Influential Article Review - Examining Carroll's CSR pyramid

Abstract

This paper examines corporate social responsibility. We present insights from a highly influential paper. Here are the highlights from this paper: In this review article, the author takes another look at the well-known Carroll's Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). In this article, he comments on the framework's popular usage and then presents a summary of the four-part definitional framework upon which the pyramid was created. He then comments on several characteristics of the model that were not emphasized when initially published: ethics permeates the pyramid; tensions and tradeoffs inherent; its integrated, unified whole; its' sustainable stakeholder framework, and; its' global applicability and use in different contexts. The article concludes by looking to the future. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in its modern formulation has been an important and progressing topic since the 1950s. To be sure, evidence of businesses seeking to improve society, the community, or stakeholder groups may be traced back hundreds of years (Carroll et al. 2012). In this discussion, however, the emphasis will be placed on concepts and practices that have characterized the post-World War II era. Much of the literature addressing CSR and what it means began in the United States; however, evidence of its applications, often under different names, traditions, and rationales, has been appearing around the world. Today, Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, South America, and many developing countries are increasingly embracing the idea in one form or another. Clearly, CSR is a concept that has endured and continues to grow in importance and impact. To be fair, it must be acknowledged that some writers early on have been critical of the CSR concept. In an important Harvard Business Review article in 1958, for example, Theodore Levitt spoke of “The Dangers of Social Responsibility.” His position was best summarized when he stated that business has only two responsibilities – (1) to engage in face-to-face civility such as honesty and good faith and (2) to seek material gain. Levitt argued that long-run profit maximization is the one dominant objective of business, in practice as well as theory (Levitt 1958, p. 49). The most well-known adversary of social responsibility, however, is economist Milton Friedman who argued that social issues are not the concern of businesspeople and that these problems should be resolved by the unfettered workings of the free market system (Friedman 1962). For our overseas readers, we then present the insights from this paper in Spanish, French, Portuguese, and German.