulations to include community service, environmental activism, and charitable giving.

Earlier, Friedman (1970) had proposed that the social responsibility of a business is to increase profits while complying with the law, and ethical customs. The author defended the actions of corporate executives to engage in free and open competition as long as they do not get involved in fraud or deception. The arguments of Friedman suggest that businesses do not have to meet their ethical or social objectives if they are not in the interest of shareholders or demanded by the rules of the game (Husted & Salazar, 2006, p.

82). For example, controlling pollution such as CO2 emissions beyond the required minimum or giving to a charity such as contributing supplies after a hurricane. While concurring with Friedman that a business fulfills its true purpose by making profits, Drucker (2008) goes beyond to assert that businesses have to be aware of social impacts of innovations and products to the society. This view is shared by Kolstad (2007) who argues that corporate executives are not freed of other responsibilities and are not only limited to simply maximizing profits.

Businesses may be having the expertise to create a positive impact where the government is unwilling or unable to attend to specific social causes (Brusseau, 2013). The theoretical understanding of business ethics and corporate social responsibility is underscored by stakeholder and shareholder theories (Garriga & Mele, 2004). Under the stakeholder theory, Jensen (2002) and Schaefer (2008) maintain that companies should make an attempt to solve social problems caused by their actions on employees, the general public, suppliers, customers and others. An extreme version of stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, prevails in large corporations to bear greater responsibility than smaller firms in social ventures (Garriga & Mele, 2004.

For example, Johnson and Johnson exhibit the stakeholders’ perspective by listing the responsibility of the company in the order of stockholders, customers, management, employees, and communities. On the contrary, shareholder theory defends the existence of corporations for the purposes of maximizing the long-term wealth of shareholders legally (Jensen, 2002). In maximizing future cash-flows, it is unreasonable for firms to engage in unprofitable social causes (McAleer, 2003). Steve Malloy, a critic of social responsibility, and a mutual fund manager was quoted admitting that,



Black, L.D. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility as Capability, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 23:25-38.

Boatright, J. R. 1999. Ethics and the Conduct of Business, Third Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.

Bowie, N. 1995. New directions in corporate social responsibility, in Hoffman, W. M., and Frederick, R.E. (Eds), Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Brusseau, J. 2013. The Business Ethics workshop, V. 1.0. Retrieved from

Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505. Retrieved from

Carroll, A. B. 2001. Ethical Challenges for business in the new millennium: corporate social responsibility and models of management morality, in Business Ethics 01/02,

Carson, T.L. 2003. Self-interest and business ethics: Some lessons of the recent corporate scandals. Journal of Business Ethics. 43(4): 389–394.

Department of Trade and Industry. 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility ‘Balancing people, planet and profit’. Marloes Rotmeijer. Netherlands.

Drucker, P. 2008. The Essential Drucker: The Best Sixty Years of Peter Drucker’s Essential Writings on Management. Harper.

Friedman, M. 1970. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits. The New York Times Magazine. September 13, 1970. New York.

Garriga, E. & Mele, D. 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53:51-71.

Henderson, D. 2009. Misguided corporate virtue: The case against CSR, and the true role of business today. Economic Affairs, 29(4), 11-15. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0270.2009.01941.x.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B.B. 1959. The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley.

Husted, B., & Salazar, J. D. J. 2006. Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 75-91. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 6486.2006.00583.x

Idowu, S.O., Kasum, A.S. & Mermod, A.Y. 2011. People, Planet and Profit: Socio-Economic Perspectives of CSR. Retrieved from

Ip, P.K. 2009. The Challenge of Developing a Business Ethics in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 88: 211-224.

Jensen, M. C. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235-256. Retrieved from

Kolstad, I. 2007. Why Firms Should Not Always Maximize Profits. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol 3(1): 34-45.

Leisinger K.M. & Schmitt, K. 2012. Corporate Responsibility and Corporate Philanthropy. Retrieved from schmitt_corporate_responsibility_and_corporate_philanthropy.pdf

Leisinger K.M. & Wieland J. 2010. Manifesto Global Economic Ethic. Consequences and Challenges for Global Businesses. dtv, München 2010; see also:

Levitt, T. 1960. Marketing myopia. Harvard Business Review 38(4):45–56.

Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., & Maon, F. 2009. Introduction: Corporate social responsibility implementation. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 251-256. doi:10.1007/s10551-008- 9732-1.

Maitland, I. 2002. The Human Face of Self Interest, Journal of Business Ethics, 38:3-17.

McAleer, S. 2003. Friedman’s Stockholder Theory of Corporate Moral Responsibility. Teaching Business Ethics, 7:437-451.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001, January). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127. Retrieved from

Meijer, M.M. and Schuyt, T. 2005. Corporate social performance as a bottom line for consumers. Business & Society 44(4): 442–461.

Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R. 2006. Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility, Harvard Business Review, December 2006.

Schaefer, B. 2008. Shareholders and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 297-312. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9495-0.

Smith, N.C. 2001. The role of consumer boycotts and socially responsible consumption in promoting corporate social responsibility, in Bloom, P.N., and Gundlaxch, G.T. (Eds), Handbook of Marketing and Society, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 140-161.

Vehr, A. 2010. People, Planet, and Profit: Corporate Social Responsibility's Triple Bottom Line. March Forth. September 1, 2010. Retrieved from

Vogel, D. 2008, CSR doesn’t pay. Forbes. October 16, 2008. Retrieved from cx_dv_1016vogel.html

Weiss, T., Kirdahy, M., & Kneale, K. 2008. CEOs on CSR. Forbes. October 16, 2008. Retrieved from: cx_tw_mk_kk_1016ceos.html

Werhane, P.H. 2000. Business ethics and the origins of contemporary capitalism: Economics and ethics in the work of Adam Smith and Herbert Spencer, Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 3:185-198.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us