Muhammad Taimur

Mustafa

Shams Ud din

Nighat Saif

Carroll’s Model tries to explain;

The basic definition of Social Responsibility

Those issues for which Social Responsibility exists

The philosophy of response

Thus Carroll’s model comprises of;

Social Responsibility

Social Issues

Social Responsiveness

“The social responsibility

of business

encompasses the

economic, legal, ethical,

and discretionary

expectations that society

has of organizations at a

given point in time”

Carroll’s Model identifies issues or areas to which social

responsibility is directed

Consumerism, Environment, Discrimination, Product safety,

occupational safety and shareholders

Changes in social issues with respect to time

Changes in social issues with respect to industry

The capacity of a corporation to respond to social pressure

The strategy behind business response to social responsibility

and social issues

Relates with the degree and kind of managerial actions

Includes Reaction, Defense, Accommodation and Proaction.

The CSP Model is unique as;

It integrates Economic and Public responsibilities into Social responsibility

It reflects the interaction among responsibility, responsiveness and social issues

However,

Carroll’s work fails to provide the Model’s dynamic evolution

And fails to consider the process of analysis, debate and modifications.

Three basic challenges;

1. Economic Responsibility

2. Public Responsibility

3. Social Responsiveness

The Criticism:

Economic responsibility is the firm’s single responsibility

Corporations cannot be Moral Agents

The Response:

Corporations are no more just “Earning machines”

They are politically involved and are required to be socially

active

The Criticism: Corporations have two involvements, Economic task and its

consequential effects

Public Responsibility recognizes both of them

Social Responsibility is a vague, ambiguous and ill-defined concept

Social Responsibility should be replaced by Public Responsibility

The Response:

Public Responsibility is not different than Social

Responsibility

In the broader context “widely shared and acknowledged

principles of society or public opinion, emerging issues,

formal law and enforcement practices” it is same as social

responsibility

In the narrower view its too restrictive in the scope of CSR

The Criticism:

Social Responsibility is operationally dysfunctional

Social Responsibility lacks to determine what’s to be done, how much to be done.

It used to be social obligation, then social responsibility and now evolved into social responsiveness

Social responsiveness (capacity of corporations to respond to social issues) is more tangible and achievable

Thus Social responsiveness should substitute social responsibility

The Response:

Social Responsiveness is a valid concept but not a substitute for social responsibility.

Social Responsibility determines business ethics while social responsiveness deemphasizes it

Social responsiveness is a reactionary step

What about ethical problems and social irresponsibility without awareness, pressure and outcry?

Social responsibility as a guide for corporation’s activities

Corporate Social Performance accepts the importance of economic

responsibility

McGuire (1963), Carroll (1979), Strand (1983), Zenisek (1979),

Ducker (1984)

CSP model includes Public Responsibility within social

responsibility

Carroll (1979), Strand (1983)

CSP model considers both social responsibility and social

responsiveness as valid

Carroll argues that both play different roles in CSP

Another dimension to Carroll’s model

It reduces surprises due to unpredictable and dynamic business environment

It includes a) issue identification b) issue analysis and c) response development

The final dimension to CSP

An extension of social responsiveness

A method for operationalizing social responsiveness

Defining corporate social performance:

Sethi (1979) offered categories of CSP not definition.

Concise definition by Carroll (1979) in favor of a three dimensional model.

Ullmann (1985) showed need for a theory of CSP.

Wartick and Cochran (1985) based on Carroll work defined CSP model as “the underlying interaction among the principles of social of social responsibility, the process of social responsiveness and the policies developed to address social issues”.

Wartick and Cochran’s Model intended to account

◦ Motivating principles

◦ Behavioral processes

◦ Observable outcomes

A business organization's configuration of principles of social

responsibility, processes of social responsiveness, and policies,

programs and observable outcomes as they relate to the firm’s

social relationships.

Institutional Principle: Legitimacy

Organizational principles: Public responsibility

Individual Principle: Managerial Discretion.

Wartick and Cochran argued that Carroll's four categories

represented principles of social responsibility; the first element

of CSP.

Principle of legitimacy: society has right to establish and

enforce a balance of power among its institutions and to define

legitimate functions.

Principle of public responsibility: it is organization’s

responsibility to act affirmatively for social well being.

Principles of managerial behavior: individual’s right and

responsibility to decide and act are affirmed within bounds of

economic, legal and ethical constraints.

Fredrick “the capacity of corporations to respond to social pressures”

Sethi (1979) Responsiveness could be seen as a replacement of CSR

Carroll (1979) Responsiveness is conceptually inadequate to replace CSR.

Watrick and Cochran (1985) within CSP model, responsiveness compliments but does not replace responsibility.

Used Carroll’s reactive, defensive, accommodative and proactive to represent the process of social responsiveness.

Environmental Assessment:

Stakeholder Management

Issues Management

The three facets of responsiveness environmental assessment

(Context), stakeholders management (actors) and issues

management (interests) are inter locked.

Social Impacts of Corporate behavior:

Corporate Social programs and Policy

Policies developed by companies

This third part of CSP model is actually observable and where

real performance exists

The reformulation of CSP model in this article gives following conceptual advances:

Articulation of principles of CSR at institutional, organizational and individual level.

Identification of specific responsive processes i.e. environmental assessment, stakeholder management and issues management.

Incorporating social impact, policies and programs as collective outcomes.

Archie B. Carroll

Four aspects of CSR are linked

Corporate stakeholders: view changed from what are

responsibilities to whom organizations are responsible

Presented idea of CSR pyramid

Stakeholders are prioritized

Criteria 1) Legitimacy 2)power

Philanthropic ResponsibilitiesBe a good corporate citizen.

Ethical ResponsibilitiesBe ethical.

Legal ResponsibilitiesObey the law.

Economic ResponsibilitiesBe profitable.

IMMORAL MANAGEMENT: decisions suggest an active

opposition to what is deemed right or ethical.

AMORAL MANAGEMENT: lack ethical perception or

awareness

MORAL MANAGEMENT:

MarkS . Schwartz

Archie B . Carroll

1. Issues or limitations of Carroll's model

2. New alternative model, the "Three-Domain Model

of CSR“

Use of a Pyramid Framework

Use of a Separate Philanthropic Category

Incomplete Development of Economic, Legal, and Ethical

Domains

1. Economic Domain

2. Legal Domain

3. Ethical Domain

Thank You!!!