Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.
http://www.jstor.org
A Three-DimensionalConceptual
Model of
Corporate Performance
ARCHIE B. CARROLL
University of Georgia
Offeredhere is a conceptual model that comprehensivelydescribes es-
sential aspects of corporatesocial performance.Thethree aspects of the
model address majorquestions of concern to academics and managers
alike: (1) Whatis included in corporatesocial responsibility?(2) Whatare
the social issues the organization must address? and (3) What is the
organization'sphilosophyor mode of social responsiveness?
Concepts of corporate social responsibility have at least partially beyond the firm's direct economic
been evolving for decades. As early as the 1930s, or technical interest" [p. 70]. Eells and Walton, in
for example, Wendell Wilkie "helped educate the 1961, argued as follows:
businessman to a new sense of social responsibili- When people talkabout corporatesocial responsi-
ty" [Cheit, 1964, p. 157, citing historian William bilitiesthey are thinkingin terms of the problems
Leuchtenburg]. The modern era of social responsi- that arise when corporate enterprise casts its
shadow on the social scene, and of the ethical
bility, however, may be marked by Howard R.
Bowen's 1953 publication of Social Responsibili- principles that ought to govern the relationships
between the corporationandsociety [pp.457-458].
ties of the Businessman, considered by many to be
the first definitive book on the subject. Following The real debate got underway in 1962 when Mil-
Bowen's book, a number of works played a role in ton Friedman argued forcefully that the doctrine of
social responsibility is "fundamentally subversive."
developing the social responsibility concept [Berle
& Means, 1932; Cheit, 1964; Davis & Blomstrom, He asserted: "Few trends could so thoroughly un-
1966; Greenwood, 1964; Mason, 1960; McGuire, dermine the very foundations of our free society as
the acceptance by corporate officials of a social
1963]. By the mid-1950s, discussions of the social
responsibilities of businesses had become so responsibility other than to make as much money
for their stockholders as possible" [p. 133].
widespread that Peter Drucker chided business-
men: "You might wonder, if you were a conscien- Joseph McGuire, in 1963, acknowledged the
tious newspaper reader, when the managers of primacy of economic concerns, but also accommo-
American business had any time for business" dated a broader view of the firm's social responsi-
bilities. He posited that:
[1954].
One of the factors contributing to the ambiguity The idea of social responsibilitiessupposes thatthe
that frequently shrouded discussions about social corporationhas not only economic and legal obli-
responsibility was the lack of a consensus on what gations, but also certainresponsibilitiesto society
the concept really meant. In 1960, Keith Davis sug- which extend beyondthese obligations[p. 144].
gested that social responsibility refers to "busi- Arguing in a similar vein, Jules Backman has
nessmen's decisions and actions taken for reasons suggested that "social responsibility usually refers
497
499
500
Public
Davis & Relations Legal Problem
Blomstrom Withdrawal Approach Approach Bargaining Solving
DO DO
NOTHING MUCH
Figure 2
Social Responsiveness Categories
Several writers have provided conceptual for social responsibility.CSR1 (corporatesocial re-
schemes that describe the responsiveness continu- sponsibility),as Frederick[1978]terms it- ourfirst
um well. lan Wilson, for example, asserts that there aspect of the conceptual model - has ethical or
are four possible business strategies - reaction, moral threads runningthrough it and, hence, is
defense, accommodation, and proaction [1974]. problematical. In contrast, CSR2 (corporate social
Terry McAdamhas, likewise, described foursocial responsiveness) - our thirdaspect - has no moral
responsibilityphilosophies that mesh well withWil- or ethical connotations but is concerned only with
son's strategies and, indeed, describe the mana- the managerial processes of response. These
gerial approach that would characterizethe range processes would include planning and social fore-
of responsiveness. His philosophies are (1) "Fight casting [Newgren, 1977], organizing for social re-
all the way," (2) "Doonly what is required,"(3) "Be sponse [McAdam, 1973], controlling social activi-
progressive," and (4) "Lead the industry"[1973]. ties [Carroll& Beiler, 1975], social decision making,
Davis and Blomstrom,too, describe alternativere- and corporate social policy [Bowman & Haire, 1975;
sponses to societal pressures as follows:(a) with- Carroll, 1977; Fitch, 1976; Post & Mellis, 1978;
drawal, (b) public relations approach, (c) legal Preston & Post, 1975; Steiner, 1972; Sturdivant &
approach, (d) bargaining,and (e) problemsolving Ginter, 1977]. Figure 3 puts the three aspects to-
[1975]. These correspond, essentially, with the gether into a conceptual social performance model.
above schemas. Figure2 plots these responses on The social issues identified in Figure 3 are illus-
a continuum: trative only. Each organization should carefully as-
Corporate social responsiveness, which has sess which social issues it must address as it plans
been discussed by some as an alternateto social for corporate social performance.
responsibilityis, rather,the action phase of man-
agement responding in the social sphere. In a Uses of the Model
sense, being responsive enables organizationsto This corporate social performance conceptual
act on their social responsibilitieswithoutgetting model is intended to be useful for both academics
bogged down in the quagmire of definitionalprob- and managers. For academics, the model is pri-
lems that can so easily occur if organizationstryto marily an aid to perceiving the distinction among
get a precise fix on what theirtrue responsibilities definitions of social responsibility that have ap-
are before acting. peared in the literature. What heretofore have been
The responsiveness continuumpresented here regarded as separate definitions of social responsi-
represents an aspect of management's social per- bility are treated here as three separate issues per-
formance that is distinctlydifferentfromthe concern taining to corporate social performance.
502
Discretionary
Responsibilities
Ethical
Responsibilities
SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
CATEGORIES
Legal
Responsibilities
Economic
Responsibilities
Figure 3
The Corporate Social Performance Model
REFERENCES
Ackerman, R. W., and Bauer, R. A. Corporate social respon- Carroll, A. B., and Belier, G. W. Landmarks in the evolution of the
siveness. Reston, Virginia:Reston Publishing, 1976. social audit. Academy of Management Journal, 1975, 18(3),
Backman, J. Social responsibility and accountability. New York: 589-599.
New York University Press, 1975. Carroll, A. B. (Ed.). Managing corporate social responsibility.
Berle, A. A., and Means, G. C. The modern corporation and Boston: Little, Brown, 1977.
private property. New York: Macmillan, 1932. Cheit, E. F. The business establishment. New York:Wiley, 1964.
Bowen, H. R. Social responsibilities of the businessman. New Churchill, N. Toward a theory of social accounting. Sloan Man-
York: Harper & Row, 1953. agement Review, 1974,15(3), 1-17.
Bowman, E. H., and Haire, M. A strategic posture toward corpor- Committee for Economic Development. Social responsibilities
ate social responsibility. Califomia Management Review, 1975, of business corporations, New York: Committee for Economic
18(2), 49-58. Development, 1971.
504
505