Business and Society Review

Business and Society Review 113:1 1– 41
Three Models of Corporate

AVIVA
Original
BUSINESS
2008GEVA
Blackwell
Malden,
Business
BASR
©
0045-3609
XXX Articles
Center
USA
andAND forSOCIETY
Publishing
Society
Business
Inc REVIEW
Review
Ethics at Bentley College
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.
14678594, 2008, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8594.2008.00311.x, Wiley Online Library on [07/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
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 performance9 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 responsiveness (reaction, defense,
AVIVA GEVA 3
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 respon-
sibility, 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 manage-
ment).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 “con-
figuration 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 con-
straints.”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 perfor-
mance 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.
AVIVA GEVA 5
FIGURE 1 Three Basic Models of CSR: Relationships between

Domains of Responsibility.
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
6
TABLE 1 Comparison of Three CSR Models
CSR Pyramid Intersecting Circles Concentric Circles
General Description Hierarchy of separate Nonhierarchical set of Integration of responsibilities;

responsibilities intersecting responsibilities all sharing a central core
Theoretical Assumptions
Nature of CSR Normative restraints of Classification framework; Incurred obligation to work for
responsiveness no normative guidance social betterment
Scope of Responsibilities Narrow split Wide
Total CSR Conjunction Disjunction Integration
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

Order of importance Hierarchy; Economic No prima facie order Inclusion system; economic
responsibility first circle at the core
Role of Philanthropy “Icing on the cake” Subsumed under economic/ Integral part of CSR
ethical 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 philan-
thropic (“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 per-
formance can be measured; thus, the notion of responsibility in the
pyramid model is reduced to normative restraints of responsive-
ness.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 separa-
tion 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
AVIVA GEVA 9
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 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 dis-

cussed 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 present-
day thinking on CSR is that businesses have a responsibility that
goes beyond the demands of law and common morality. Philan-
thropy, which is usually understood as exceeding this minimum,
appears to serve as the distinguishing point between the neo-
classical 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 respon-
sibility 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 com-
parative 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
AVIVA GEVA 11
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 respon-
sibilities. 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 environ-
mental or safety problems; ethical responsibility is evaluated by the
existence of corporate code of 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 instru-
ment to examine the impact of different factors, especially demo-
graphics 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 con-
tributions 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, corre-
lation studies must be integrated with a CSR model whose system-
atic 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 relation-
ship 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 inter-
relationship 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
AVIVA GEVA 13
that can be earned by meeting the expectations of various stake-

holders. According to the good management theory, well-matched
attention to CSR domains can increase the efficiency of the com-
pany’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 perfor-
mance. 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 reputa-
tional surveys, content analysis of disclosure documents, examina-
tion 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 non-
economic 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
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 pref-
erence. 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 pre-
mised 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 rea-
sons 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
AVIVA GEVA 15
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 relation-
ships 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 CSR58 and of such fundamental importance
that Schwartz and Carroll saw it necessary to propose an alter-
native 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 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 three-

domain 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 over-
lapping 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.
AVIVA GEVA 17
FIGURE 2 The Seven Category IC Model of CSR (dashed area).
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.
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 (crimi-
nally 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
AVIVA GEVA 19
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" orien-
tation, 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 pro-
posed application of the Venn model to CSR undermines its all-
encompassing 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 eco-
nomic 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 part-

nerships 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 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 com-
peting 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
AVIVA GEVA 21
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 interrelation-
ship among the different domains of responsibilities with no prima
facie order of priority, the model is open to a wide range of inter-
pretations. 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 em-
phasizes the interrelationships among the different 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
AVIVA GEVA 23
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 busi-
ness 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 cor-
porations 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 busi-
ness and society, the CON model highlights their interdependence.
Advancing this notion of CSR, the CON model presents the relation-
ships between business and society from two perspectives: outside-
in 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 outside-
in 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 examina-
tion of 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
AVIVA GEVA 25
in all parts of society, and eliminating poverty.80 Under this wide

definition, profitability is not the critical test for economic responsi-
bility. Contrary to the narrow focus on profit making, which repre-
sents 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 delibera-
tion 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 consider-
ations. The first type demands obedience; the second, in a way
almost diametrically opposed to the first, puts a premium on auton-
omous 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 law-
abiding 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 con-
sequences. 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 exhorta-
tions 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 respon-
sibility 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 value-
judgments. In line with Wood’s argument, socially responsible 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
AVIVA GEVA 27
commitment to the good of society. While responsiveness-

based 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, pro-
sperity, 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 respon-
sibility 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, inter-
related 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 intra-
responsibilities, with the more intense, straightforward, well-
established, 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
AVIVA GEVA 29
operations and secondary to the more basic economic, legal, and

ethical responsibilities; and the IC model treats corporate philan-
thropy 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 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 pra-
ctices, 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 interre-
sponsibilities 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 main-
tains 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
AVIVA GEVA 31
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 respon-
sibilities 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 responsi-
bility (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.
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 relation-
ship between CSR and CFP can be expected for the range of under-
normal 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 indicat-
ing, 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
AVIVA GEVA 33
improvement of social welfare. This criterion, which resides incon-

testably 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 pro-
cess 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.
CONCLUSION
This paper has sought to add clarity to CSR theory and research by
comparing and contrasting the underlying assumptions, the con-
ceptual structures, the methodological tools, and the managerial
implications of three basic CSR models—the pyramid, the inter-
secting circles, and the concentric circles. The four-part CSR pyramid
dovetails well with the current trend among corporate manage-
ments 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 con-
dition 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 respon-
sibility, 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 respon-
sibilities 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 con-
clusion 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.
AVIVA GEVA 35
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 agree-
ment, 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, corpo-
rate 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 model

of 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 citizenship real.” Journal of Busi-
ness 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 the
progress of corporate citizenship,” Business and Society Review 109,
1(2004): 5 – 42.
3. D. Votaw, “Genius becomes rare: a comment on the doctrine of

social responsibility Part. I.” California Management Review 15, 2(1972):
25 –31.
4. For instance, Carroll, “A three-dimensional conceptual model of
corporate performance.”
5. For instance, T. M. Jones, “An integrating framework for research in
business 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,” in
Business 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, “Corporate
social 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 corporate
social 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 Corpo-
ration (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 corporate
governance model,” Business and Society Review 109, 3(2004): 339–361.
17. J. M. Logsdon, and D. J. Wood, “Business citizenship: from domestic
to 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.
AVIVA GEVA 37
19. Carroll, “Corporate social responsibility.”

20. S. B. Bacharach, “Organizational theories: some criteria for evalua-
tion.” Academy of Management Review 14, 4(1989), 496.
21. Carroll, “Three-dimensional”; see also, A. B. Carroll, “The pyramid
of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organi-
zational 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 future
directions,” 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 exploration
of 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, “Corporate
citizenship.”
38. Clarkson, “Stakeholder framework,” 94.
39. For a general review of the empirical studies on CSR and the associated
measurement 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 empirical
examination 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.,
“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 perfor-
mance 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 corpo-
ration,” 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);
AVIVA GEVA 39
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.
85. See one implementation of this idea in Caux Round Table, Princi-
ples 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 success-
ful 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.
AVIVA GEVA 41
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.

Business and Society Review - 2008 - GEVA - Three Models of Corporate Social Responsibility Interrelationships Between

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business and Society Review - 2008 - GEVA - Three Models of Corporate Social Responsibility Interrelationships Between

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business and Society Review - 2008 - GEVA - Three Models of Corporate Social Responsibility Interrelationships Between

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business and Society Review 113:1 1– 41

Three Models of Corporate

to CSR theory and research by focusing on the core responsibilities

FROM CSR BRANCHES TO CSR TRUNK

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

accommodation, and proaction) on the second dimension, and the

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

FIGURE 1 Three Basic Models of CSR: Relationships between

THE PYRAMID OF CSR

A leading model of CSR is Carroll’s four-part pyramid.21 The CSR

General Description Hierarchy of separate Nonhierarchical set of Integration of responsibilities;

expectations of business responsibilities and deﬁne them in terms

The central assumptions underlying the CSR pyramid are presented

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

Scope of responsibilities Understanding CSR as an array of

Total CSR The pyramid is a conjunction of separate domains of

Order of importance If the four responsibilities taken together

role in the evolution of importance. . . . [T]he history of business

The role of philanthropy The role of philanthropy has been dis-

Operationalization There has been extensive research on the

attracted widespread criticism in business and society literature,43

CSR–CFP relationship The question of CSR contributions can be

of view. The former holds that no matter what the consequences of

that can be earned by meeting the expectations of various stake-

In recent years, the friendship model of the relationship between

method of placement on a ﬁrm’s action inventory, that is, “last in,

THE INTERSECTING CIRCLES MODEL OF CSR

The intersecting circles (IC) model of CSR (Figure 1b) contrasts

A pyramid framework cannot fully capture the interpenetrating

or signiﬁcant relative to the others.60 In particular, the economic

The following discussion focuses on Schwartz and Carroll’s three-

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

FIGURE 2 The Seven Category IC Model of CSR (dashed area).

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

The creation of pure and mixed classes of responsibilities in the

liability, i.e., reckless behavior. As Wood has noted, every ﬁrm is

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

of CSR gains concrete meaning in the reality of cross-sector part-

Order of importance Being committed to multiple objectives at one

The role of philanthropy In general, the domain categories in the

Operationalization Under the assumption that none of the three

they believe the corporation is currently emphasizing or would prefer

CSR–CFP relationship Are CSR portraits associated with CFP?

The IC model draws managers’ attention to the overlapping nature

spending the corporation’s resources.73 One could make a case that

THE CONCENTRIC-CIRCLE MODEL OF CSR

The concentric-circle (CON) model (Figure 1c) is similar to the

The CON model is adapted from a notable statement issued in 1971

execution of the economic function—products, jobs, and economic

Nature of CSR The CON model represents a normative approach

Scope of responsibilities Understanding CSR as a framework of

in all parts of society, and eliminating poverty.80 Under this wide

The legal circle Christopher Stone distinguishes between two

responsibility demands nothing but observing the law; however,

Indeed, if corporations cannot deal individually with major

commitment to the good of society. While responsiveness-

Total CSR The CON model regards CSR as a global concept