The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) field presents not only a landscape of theories but also a proliferation of approaches, which are controversial, complex and unclear. This article tries to clarify the sit- uation, ''mapping the territory'' by classifying the main CSR theories and related approaches in four groups: (1) instrumental theories, in which the corporation is seen as only an instrument for wealth creation, and its social activities are only a means to achieve economic results; (2) political theories, which concern themselves with the power of corporations in society and a responsible use of this power in the political arena; (3) integrative theories, in which the corporation is focused on the satisfaction of social demands; and (4) ethical theories, based on ethical responsibilities of corporations to society. In practice, each CSR theory presents four dimensions related to profits, political performance, social demands and ethical values. The findings suggest the necessity to develop a new theory on the business and society relationship, which should integrate these four dimensions.

Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory

Despite numerous efforts to bring about a clear and unbiased definition of CSR, there is still some confusion as to how CSR should be defined. In this paper five dimensions of CSR are developed through a content analysis of existing CSR definitions. Frequency counts are used to analyse how often these dimensions are invoked. The analysis shows that the existing definitions are to a large degree congruent. Thus it is concluded that the confusion is not so much about how CSR is defined, as about how CSR is socially constructed in a specific context. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/csr.132

How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions

This paper provides an overview of the contemporary debate on the concepts and definitions of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Corporate Sustainability (CS). The conclusions, based on historical perspectives, philosophical analyses, impact of changing contexts and situations and practical considerations, show that "one solution fits all"-definition for CS(R) should be abandoned, accepting various and more specific definitions matching the development, awareness and ambition levels of organizations.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/25075020.pdf

Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion

Capitalism and Freedom

Firms engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) because they consider that some kind of competitive advantage accrues to them. We contend that resource-based perspectives (RBP) are useful to understand why firms engage in CSR activities and disclosure. From a resource-based perspective CSR is seen as providing internal or external benefits, or both. Investments in socially responsible activities may have internal benefits by helping a firm to develop new resources and capabilities which are related namely to know-how and corporate culture. In effect, investing in social responsibility activities and disclosure has important consequences on the creation or depletion of fundamental intangible resources, namely those associated with employees. The external benefits of CSR are related to its effect on corporate reputation. Corporate reputation can be understood as a fundamental intangible resource which can be created or depleted as a consequence of the decisions to engage or not in social responsibility activities and disclosure. Firms with good social responsibility reputation may improve relations with external actors. They may also attract better employees or increase current employees’ motivation, morale, commitment and loyalty to the firm. This article contributes to the understanding of why CSR may be seen as having strategic value for firms and how RBP can be used in such endeavour.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspectives

According to Dr. Clare Graves, mankind has developed eight core value systems,1 as responses to prevailing circumstances. Given different contexts and value systems, a one-solution-fits-all concept of corporate sustainability is not reasonable. Therefore, this paper presents various definitions and forms of sustainability, each linked to specific (societal) circumstances and related value systems. A sustainability matrix– an essential element of the overall European Corporate Sustainability Framework – is described showing six types of organizations at different developmental stages, with different forms of corporate sustainability, each supported by specific institutional arrangements.

Multiple Levels of Corporate Sustainability

This paper describes a set of ideal type organizations in a developmental sequence. As these descriptions are based on Spiral Dynamics (or Emerging Cyclical Levels of Existence Theory – ECLET), the types are labeled as Order, Success, Community and Synergy. Per type the author elaborated on the underlying value system and relating institutional structures, such as leadership role, governance and measurement format. As a summary, a Transition Matrix is presented which indicate the paradigm shifts per discipline/department, as manifested in the subsequent ideal type organizations. As Order and Success generally describe the majority of corporations in Western Economies, the latter two types introduce new approaches to more innovative – and more sustainable/responsible – ways to doing business. Based on Community Values, the author introduces a new measurement format which is the foundation for a systemic and coherent set of management tools to be used in a stakeholder approach. These tools relate to the strategic, tactical and operational tasks of management and have been developed by researchers of the European Corporate Sustainability Framework (ECSF) consortium. The set includes two tools which are generic: the Strategic Sustainability Scan (Strategy) and the Sustainability Matrix, which is a self-assessment tool (tactics). Three operational tools are context and industry specific: These are the Community related Responsive Business Scorecard (RBS) and Benchmark Format for measuring and monitoring sustainability performance and a methodology – a Management Information System – to generate information on people, planet and profit in order to provide data for the set of key performance indicators.

A Value Based Approach to Organization Types: Towards a coherent set of stakeholder-oriented management tools

The EU-financed European Corporate Sustainability Framework (ECSF) project is developing a multi-layer business framework with an analytical, contextual, situational and dynamic dimension to facilitate managing complexity and corporate change. It provides coherent sets of corporate institutional arrangements, including or based upon value systems, business philosophies, approaches, concepts and measurement tools.

European corporate sustainability framework for managing complexity and corporate transformation

In addition to the traditional personnel and human resource management (HRM), there is a need for a new approach to personnel management, which we will call Human Capital Management (HCM). HCM emphasises an alignment between the individual and the organization and in our view offers the challenge and the key to successful management in the future.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/25075026.pdf

Marcel van Marrewijk

Papers

Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion

Multiple Levels of Corporate Sustainability

A Value Based Approach to Organization Types: Towards a coherent set of stakeholder-oriented management tools

European corporate sustainability framework for managing complexity and corporate transformation

Human Capital Management - new possibilities in people management -