Post on 13-Jul-2015
Carroll’s Model tries to explain;
The basic definition of Social Responsibility
Those issues for which Social Responsibility exists
The philosophy of response
Thus Carroll’s model comprises of;
Social Responsibility
Social Issues
Social Responsiveness
“The social responsibility
of business
encompasses the
economic, legal, ethical,
and discretionary
expectations that society
has of organizations at a
given point in time”
Carroll’s Model identifies issues or areas to which social
responsibility is directed
Consumerism, Environment, Discrimination, Product safety,
occupational safety and shareholders
Changes in social issues with respect to time
Changes in social issues with respect to industry
The capacity of a corporation to respond to social pressure
The strategy behind business response to social responsibility
and social issues
Relates with the degree and kind of managerial actions
Includes Reaction, Defense, Accommodation and Proaction.
The CSP Model is unique as;
It integrates Economic and Public responsibilities into Social responsibility
It reflects the interaction among responsibility, responsiveness and social issues
However,
Carroll’s work fails to provide the Model’s dynamic evolution
And fails to consider the process of analysis, debate and modifications.
Three basic challenges;
1. Economic Responsibility
2. Public Responsibility
3. Social Responsiveness
The Criticism:
Economic responsibility is the firm’s single responsibility
Corporations cannot be Moral Agents
The Response:
Corporations are no more just “Earning machines”
They are politically involved and are required to be socially
active
The Criticism: Corporations have two involvements, Economic task and its
consequential effects
Public Responsibility recognizes both of them
Social Responsibility is a vague, ambiguous and ill-defined concept
Social Responsibility should be replaced by Public Responsibility
The Response:
Public Responsibility is not different than Social
Responsibility
In the broader context “widely shared and acknowledged
principles of society or public opinion, emerging issues,
formal law and enforcement practices” it is same as social
responsibility
In the narrower view its too restrictive in the scope of CSR
The Criticism:
Social Responsibility is operationally dysfunctional
Social Responsibility lacks to determine what’s to be done, how much to be done.
It used to be social obligation, then social responsibility and now evolved into social responsiveness
Social responsiveness (capacity of corporations to respond to social issues) is more tangible and achievable
Thus Social responsiveness should substitute social responsibility
The Response:
Social Responsiveness is a valid concept but not a substitute for social responsibility.
Social Responsibility determines business ethics while social responsiveness deemphasizes it
Social responsiveness is a reactionary step
What about ethical problems and social irresponsibility without awareness, pressure and outcry?
Social responsibility as a guide for corporation’s activities
Corporate Social Performance accepts the importance of economic
responsibility
McGuire (1963), Carroll (1979), Strand (1983), Zenisek (1979),
Ducker (1984)
CSP model includes Public Responsibility within social
responsibility
Carroll (1979), Strand (1983)
CSP model considers both social responsibility and social
responsiveness as valid
Carroll argues that both play different roles in CSP
Another dimension to Carroll’s model
It reduces surprises due to unpredictable and dynamic business environment
It includes a) issue identification b) issue analysis and c) response development
The final dimension to CSP
An extension of social responsiveness
A method for operationalizing social responsiveness
Defining corporate social performance:
Sethi (1979) offered categories of CSP not definition.
Concise definition by Carroll (1979) in favor of a three dimensional model.
Ullmann (1985) showed need for a theory of CSP.
Wartick and Cochran (1985) based on Carroll work defined CSP model as “the underlying interaction among the principles of social of social responsibility, the process of social responsiveness and the policies developed to address social issues”.
Wartick and Cochran’s Model intended to account
◦ Motivating principles
◦ Behavioral processes
◦ Observable outcomes
A business organization's configuration of principles of social
responsibility, processes of social responsiveness, and policies,
programs and observable outcomes as they relate to the firm’s
social relationships.
Institutional Principle: Legitimacy
Organizational principles: Public responsibility
Individual Principle: Managerial Discretion.
Wartick and Cochran argued that Carroll's four categories
represented principles of social responsibility; the first element
of CSP.
Principle of legitimacy: society has right to establish and
enforce a balance of power among its institutions and to define
legitimate functions.
Principle of public responsibility: it is organization’s
responsibility to act affirmatively for social well being.
Principles of managerial behavior: individual’s right and
responsibility to decide and act are affirmed within bounds of
economic, legal and ethical constraints.
Fredrick “the capacity of corporations to respond to social pressures”
Sethi (1979) Responsiveness could be seen as a replacement of CSR
Carroll (1979) Responsiveness is conceptually inadequate to replace CSR.
Watrick and Cochran (1985) within CSP model, responsiveness compliments but does not replace responsibility.
Used Carroll’s reactive, defensive, accommodative and proactive to represent the process of social responsiveness.
Environmental Assessment:
Stakeholder Management
Issues Management
The three facets of responsiveness environmental assessment
(Context), stakeholders management (actors) and issues
management (interests) are inter locked.
Social Impacts of Corporate behavior:
Corporate Social programs and Policy
Policies developed by companies
This third part of CSP model is actually observable and where
real performance exists
The reformulation of CSP model in this article gives following conceptual advances:
Articulation of principles of CSR at institutional, organizational and individual level.
Identification of specific responsive processes i.e. environmental assessment, stakeholder management and issues management.
Incorporating social impact, policies and programs as collective outcomes.
Four aspects of CSR are linked
Corporate stakeholders: view changed from what are
responsibilities to whom organizations are responsible
Presented idea of CSR pyramid
Philanthropic ResponsibilitiesBe a good corporate citizen.
Ethical ResponsibilitiesBe ethical.
Legal ResponsibilitiesObey the law.
Economic ResponsibilitiesBe profitable.
IMMORAL MANAGEMENT: decisions suggest an active
opposition to what is deemed right or ethical.
AMORAL MANAGEMENT: lack ethical perception or
awareness
MORAL MANAGEMENT:
1. Issues or limitations of Carroll's model
2. New alternative model, the "Three-Domain Model
of CSR“
Use of a Pyramid Framework
Use of a Separate Philanthropic Category
Incomplete Development of Economic, Legal, and Ethical
Domains